Sheikh Al- Junaydi --> The face of redemption

In The Thief and the Dogs, Sheikh Al- Junaydi represents the missed opportunities that Said could have optimized on to follow a different lifestyle after getting released from jail. Said’s decision  to not follow the Sheikh’s advice leads to his eventual downfall and this recurring topic of his misjudgment and bad decisions incites a debate of fate vs. free will. The Sheikh represents spiritual freedom and therefore pure, clear thinking which should lead to a better life. Therefore the Sheikh is symbolic of a path to redemption while Said represents the path to destruction. The Sheikh is extremely significant in the novel as he provides an alternate perspective of Egypt for the reader different to how they would normally see it through the eyes of Mahran as a broken and unjust society where thieves and prostitutes control the streets, as a place that does not allow redemption. The very fact that the Sheikh has disciples and Said chooses not to stay at the house is enough to say that Said made the decisions based on his free will which eventually led to his downfall or his fate.  

Sheikh Al-Junaydi constantly warns Mahran that vengeance is not worth seeking for and therefore contributes to the theme of how revenge leads to the eventual downfall of the protagonist. In chapter 2 of the novel, Said is constantly told to go “wash and read” to which he only responds by blaming everyone around him.  By that the Sheikh would have wanted Said to become purified, forget the past and immerse himself in religion to find peace and lead a better way of life. Only on the second read, will readers understand that Said was given these opportunities to redeem himself but he just brushed them off with his excuses. A common trend within the novel is that Said justifies his decisions by blaming his circumstances. Towards the end of the chapter he reveals that he is on a trajectory that approaches hell rather than heaven. This means that Said had already accepted his fate as a criminal and had no intentions of saving himself. Through this indirect characterization of Said, we realize how Mahfouz brings in the Sheikh to counter Said’s pessimistic attitude and acts as a buffer on how much we sympathize with him. Nothing was stopping Said to lead a life like his father did, but he was too proud of his ‘talent’ in burglary.  

The next major point in the text where the Sheikh is re-introduced is in chapter 8 when Said falls to sleep in the Sheikh’s house and dreams about being chased by Rauf Ilwan and other pursuers and slipping into a gathering of Sufi chanters around the Sheikh. But suddenly a comfort zone changed into enemy territory as the Sheikh asked for his identity card as per instructions from the government. Through this part of the novel we can see how Said is against authoritative powers such as the government and certainly against Rauf Ilwan. This also characterizes Said as a revolutionist who has strong moral values. But does that mean he is a hero under Mahfouz’s definition? Towards the end of the chapter, the realization that he killed an innocent man hit Said and he yells at the Sheikh and says “Farewell, master”. From this the readers get the feeling that Said knows that his tragic death is nearing him, but the Sheikh still gives hope by remonstrating what Said says as “until we meet again”.  

In chapter 10, as readers, we gain valuable insight that Said left his books at the Sheikh’s house and this might provide a temporary ray of hope that Said is not going die a tragic death. ‘You can take the horse to the water but you can’t make it drink.’ Mahfouz probably integrated this into the text to signify that Said created his own tragic fate as even though he did not have the books he still tried to murder Rauf Ilwan. Therefore, it might have not been the books or the society that led him to do what he did but it was his own wrong doings and free will decisions that led to his downfall. 

Morality and justice in The Thief and the Dogs

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.

Passage analysis from TTATD

The Thief and the Dogs is the story of Said Mahran, a skilled thief who is betrayed by his wife Nabawiyya and right hand Ilish Sidra. Throughout the novel Said has an unquenchable thirst to kill both of them and Rauf Ilwan. As the story progresses we see the protagonist developing as a complex character who is in odds with himself and the outside world. The complexity of Said’s psyche is intriguing and makes TTATD an interesting read.

In this passage from chapter 14 of TTATD, we see Said Mahran, who at this point is a broken man incapable of controlling his impulsive emotions. He tries to escape from Rauf’s compound at which point he comes to a realization that the time is nearing when he has to enter ‘one last battle’ which foreshadows a tragic death for the protagonist. Said then hails a cab which he describes as a safe haven. Mahfouz employed this style of writing where he compares Said’s pain from the wound being nothing compared to the relief of being safe again. This could indicate that Said might have been going through the same thought process as the reader that the metaphorical wound in his heart is nothing compared to the peaceful life he could have led.

Later when he gets to Nur’s flat he feels the wound on his leg and identifies it as a possibly caused by a bullet grazing him without penetrating. This draws the attention of the readers to the fact that Said had escaped death so many times before just as he did right now but as all cycles have it there is a peak and a trough and the reader might foreshadow a trough where Said won’t be so lucky. The text catches a glimpse irony when Said says “You’ll get away all right.” The style of writing then shifts to indirect internal monologue where Said questions whether he might have killed Rauf Ilwan. Mahfouz integrates the possibility that another innocent person might die to foreshadow the fate of Said’s wasted life.

