Family, Friendship, and Home Theme Analysis

In Frankenstein in Baghdad, Iraq’s capital city is presented as an economic center that’s disintegrating: the city is on the verge of turning into a full-blown war zone. These circumstances create a dilemma for Baghdad’s inhabitants, who must decide whether they are willing to stay or whether they prefer to immigrate to more peaceful areas of the country or the world. Those who choose to stay are condemned to a degree of loneliness, made all the more acute by the constant danger for friends or family to die in a terrorist attack. At the same time, they also benefit from networks of solidarity, as bonds between people attempt to compensate for the widespread insecurity. Ultimately, though, multiple characters realize that solidarity is not enough: the most meaningful bonds in their lives are those associated with a sense of home, which is itself a combination of memory and family. This definition of home helps explain why some people stay in Baghdad, while others—whose true “home” is elsewhere—prefer to leave.

Different characters in the novel initially seem condemned to solitude. Alone in her house, Elishva seems bound to spend the rest of her life waiting for her dead son, Daniel, to return from the war. Only Elishva’s daughters, Hilda and Matilda, currently living in Melbourne, still listen to their mother’s fantasies. As a result, Elishva resigns herself to living alone in her apartment, accompanied only by her cat, Nabu, the image of Saint George the Martyr, and Daniel’s memory. Other characters, such as Hadi, have an even smaller support network. Since the death of his work partner, Nahem Abdaki, Hadi believes that his only friend left is Aziz the Egyptian, owner of the local coffee shop. He concludes, despondently, that no one would truly miss him if he died.

Other characters compensate for their solitude by retreating into a fantasy world of human connection. Aware that his love for Nawal al-Wazir—a woman believed to be his boss Saidi’s lover—will probably remain nothing but a fantasy, Mahmoud hires a prostitute, Zeina. He wants to pretend that Zeina is Nawal, so that he can feel like he’s making love to Nawal. Ultimately, however, Mahmoud ends up behaving aggressively toward both women. He behaves aggressively toward Zeina when she refuses to be called “Nawal,” and later, he kisses Nawal against her will. These actions reveal a dark side of Mahmoud’s personality: a selfish focus on his own desire, combined with a certain lack of empathy, keeps him from seeking reciprocity. He prefers to impose his desire on these women instead of respecting what they actually want.

Despite this sense of desolation, the novel also suggests that people are not always as isolated as they believe. After Iraqi security forces beat Hadi up in his home, his neighbor Abu Salim, who has witnessed the scene from afar, comes over to help. Abu Salim calls out to different men in the neighborhood. Together, they buy medicine and bandages to heal the junk dealer’s wounds. This surprising moment of solidarity reveals that underlying networks of protection run through the neighborhood. Even someone as isolated as Hadi can benefit from his neighbors’ protection. This suggests that people are not always as lonely as they believe they are: they are integrated into a fabric of human interactions, part of a social world that can provide protection and comfort.

However, the spread of violence ultimately forces people to rely on the most stable tie of all: their notion of home, which the novel suggests is based on a combination of memory and family. Despite Elishva’s skepticism about her daughters’ commitment to take her out of Iraq, Hilda and Matilda actually do come to rescue their mother. They use Elishva’s grandson Daniel—who looks just like Elishva’s dead son Daniel—as an emotional tool: they want Elishva to be moved by the sight of her grandson, so similar to the son she has lost, in order to agree to follow him back to Australia. The plan works: although Elishva knows that this young Daniel is not her son, she still feels comforted by his presence. Ultimately, she realizes that this family bond is the most important thing in her life. The old lady’s agreement to leave Iraq suggests that she has finally found a way to reconcile her memory of the past with her current family: through her grandson Daniel, she recovers both the memories of her lost son and the concrete bond with family members in the present.

Other characters choose similar paths, fleeing the violence in Baghdad to return to their prior home. For example, Abu Anmar, owner of the dilapidated Orouba Hotel, leaves the city after 23 years to return to his hometown in southern Iraq, where his nephews currently live. Similarly, after losing his job, Mahmoud returns to his family in Amara. These characters’ decision to leave reflects not only the escalation of violence in Baghdad, but also the comfort and strength of their attachment to a notion of “home.” Home, these characters conclude, is where their family and their most cherished memories are. This justifies their decision to leave and allows them to make the bold leap to rebuild their life in a new environment.