Significant Passage, Chapter 5

Nur is one of the most important characters in The Thief and the Dogs. Her necessity is twofold, presenting both a symbol and a humanizing factor. Thus the passage I choose is the one where Nur and Sa’id first see each other again in Mr. Tarzans café. She then agrees to assist Said in stealing a car from the young gentleman she has accompanied. And then later, goes onto vent her disgust and outrage with the former wife of Sa’id.

"How are you, Nur?" he asked.

               "As you can see," Tarzan said for her with a smile, "She's all light, like her name."

               "I'm fine," she said. "And you? You look very healthy. Only what's wrong with your eyes? They remind me of how you used to look when you were angry."

               "What do you mean?" he said with a grin.

               "I don't know, it's hard to describe. Your eyes turn a sort of red and your lips start twitching!"

               Said laughed. Then, with a touch of sadness, he said, "I suppose your friend will be coming soon to take you back?"

               "Oh, he's dead drunk," she said, shaking her head, tossing the hair from her eyes.

               "In any case, you're tied to him."

               "Would you like me," she said with a sly smile, "to bury him in the sand?"

               "No, not tonight. We'll meet again later. I'm told he's a real catch," he added, with a look of interest that did not escape her.

               "He sure is. We'll go in his car to the Martyr's Tomb. He likes open spaces."

               So he likes open spaces. Over near the Martyr's Tomb.

               Her eyelashes fluttered, showing a pretty confusion that increased as her gaze met his. "You see," she said with a pout, "You never think of me."

               "It's not true," he said, "You're very dear to me."

               "You're only thinking about that poor fish."

               Said smiled, "He forms a part of my thinking of you."

Though it may seem it at first, it becomes clear rather quickly that it is more than polite conversation. It is made clear that Nur understands Sa’id more than even we do, as people with access to his mind. When she mentions he looks mad, and is right, based on a twitching lip and prior experience from 4 years ago at the least. He is made genuinely sad when he thinks she has to go back and talk to the man she arrived with, whom she promptly brushes off. She then offers to ditch him in favor for Sa’id. Even from here, it is very clear she loves Sa’id, without even hearing the rant to come, or the comfort he finds in her later in the tale. She even flirts with him after he insists she has to stay with the person she arrived with. This seems rather forward, even for very old friends.

She furthers Sa’id humanity. To clarify, it is possible to say that Nur is a representation of Said happiness and trust, as he losses both with her later in the story. Without Nur, we would Said as nothing more than an animal, anger, vicious, driven, and blood hungry. Nur provides the good that is present in humans, emphasizing that we are at our best in small groups which we trust. With specific focus on Sa’id, Nur represents the light that died in him when he was put into jail. She also represent the future he cannot have, after his actions, but wants desperately. This connection is made very clear later, but is more than subtly hinted at in the fifth and sixth chapter. The manner of their interaction is indicative of at least a long term friendship, if not an actual physical attraction.

She is also useful as a symbol in the greater story arch. In the ideal of the whole, she represents the powerless. She is the manifestation of the public who suffers greatly in the senseless violence. And, those who continue to suffer after the reality of revolution and its dehumanizing products come about. This is better represented in near the end of the story, when she speaks to Said in her home. However, her turn to manipulation and survival in any manner possible, such as with the young rich man, is similar to the way the working classes were treated under Nasser, or so the story goes. She is hopeful but resigned later on, again as a reflection of the hopes of the people, and their subsequent disillusionment with the government that rose to “protect them”.