Said ponders over the thought of how the bullet that killed Rauf Ilwan would destroy his sense of loss but little does he know that he has committed a grave mistake again of killing an innocent man. His actions will eventually lead to his death that has no meaning to it which is something he did not want to happen to him. “A world without morals is like a universe without gravity” 

The stream of consciousness technique in the Thief and the Dogs

Through Thief and the Dogs, Naguib Mahfouz was the first author to employ the stream of consciousness technique in conjunction with psychological realism in the Arabic literature world. He uses this technique to provide the reader with access to Said Mahran’s innermost thoughts and despairs. The stream of consciousness technique can be seen as a sort of selective omniscience where thoughts and sense impressions are mingled randomly. Specifically within this novel, we can see how this technique which switches from third person, to direct and indirect monologue helps characterize Said in detail and provides insight into the emotional, moral and intellectual realms of his mind. Since the novel is based on a mix of true stories that Mahfouz had observed around him, the technique of narration by which the story progresses is apt as the readers understand the characters’ actions and therefore the events are represented in a more plausible, authentic way.

Thief and the Dogs is a novel about Said Mahran, a skilled burglar who was given into police custody by Ilish Sidra, his right hand. To add to the treachery, his wife Nabawiyya married Ilish and took his daughter away from him. Driven by bitterness and the rage to kill, Said gets released from jail with only one intention, get his daughter back and kill the traitors. The story is arranged chronologically, albeit the reader goes back in time through Said’s perspective of what his life had been like before he was sent to jail. Through this Naguib Mahfouz further calls upon the reader to sympathize with Said as a person rather than as a burglar. This emphasizes the protagonist as a tragic hero and provides insight into his actions in the novel.

The novel is full of interesting shifts in narration. Whenever major events happen such as Said breaking into Rauf Ilwan’s house or when he shoots Shaban Husayn who he thinks to be Ilish Sidra, Mahfouz starts employing stream of consciousness and the story takes place in Said’s mind and through this the readers understand the criminal thought process of a broken man. It is also through the shift in narration to direct internal monologue that the reader is provided with flashbacks and backstories to all the characters involving Nabawiyya, Ilish, Rauf, the Sheikh as well as Amm Mahran, Said’s father and his relations with this characters before he went to jail. Mahfouz intends the readers to see the pre-speech levels of consciousness for the purpose of revealing Said Mahran’s psyche.

There are many advantages to writing in the stream of consciousness technique. It deviates from standard novels within literature as well as provides a new perspective of characters and gives life to them that makes them better relatable. Also, Naguib Mahfouz effectively integrates the stream of consciousness technique with psychological realism to make it an easy read unlike James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake or related books. Said Mahran is like us, he goes through betrayals and injustices throughout his lifetime just as every human being does but access to his mind and its composition provides evidence to why Said reacted the way he did and this creates an understanding of the novel as a whole. It can therefore be related to bigger concepts such as love, purpose of life and social status.

Thief and the Dogs is a great novel because of its elegance despite the content that it represents. The life of this tragic hero teaches the readers a life lesson on knowing when to move on and also provides insight into Egypt and the way society is structured. 

Value of literature in translation

“So many people consider their work a daily punishment. Whereas I love my work as a translator. Translation is a journey over a sea from one shore to the other. Sometimes I think of myself as a smuggler: I cross the frontier of language with my booty of words, ideas, images, and metaphors.”  - Amara Lakhous

This quote we analyzed in class interested me as Amara Lakhous thinks of himself as a smuggler who crosses borders with ideas of another culture and presents it using his grasp of language and literature. As a translator it is important that Lakhous knows how to translate everything from one language to something meaningful in the other.

As we read Lost in Translation, the relevant themes of the text made direct connections with Part 3 of the language and literature course. Lost in translation is an article about Feng Tang, a popular but controversial writer in China who decided to publish his translation of 'Stray Birds', a collection of 300-odd short verses penned by Rabindranath Tagore in 1916. It was soon taken of the shelves as 3 out of the 326 poems which were translated were apparently vulgar and sexualized the 'poet-sage' figure of Tagore. Feng's 'vulgarity' divided the literary world of China. Earlier in the 1920's , a revered writer named Zheng Zhenduo translated Tagore's poems in a way that was acceptable by Chinese cultural standards and could be taught to children at school. This is a classic example of the changing cultural, historical and social context in which texts are written and received. The social context that Feng is struggling with is the split between the older generation of scholars and his generation on this issue. China's older generation much like India's older generation were conservative. However, the new generation of youngsters are not and this creates conflicting ideologies and perspectives. 

