Book Review: The 100 Year Old Man Who Climbed Out The Window and Dissapeared

The story ended with our (Indonesian) President Yudhoyono, requesting the main character, Allan Karlsson, the 100 year old man who climbed out of the window and dissapeared, to help him make an atom bomb.

Did you see that coming? I didn't.

SBY is cooking a nuclear project with the help of 100 year old man!
Saya prihatin :(

I bought the book because of the curious title of course. The back cover didn't explain anything in terms of what the story is about. Even if there's a synopsis anywhere, it is very minimal. What the hell is this book about? Is it a mystery? Ghost story? Detective story?

Considering I was on vacation at that time, I thought I had the spare time to find out. And so I read it.

It turns out that the book is well written. With lots of cold and somewhat sarcastic European humor (if I may?) that I liked. So yes, the story is about Allan Karlsson, a 100 year old (Sweden) man who runaway from the old's people home on his birthday and find an adventure. He didn't know where to go and what he wanted to do, and just go where his feet takes him and what his gut told him. He ended up stealing a suitcase with lots of money in it, which belongs to a drug dealer. During his run, he picked up friends, including an elephant pet. I'm gonna stop right there cause surely, you don't want me to tell you the whole story, right?

But, what's surprisingly nice for me is, that the past of Mr. Allan Karlsson was also told in this book. And because his life takes place during WW II and Cold War, there was a lot of "history" content in it. In fact, in this fictional story, Allan Karlsson take role in the world's important historical events. For example, he helped Oppenheimer make the atom bomb that blew Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, he accidentally met with important people in history, General Franco, Stalin, Harry Truman, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Il Sung and (little) Kim Jong Il. That was all fun for me, until he decided to go to... Bali.

Crap! What now, do I have to go all post-modernist and post-colonialist on this book?

Well I don't know if this is a post-modernist or post-colonialist take on the story, but how the writer describes Indonesia, really makes me sad. He describes Indonesia as:

Image of "exotic Bali". Many would only remember Bali
when mentioned about Indonesia. But some,
doesn't know Bali is in Indonesia.
Picture taken from http://intrepidberkeleyexplorer.com/Page21F.html

Bali (that's one)

Stupid woman (two)

Marries a bule tourist (yep)

Corruption

Corruption

Corruption

Oh well.





To sum it up, I'm just going to quote the book for you:

"...in Indonesia, everything was for sale, and so anyone who had money could get anything he wanted." (pg. 280).

Some Indonesian might be offended and threatend to take all Indonesian people to pee on Sweden and drown it (hot headed nationalist), some might agree with that statement (Indonesians who are in denial and just couldn't deal being an Indonesian I would say), some would be just sad. Like me. I'm just sad. Like, what could I possibly say? Corruption IS a problem here and that is something that I can't deny. But having the whole Indonesia reduced and described like that is just.... saddening.


Well, the story being, that the stupid Balinese girl who married the wealthy bule, bribe her way up to the governor chair (not so stupid after all), and then monopolize the hotel industry in Bali. After Suharto takes over, she decided she wants to retire and being offered a post as an Ambassador in France. Yep, might be a "familiar" story for us, yeah?

Also, at the end, the 100 year old man who steals the suitcase full of money and kill some people along the way, Indonesia is used as an escape route. Because it is SO corrupt there, that some outlaws plus an elephant pet can get in with no problem as long as they provide bribe money. And we provide charter planes too! No questions asked. And that's how you conclude the and resolve the story of this book.

But hey, don't we all do what the writer is doing? Don't we also "reduce" countries into just names and images and brands in our minds? Argentina is Tango and soccer, Brazil is Samba and soccer, Russia is cold and communist, Thailand is Phuket and transgenders and sex, America is New York and Carrie Bradshaw, or America is cowboys and horses (or Gipsy Danger for all of you Pacific Rim geeks out there).

I personally imagine New York when thinking about United States.
Americans are smart enough to nurture this images through pop culture.
Who hasn't watch Sex and the City? Please!

And do we think of how people would feel when we use these images to describe them and their nation and their country? Nation is an imagined community but nationalism is a power not to be underestimate. So perhaps we should be more considerate? Especially if it is a negative one.

And Sweden is just IKEA! xP