Sheikh al-Junaydi: Symbolic Character

In searching for an answer to the question of the Sheikh's symbolism, I looked through his appearances in the plot to gain a superficial understanding of his character. While doing so, one finds out that the Sheikh's house provides Said with a place of refuge (the only other place besides Nur's apartment) and that the Sheikh offers Said alternatives to seeking revenge. He is characterized as the wise character, who speaks "in a voice like Time" and who constantly equivocates in his replies to Said. So far, so Dumbledore. The Sheikh's closest relative in Jung's twelve archetypes would be The Sage. This reveals ideas he is likely to represent, including intelligence, wisdom, or thought. 

Given the context of this novel, I believe that the Sheikh represents the possibility arising from positive knowledge. Consider the sphere of the novel: Rauf represents the bad intellectual who falls prey to his desires, while Said represents one of the working class that has more recently learnt to love knowledge. It follows that the Sheikh lies at the opposite end of the spectrum, as the good intellectual who uses his knowledge for the benefit of others (by leading religious ceremonies, protecting Said etc.). This dichotomy of good versus bad intellectual is even more significant given the context of the 1952 Revolution. In the words of Alaa Amr Saad, there was an 'Intellectual Crisis' during the time of General Nasser's rule, which led to the "socio-political struggle between working class versus the segment of opportunist so called 'intellectuals'". This occurred around the same time that The Thief and the Dogs was written. 

Another aspect of what the Sheikh represents is 'possibility'. He repeatedly offers Said other options asides from seeking revenge and this is especially evident in Chapter 2, the first time we see the pair interact. For example, when Said details his life problems to the Sheikh, the latter simply says "Wash and read". In this way, the Sheikh guides Said away from his present. Furthermore, the Sheikh also shows no sign of having recognized Said's descriptions of his father, which firmly cements him as a non time-specific character (unlike Nabawiyya, for example, who's mostly spoken about in the past). This variety of choices presented to Said characterizes him and reveals to the reader the intensity with which Said needs his revenge. The fact that chances are provided for him to steer clear also draws attention to the free will (or lack thereof?) of Said. By characterizing him via the actions of the Sheikh, Said is seen as a stubborn but misguided character. 

Finally, an interesting concept to consider is the role of religion in the novel. We learn that Said's dad was a religious, loving man, and that speaking to the Sheikh often conjured up images of Amm Mahran in Said's head. This undeniable link between religion and Said's innocence could perhaps be alluding to the time of unity before the Revolution, when the intellectuals and working classes were working together for a common goal. Then, knowledge was being used positively, unlike during Said's time. At the center of this religious theme is the Sheikh, who facilitates the exploration of many of these questions. In including these themes, Mahfouz engages the reader by hinting at various 'answers' to Said's problems: Should he simply let go? Should he follow the path of religion? Is it even possible for Said to let go of these issues? 

As we have studied in class, this novel is one that leaves many blank spaces for the readers to fill. We've had heated discussions on the goodness of Said's character, the existence of fate within the novel, etc. The symbolism of Sheikh al-Junaydi is no exception. Personally, Mahfouz's ability to subtly raise questions about our society is one of the main factors that engaged me in the novel, especially as it often presented evidence for both positive and negative answers to these questions. 

Choose Your Own Adventure!

Write a detailed explanation of why someone should never allow what they perceive as fate to dominate their decision making.

The question of fate and free will has been a highly contested one for thousands of years. Indeed, the thought of finding an answer is very enticing, as it will tell us once and for all if things will be what they are and there’s no point trying or if you are the only thing controlling your destiny. This essay will focus on the latter, arguing a number of examples to depict how humans are better off when using free will to guide their decision making.

It is obvious that there has been change in our society over the years of human existence. We have evolved a more equal, peaceful, and healthy community as opposed to that of our ancient counterparts. The major driving factor behind this positive change is the choices made by people to change their situations. By expressing their discontent, fighting for a better future, and taking control of their lives, positive things have been achieved. One historical example is the African American civil rights movement (1954-1968), which amongst other things achieved equal rights legislation in the American constitution.

Another example can be drawn from Naguib Mahfouz’s The Thief and the Dogs. In the novel, the protagonist Said makes many decisions under the erroneous impression that fate is guiding him. He fails to notice (until too late) the array of opportunities presented to him to change his goals, for example by Nur and the Sheikh. Early on in the novel when Said first goes to visit the Sheikh (Chapter 2), he employs a self pitying tone by detailing all the problems with his life and ignoring the Sheikh’s suggestions to “Wash and read (the Quran)”. Said repeatedly focuses on the people who have wronged him, and considers it his fate to exact justice on them. By allowing what he perceives as his fate to guide his decision making, Said takes a self-destructive that eventually leads to his death.