Some of the benefits of translating literature is that we get an idea of another culture as literature expresses the culture of its origin. These ideas get spread this way and therefore accentuate globalization. The disadvantages are that some of these ideas maybe lost in translation and it can be dependent on the perspective of the person translating it as we can see in the example of Feng Tang's controversial issue.....

Paper 2 sample outline

Discuss the significance of social status in Things Fall Apart, and comment on its contribution to characterization.

Thesis: Through the portrayal of the Igbo living in a hierarchical society where a man can make his own fortune, Achebe shows the significance of social status as a barometer of a man’s success and position in society.

Topic sentences:  

(i)    Within the novel, social status is portrayed through how big a man’s barn or compound is or the amount of titles or wives he has.

(ii)    Achebe describe the osu to exemplify the harsh realities and flaws of a hierarchical society like Umuofia’s and how this might be the very cause of so many people converting to Christianity.

The Perfect Paper 1 (Highly Idealistic)

Why fight for Russia?

The following text is a leaflet written by British Pacifist Norman Angell in 1914 in response to Britain’s decision to enter the World War 1 alongside Russia. The extract displays conventions of a leaflet all throughout including bold titles, use of a variety of persuasive techniques and also facts and figures. The given extract was written in 1914 when essentially Britain was an empire where the sun never set. Norman Angell approaches this issue not only as a pacifist but also as a patriotic British national. Through the effective use of stylistic devices such as rhetorical question, anaphora and antithesis to compare Russian and British ideologies, Angell establishes the argument that Britain has no need to enter the World War 1 alongside Russia.

The purpose of this leaflet is to persuade the audience to protest against Britain’s decision to enter World War 1. The audience can be anyone as leaflets are freely distributed to the public but the target audience is clearly the working class as Norman Angell says “Make your Trade Union, you I.L.P., or B.S.P. branch pass strong resolutions”. He therefore creates this leaflet as a call to action, the action being to protest against Britain’s involvement in the war. The theme of this leaflet is merely the notion that war causes violence and this is also obvious as Norman Angell was a Pacifist.

The content of the leaflet revolves around this idea and Angell provides factual information to drives the desired response from the reader. He compares Russian and British ideologies and states that Russia’s system is against British ideals of liberty and justice and against ‘western civilization’ as a whole. Norman Angell then asks a direct question which compares Germans to Russians and provokes a logical thought process. He calls Russians ‘slaves of a corrupt autocracy’ and does this to send the message that that Great Britain as a civilized nation should not relate or associate itself with Russia. Norman Angell goes a step further to state that Germans are of the same race and blood and just like the British, are engaged in trade and industry and peaceful occupations. This induces the reader to relate to a German rather than a Russian and also adds to his purpose to persuade the reader to protest against War. He also mentions that a war for Russia is like a war against civilization and this further provokes the desired response from the working class, that is, to vote against Britain taking part in WW1 and to live in peace and harmony.

The tone of this leaflet is preachy and is therefore convincing and this creates a patriotic mood that turns it into a matter of urgency. The author indicates that the information should be spread by saying “write your member that you will try and turn him out”. Norman Angell essentially questions what the reader expects of their country and the values it upholds. The author effectively uses logos to explain why Britain shouldn’t take part in the war using and example from Crimea where Great Britain spent 50 million pounds. He also uses figures to compare the population sizes of Germany compared to Russia to emphasize the much greater threat Russia could be in comparison to Germany. He also indirectly uses pathos in the form of a patriotic angle to change the opinion of a reader that Britain should fight alongside Russia in World War 1. The author effectively uses a range of literary devices in the leaflet, such as anaphora when he repeats ‘Russia’ three times to grab the reader’s attention. He uses the antithesis that a war for Russia is a war against civilization to directly influence the reader’s opinion and perspective to one that is for peace and thus against Britain taking part in WW1.

The structure of this poster is one that is organized and shows a logical but biased thought process. The title itself asks a question ‘Why fight for Russia?’ This rhetorical question indicates the start of the thought process. The reader can then use the information and the question provided by Norman Angell to think about the War and its consequences. The author’s intention to re-emphasize that this is a violent war to be fought alongside Russia, is satisfied with the the statement ‘A War for Russia is a War against Civilization.’ Again, the use of an antithesis combined with the big bold black text conveys the underlying message to the reader. Lastly Angell reiterates what he means: ‘BRITAIN, STAND CLEAR!’ and this provides a conclusion to his well-organized argument.

In conclusion, Norman Angell effectively uses persuasive techniques and bias to create a leaflet that questions the patriotism of the British by comparing them to Russians who he mentions in the leaflet, are against the values and ideals of the nation. He therefore provokes the desired response from the reader, to protest and vote against Britain taking part in World War 1.

Obviously he failed…. hahaha