Contradicitons Abound

Updike steps outside of the comfort of American suburbia for his novel, The Coup. Here we find an author at odds with himself, toeing the line between fiction and reality. Hailed by some as his most political novel, The Coup is an interesting case of contradictions.

To begin, Ellelou’s government in the novel is a form of Islamic Marxism. This brand of rule is a contradiction within itself. Islam is a government and ideology and religion all rolled into itself. Islam recognizes no other government or rule for man that that of Allah himself. Shariah law dictates the lives of Muslims and supersedes all other forms of government that man might create for himself. So in this state of Kush, composed of tribal villages and farms, there was largely no need for a Marxist dictator. The people through their faith and local customs govern themselves. National government did not bring about sweeping changes for the local populace. Being farmers they never had the industrial infrastructure that other socialist states like China and Soviet Russia did. Thus, there were no factories to bring under state control and no private wealth to redistribute. This makes Ellelou largely unnecessary. While he looked inward to Kush to solve some issues of starvation and disease, he should have been looking outward. Reaching out for more foreign aid revenue could promote new agriculture and foreign investment could put his people to work in industrial jobs. This is what created his downfall. In a bloodless turnover of power, his Minister of the Interior works with the American government to bring in foreign aid and industry, two things which Ellelou detested.

But further this novel is a contradiction because it is a work of fiction. To the author, fiction can be a contradiction. He has control over everything in the story; as the characters are fictional he can bend them to his will and shape them in his (or another) image. However, that much power can become a problem because in the writing it can get out of control. Politics and fiction do not normally mesh because they belong to separate worlds. All politics is work of physical men and women. It is real and tangible. Fictitious politics are the work of one man: the author. His political views and opinions and workings always shine through into the novel. No other input is required. In the writer’s world, good guys share his political views and the bad guys don’t. Take Updike, his Islamic-Marxist dictator rules over a starving country that has seen drought for five years. But, when he is overthrown in favor of a pro-American man who is a dubious Muslim and has a taste for foreign clothing, the rain returns, foreign aid pours in and seemingly Kush becomes a far better place. As an American, Updike’s disdain for Russian-style communism shows when Ellelou, the Soviet ally and former soldier, is cast aside for a softer man favorable to Western powers and ideas. Ellelou has a heart of gold and genuinely tries for his people. But when the chips are down and the buck stops here and other overused colloquial sayings are needed, Updike casts aside his warrior prince to make way for a silk-shirted, pro-American man who rules by the numbers. And in between, Ellelou is cast into exile.