These examples are but two of many that prove how much better our lives would be if we were to view our futures as malleable instead of set in stone. Despite this, I’m not making any claims about whether life operates around fate or free will. I just personally believe that our lives are better when we take agency over them. Indeed, Article 1 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “all human beings are born free”.  If there is fate, then perhaps some people are fated to improve their situations, while others aren’t. 

Justice & Morality in The Thief and the Dogs

What questions regarding morality and justice does Mahfouz raise in his novel through his characterization of Said?

The main motivations of the plot in The Thief and the Dogs revolve around ideas of justice and of doing what is right. The story opens with Said being released from prison, immediately exposing his character's morality to questioning. In the same breath, Mahfouz uses indirect interior monologue to inform the audience of the betrayal in Said's past, as we see in "when those who had betrayed him would despair unto death, when treachery would pay for what it had done." This opening characterization of Said establishes a fluid moral tone for the rest of the novel. The basis of this changing morality is the difficult decision imposed on the reader of isolating Said as a 'hero' or 'villain'. 

The questions of morality are mainly challenging the righteousness of Said. By delivering the novel through his eyes, Mahfouz presents us with an account of world view tainted by a thirst for revenge. This is especially evident through the heavy use of stream of consciousness narration, which gives us only one pair of eyes with which to see the world. The reader falls into Said's 'trap', believing that his killings are necessary after sympathizing with him through his characterization (e.g. the meeting with Sana in chapter 1). In doing so the reader is challenged to use their own moral compass in navigating the novel. 

This is supported within the text through Sheikh Ali Al Junaydi. He is Said's main source of wisdom, and from the outset encourages him to "wash yourself now and read (the Quran)". The inclusion of this character pushes the reader toward a view of Said as immoral, since he has all the answers to his problems (acceptance, letting go etc.) in front of him but chose the violent route instead.    

Another significant point to consider is the context of the novel - 4 years after the 1952 Egyptian Revolution. Like most historical events in real life, there is no clear 'hero' or 'villain' in that story. Nasser's reign, like Said's morality, is highly contested. While the president may have improved the rights of the working class and established a strong connection with them, there was also rampant censorship and favoritism in achieving positions of power (corruption?). These cases echo each other, since the subjects are making their ends justify their means. We see a number of questions raised here: Can Said kill Ilish, Rauf, and Nabawiyya with a clear conscience since it is to fulfill the goals of justice? Can an immoral action be justified if it supports a moral goal?  In all, it is the ability of these questions to be extrapolated into bigger ethical issues that engages and provokes the reader. 

The Thief and The Dogs: Passage Analysis (Chapter 2!)

Chosen Passage (from Chapter 2)

From inside the room he could hear a man concluding his prayers. Said smiled, slipped in carrying his books, and saw the Sheikh sitting cross-legged on the prayer carpet, absorbed in quiet recitation. The old room had hardly changed. The rush mats had been replaced by new ones, thanks to his disciples, but the Sheikh's sleeping mattress still lay close to the western wall, pierced by a window through which the rays of the declining sun were pouring down at Said's feet. The other walls of the room were half-covered with rows of books on shelves. The odor of incense lingered as if it were the same he remembered, never dissipated, from years ago. Putting down his load of books, he approached the Sheikh.
"Peace be upon you, my lord and master."
Having completed his recitation the Sheikh raised his head, disclosing a face that was emaciated but radiant with overflowing vitality; framed by a white beard like a halo, and surmounted by a white skull cap that nestled in thick locks of hair showing silvery at his temples. The Sheikh scrutinized him with eyes that had been viewing this world for eighty years and indeed had glimpsed the next, eyes that had not lost their appeal, acuteness, or charm. Said found himself bending over his hand to kiss it, suppressing tears of nostalgia for his father, his boyish hopes, the innocent purity of the distant past.
"Peace and God's compassion be upon you," said the Sheikh in a voice like Time. What had his father's voice been like? He could see his father's face and his lips moving, and tried to make his eyes do the service of ears, but the voice had gone. And the disciples, the men chanting the mystical dhikr, "O master, the Prophet is at your gate!"--where were they now?

