Naguib Mahfouz won the Nobel Prize in 1988 and since then has become the undisputed representative of Arabic Literature on the World stage. In order to think about the text we are reading I will post a few links for background information but we will spend most of Monday focused on the text. Wednesday we will move to larger contexts.
Resources:
Nobel Prize Website:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1988/
American University in Cairo site:
http://www.aucpress.com/t-aboutnm.aspx
“Multiplying Mahfouz” a review by Eliott Colla:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/5-1/text/colla.html
I will post below the link to my article on “Teaching Mahfouz as World Literature”. I have also linked to it in the page above on .PDFs. Please feel free to consult the whole volume for a range of interesting new articles and ideas on Naguib Mahfouz by scholars of Arabic Literature.
An interview (in English)
I’m not too sure about whether or not we are supposed to be leaving the comments here for this class but I will.
One of the thing I found really interesting is the form that this novel takes. It’s very different from the other books we’ve read so far in the sense that it seems quite straightforward. But at the same time, it has similar themes like the idea of freedom and of being trapped. I think it’s an interesting approach to the themes we’ve been studying.
If we put it back with the questions we’ve been studying of art vs. politics, I’d be interested in knowing where this would fall.
It’s been a while since I’ve read a normal story-telling novel, and I’m quite enjoying The Thief and Dogs so far.
Reading Michelle’s article/essay was good for me because it tied in a lot of the different issues about world literature and questions we’ve been asking in class. She mostly uses Damrosch’s definition, which I understood best of all the rest. A lot of points she raises in the essay I would really like to see discussed in class.
We should discuss what it means for a work to gain in translation, and how Mahfouz’s work does that. Also, how the relations between the U.S./North America and the Middle East affect what counts as “world literature”. Specifically this quote: “works that travel most easily into a centre of power tend to be those that are familiar in some way…they will therefore represent only part of the “rest of the world” in “world literature” as Mahfouz is only a part of Arabic literature.”
So why are some of his works more studied in North America than others? And how will including some of his shorter and more experimental works help us to explore his contributions more fully and see them as world literature in different ways? (because I think the works we are reading are considered his more experimental ones…)
I also thought about Professor Hartman’s observation about how the works most likely to be translated will only ever represent part of “world literature.” This is a good encapsulation of many of our class discussions, especially in relation to the first three articles we read.
However, while I have also found parts of Damrosch’s theory of world literature very useful, I was still unclear on what “gaining n translation” looked like. I understood it as occurring when a text takes on a new significance through the intersections of the different significances it has for different audiences. Thus, I would consider the first and second parts of Damrosch’s definition (Hartman 45) to be basically synonymous. However, her examples of how these different significances function in Arabic literature and translated Arabic literature helped me to grasp his theory in more concrete terms.
I have difficulty determining whether Said Marhan is a hero or an anti-hero.
Perhaps this is also what the book is trying to underline or confuse.
Who are the heroes in society?
Does he seek personal revenge, or does he represent social justice? Isn’t he too mad and obsessed to hold morals that could teach society a lesson? At the same time, there are many little comments the narrator puts in which testify to the unfair inequality and injustice prevailing in the character’s society.
Said was unfairly unable to attend school – p93.
The gun kills only innocents – p133.
It seems in the end he’s not even convinced that burglary is an act to render social justice, when he seems to be blaming Rauf, his inspiration turned traitor, for encouraging him to be a burglar. p113.
I’d be interested to hear one’s opinion on this if this also intrigued any of you!
Florence, a lot of the same questions went through my mind as well! With the Rauf situation, I was thinking maybe he could be a justified burglar, however after the car hijacking situation I do not think that he represents social justice? But it’s hard to tell right now. I predict that we will be swayed by his thinking and be on his side either way…
I think its interesting that Mahfouz says he is supportive of a the right to free speech but rejects what he calls Rushdie’s “insolence”. When does something cross from “offensive to some” to “insolent of other’s beliefs”? It would seem that the number of people offended by a work might be the only indicator. There will always be some people offended by a work, why should the size of the offended group matter?