A major question Mahfouz asks the readers through
the detailed and balanced characterization of protagonist, is whether Said is a
hero under his definition: “…..a hero today would for me be one who adheres to a
certain set of principles and stands by them in the face of opposition. He
fights corruption, is not an opportunist, and has a strong moral foundation.”
Through this Mahfouz also challenges the readers’ morality and ethical
stance on what Said is doing. Specifically, looking at the definition Mahfouz
provides us, it can be said that Said is a hero. Said himself believes that he
is a hero, the invincible Robin Hood of Egypt because he believes that the rich
are corrupt and steals from them. But the question really is if he does give
the money he stole to the poor? Said realizes in the novel that “a world
without morals is like a universe without gravity” but Said is a person
incapable of acting upon his morals as his mind is flawed caused by excessive pride
and feelings of vengeance. Although Said’s impression of himself is far from
reality, the readers can find it exceptionally hard to pinpoint if Said really
deserved what he got at the end. The novel also makes us question the justice
he did not receive.
This very argument brings about a schism of beliefs within ethics that
can be shared by a group of people or a certain society. I personally believe
that Said did get a bit more punishment than he deserved but this again can’t
be made sure of when Naguib Mahfouz does not provide us with the backstory to
how he got into jail and what was Nabawiyya’s reason for marrying Ilish. Maybe
Ilish Sidra was Egypt’s Robin Hood? Maybe he distributed the loot Said got
among the impoverished people. Maybe Said could be representative of a flawed
society and Ilish Sidra can be representative of Gamal Abdel Nasser and
Nabawiyya the common people of Egypt.
No comments:
Post a Comment