Stream of Consciousness

The Thief and the dogs is a work of beauty. The complexities in meaning, coupled with the dynamic and life like characters is truly astonishing. And the stream of consciousness technique employed on the novel server to augment that greatly.
Firstly it is necessary to outline the underlying allegory of the book. It is a tale of civil unrest and a failed revolution. That is not to say the revolution did not occur. In fact, as a result of this revolution Nasser took power in Egypt. However, it was held by the common folk that their ideals had been betrayed by exploitative intellectuals, who betrayed the ideals of the revolution in the face of censorship. These intellectuals are represented by Rauf. He was Said, the main characters former mentor. Said finds his teacher has become an ‘intellectual’ who sold his former communist, Robin Hood mix of values for a posh life style. Said is a thief, the Robin Hood and a revolutionary. He is rejected by the system he created, and, as a symbol, his daughter. Said who life after escaping prison is a pass of the government Mahfouz disagreed with as a revolutionary.
The narration of the novel was unique in Arabic literature at the time of its creation. It uses the stream of consciousness technique. This is highly relevant as we switch from third person, direct and indirect mental narration, and soliloquy. Each of these are reflect of differing levels of Said’s mind. The direct and indirect narration are his thoughts. They are eloquent and relatively stable, not making too many impossible or unexplained leaps to different issues. The third person narration is plainly put, and completely factual, with no instability represented. The soliloquy is very extravagant, and highly unstable, fliting from idea to unrelated idea. And is reflective of his sub and unconscious mind. Said is not only a revolutionary, he is the embodiment of the revolutions ideals. And his eventual insanity, as represented by increased use of soliloquy, is a representation of the failed ideals of the revolution. He begins seemingly stable, however it is quickly revealed that he is spiteful and vengeful. And at first he is rational and highly aware. However as the story progresses, we see more indirect and direct narration, then as mentioned before, the madness of the soliloquy. Though this crookedness is mentioned from the beginning, when his thoughts turn to his daughter on the very first page of the book. It is a representation of the slow descent of the public, at the hands of Nasser.
Though it provides a unique perspective, as seen above, it’s limited in several areas. Firstly, we only see one event. Our knowledge of the life Said held before is tainted by his own rage. The traditional character, the hero archetype, is dead in Said. And the traditional characterization, that which leaves no doubt, is not present. Normally, the characters of a book are well defined. Through traditional writing, the traits of a character are revealed by the other characters, or directly by the author. This produces a sort of certainty, and security in what is said of the characters. Through this, there is no such thing. It becomes clear that Said thoughts and actions are desperate, so as a character, we really know nothing about him, except that he is insane. And the traditional story died. The hero often seek to rid the world of some great injustice, and we see his or her life from its humble beginnings, to the extravagant end of relevance after lessons have been learned and everyone has grown. Again, this is not represented. But the most important point is, in this story neither of these things are relevant. Both the nontraditional characterization and the inconclusive plot are reflections of real life. There is no certainty how the failed revolution will affect the affairs of Egypt and maybe the world. There is no way of really forming an authentic opinion of Nasser and his revolution now, with the past as biased as it is.
The final thing to look at is the relation to Things Fall Apart. There are two main points for this relation. Both are a counter to and existing social norm, and both are told in the same way. Things Fall Apart is a counter narrative to the demonization of colonized lands that occurred until several years before colonial powers retreated. The Thief and the Dogs is a counter revolutionary tale. It speaks of the failings of its past, much as the counter narrative brings to light the failing of others to recognized basic human rights, as the revolution did. And both are told as if one with the former culture. Things fall apart is styled as a traditional Igbo tale, on why things are the way they are. It language and unusual plot progression reflect on of the many tales told in the story. And Thief is similar to the stories told by bards in Arabic culture.

Culture

Culture. The only way to sum up any entire peoples thoughts, feelings, actions, history, and customs in one word. The beauty and extravagance held by just one of these beacons of light is indescribable. And it can only really be described and understood through direct experience. But in order to be compassionate beings, we need to see and understand the cultures that may not be our own. This is done through things like documentaries and stories. Most importantly in the stories category are books. But are they accurate? Can one really take some much and put it between two covers? The answer, in short, is no. At least not completely. It is undisputedly valuable to learn and understand the customs and meanings behind other culture. What better way than to hear the tales of tragedy and awe that exist in the world? What better way than to see the politics and intrigue behind every story? But there are two major issues. First, everything is subject to the interpreter’s interpretation. As is evident from the issues raised by Feng Tang in 2014. He retranslated “Stray Birds” a collection of 300 poems by Tangore. He did not except this to be his most controversial work, as his previous works were known to be blunt to say the least. However, this work was called vulgar on multiple occasions by multiple people. All that done on the basis of three slightly, what is the word, sensual poems. He received multiple death threats and media heat from both hi native China and India as well. Though not necessarily a bad thing, it does remind us that the translator has the ultimate power overt the hidden meanings and inflections in the work. The second, and far more dangerous problem, is the loss meaning. It is often said that there are words that cannot be directly translated. For example, in German there is a word for the feeling of being lost in the woods. This word cannot be directly translated as it also implies all of the emotions that can occur in that situation. Another example is the use, in context, of Igbo words in Things Fall Apart. This is done as there was not suitable substitute in English. This furthers the previously made point. This is not to say it is not valuable to study other cultures and translated works. As was said in the earlier, there is much to be learned, but the reader must be aware of the possible loss or distortion of meaning before studying such works.