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.
No comments:
Post a Comment