Passage Analysis

This passage depicts the first time Said encounters the Sheikh, further characterizing Said as a good person at heart and introducing the Sheikh, who is to become a prominent figure in Said's refuge. The extract includes a number of interesting elements, such as the distinctly intellectual description of the Sheikh's residence, the characterization of the Sheikh, and Said's flashbacks to his father's presence.

Mahfouz's novel is set in 1956, four years after the 1952 Revolution. One of the most prominent characteristics of that era was the class struggle between the intellectuals and the working class. In The Thief and the Dogs, Said essentially represents the working class, while Rauf represents the intellectual (this is, of course, an oversimplification). This passage reflects Said's desire to be a part of that 'intellectual class' (or perhaps the desire of the working class to be heard?) in a number of ways. He slips in "carrying his books", into a room where the walls "were half-covered with rows of books on shelves". This paragraph also illustrates the "rays of the declining sun were pouring down at Said's feet". Light is often associated with knowledge, furthering the establishment of Said's thirst for knowledge, or change.

One can also consider the significance of the Sheikh's residence as a religious area. Religion is the ultimate form of knowledge, going beyond the 'intellectual' class to a place of enlightenment. Later in the chapter, the Sheikh makes multiple attempts at offering Said this knowledge, but he repeatedly refuses - choosing instead to focus on revenge and on those who have wronged him. By doing so, Said indirectly reveals the result of one of his internal conflicts: Self vs. Revenge.

The significance of the Sheikh's description lies in how different he is in spirit compared to Said. The Sheikh is described as "radiant with overflowing vitality", having "eyes that had not lost their appeal, acuteness or charm", and with a beard "like a halo". He fits the archetypal old and sage character, and indeed delivers on this archetype through the (sometimes convoluted) wisdom he provides to Said. The Sheikh could be seen as a representation of the virtues of religion, as he remains enthusiastic and hasn't become world weary. He is a sharp contrast to Said, who is young but jaded with the world. The inclusion of Sheikh adds interest and irony to the novel, as the reader sees the answers to Said's questions in plain sight.

As Said embraces the Sheikh, he "suppresses tears of nostalgia". Through this, we see that some part of his subconscious recognizes the goodness of the Sheikh's path and allows the readers to empathize with him. There is longing within Said for the past, which is significant through the setting of the old room, which "had hardly changed". This is also emphasized through Said's nostalgia for his father, and perhaps for a good teacher who would not betray him.

Narrative Structure: Analytical Response

Before beginning the post, I had to go back and define the literary terms I was working with. As 'stream of consciousness', ' direct/indirect interior monologue', and 'soliloquy' are all very similar terms, I created a flowchart to help me deal with the differences. It starts with the assumption that the narrative is a direct expression of the character's thoughts, feelings, and impressions. 

It's not perfect but it helped distinguish these concepts. :)

In our class discussions of these narrative techniques, a common sentiment was that Mahfouz used all these techniques is his writing. This constant shift can be seen in the first chapter alone. The first sentence up to 'treachery would pay for what it had done' is an example of indirect interior monologue, where Said views the world and his intentions as a third party while adding his own bias to it. The italicized lines following this create a soliloquy, as Said has Nabawiyya and Ilish in mind when speaking it. With the passage 'She had been out of his thoughts...but almost forgotten?', Mahfouz reverts back to an indirect interior monologue. Said presents his bias by characterizing himself as the 'winner'. As we progress, the protagonist addresses himself, Ilish, and Sana in turn - forming another soliloquy. Finally, the lines: 

'Confused cries seem to seep from the curbside garbage. (I swear I hate you all). Houses of temptation, their windows beckoning even when eyeless, walls scowling where plaster has fallen. And that strange lane, al-Sayrafi Lane, which brings back dark memories. Where the thief stole, then vanished, whisked away. (Woe to the traitors.) Where police who'd staked out the area had slithered in to surround you' 

are one of the first instances of stream of consciousness technique. This pattern continues throughout the novel, with Mahfouz oscillating between different narrative styles at unpredictable intervals. In the first chapter alone, we have already witnessed the complexity of the novel with its spontaneous variations of writing styles. The reader is kept on their feet as the work requires their critical consideration of who Said is speaking to, when the events he's describing take place, and his feelings about them (amongst other things). Aside from engaging the reader, this complexity also presents a more holistic impression of Said's motivations. This is achieved through his gradual revelation of his circumstances. His hatred for Ilish and Nabawiyya is revealed first, and only later in the chapter do we understand the reasons for it. This allows the reader to indirectly characterize Said as an emotional character, motivated more by his feelings than by logic (i.e. it's not a case of 'they did something to me, therefore I must seek revenge', it's more about the actual feeling of exacting revenge). 

