Questions Post Hamid's and Nair's Reluctant Fundamentalist

Both Hamid and Nair comment upon the stereotypical Western perception of Pakistan as a nation in which fundamentalism is rampant. In the film Changez reacts to the "fundamental truths" as preached to him by his supervisor Jim ("we do that by focusing on the fundamentals") and then later by the man who attempts to talk him into joining al-Qaeda ("our only hope is the fundamental truths of the Qu'ran"). In the book, Changez concludes his address to the American with these words, "It seems an obvious thing to say, but you should not imagine that we Pakistanis are all potential terrorists, just as we should not imagine that you Americans are all undercover assassins" (Hamid 183). In what differing and similar ways do the book and the film comment upon fundamentalism? And, in general, what differences or similarities are most striking to you as concern the book and the film? Notably, in the book Changez is aware of his own and his North American dinner guest's postcolonial heritage--for instance, he explains why his English accent appeals to his colleagues at Underwood Samson, because "like Pakistan, America is, after all, a former English colony, and it stands to reason, therefore, that an Anglicized accent may in your country continue to be associated with wealth and power, just as it is in mine" (only to later complain both in the film and book to Erica that his voice sounds funny to him) (Hamid 41-2). You might keep such postcolonial notions in mind when thinking about diaspora and Changez's question to his class in the film, "Is there is a Pakistani dream? One that doesn't involve emigrating?" For all of you who have grown up in the shadows of the fallen towers and during wartime, please reflect on these events as concern your reading and viewing of The Reluctant Fundamentalist. Feel free to rant, rave, and leave your honest thoughts here!