One of the reasons for Mahfouz's success with this novel is the balance he strikes between Said's thoughts and realism. This combination makes Said's narrative more inviting and comprehensible, unlike other examples of stream of consciousness technique (e.g. Samuel Backett's in Molloy, where he ignores many grammar and tense rules). This is a stylistic choice largely guided by Mahfouz's purpose, which was essentially to criticize Nasser's post-Revolution regime without making it seem like he was doing so. Thus, he creates a counter narrative detailing the struggle of Egypt's working class against the intellectuals. The telling of a story that is easy to follow is crucial in allowing more laymen to identify with the novel and find their voice in it - thus fulfilling Mahfouz's purpose. 

Bonus: I thought the similarities between Things Fall Apart and The Thief and The Dogs as counter-narratives were very interesting. This was especially in how they used elements of the culture they were writing against - for example, Achebe writes in English instead of Igbo. Their narrative structure is also similar in its chronological structure, as elements of we Said and Okonkwo's lives are revealed to us gradually and through the occurrence of other plot events. Despite this, a major difference lies in their respective writing techniques. Achebe focuses very little on Okonkwo's thoughts and narrates in a mostly unbiased third person style. By doing so, he can explore the thoughts and feeling of multiple characters - including Obierika, Ekwefi, and the Reverend James Smith - albeit briefly. Mahfouz, on the other hand, reserves this narrative style almost solely for Said. 

The Value of Texts in Translation

Personally, I believe that the value of translated texts stems from their exploration of a different type of story. In the article Why Won't English Speakers Read Books in Translation, author Hephzibah Anderson states that "Literature...offers a crucial window into the lives of others, promoting empathy and understanding". This sentiment is echoed multiple times, including in our group's Found in Translation reading. Thus, it is not the language of the novel but rather its content and structure that enables literature to achieve its purpose. It should also be noted, however, that the original language of a text has the ability to reveal the writer’s intentions. For example, Things Fall Apart is a response to the colonial narrative, and to establish this Chinua Achebe uses the medium of the English novel. In The Thief and The Dogs, however, Naguib Mahfouz writes in Arabic for the Egyptian people.  

When discussing language, many often say they think differently in different tongues. This is unsurprising, since language and culture are intricately linked. Writing in an author's native language may give them access to their context's "attitudes and values" (taken from the learning outcomes), which they may not be able to express as easily or accurately in a foreign language. It is these sentiments and the structure which a work was written in (for example, Mahfouz's 'stream of consciousness' technique in The Thief and The Dogs) that are the only truly translatable elements of a novel. The actual diction and word choice of the translated work is, I believe, secondary. 

In our group discussions, the fact that many metaphors, puns, or even literary devices could not be accurately translated kept cropping up. A good example is from the article Lost in Translation, where we learn of the backlash that translator Feng Tang experienced when giving the translated poems of Rabindranath Tagore a more overtly sexual meaning. We thus see that one of the greatest parts of literature - its openness to interpretation - may also be its downfall. Abstract language and poetry may result in problematic and contested translations. The emphasis on meaning is much easier to convey when the meaning is direct, and centered more on story and content.

Our discussion of the challenges of translation has led to its benefits as well. Just like we studied in the unit of Things Fall Apart, translated works offer a better balance of stories, providing a better understanding of the world around us. Translations prevent language from being a barrier to harmony, and allow us to broaden our terrain – just like Amara Lakhous’ comparison of himself as a smuggler bringing ideas to new shores. The intrepid translator braves the perilous waters of language to transport stories to a people, stories which could not have been written in English. I’ll close with an implication of Lakhous’ metaphor: the waters of language may be segregated into different oceans, but in the end all humans need language to survive.

Sample Paper 1: Australianism

This Paper 1 practice was written using the outline created in the carousel activity last week. Our group’s text was ‘Australianism’. The outline for the Perfect Paper can be found on Managebac (‘12_A_SL_Australianism’).

The given extract is an introduction to a dictionary of Australian slang, or Australianisms. This text type can be inferred from the heading in bold and the first sentence of the passage.

The language of the text informs us that it was written for an English speaking audience, thus revealing a cultural context. The explanations of what Australianisms are in lines 1-2, however, imply that the context of the dictionary is not necessarily Australia. Thus, the text is unique in that it may have been a Global Edition of the dictionary. This is also supported by references throughout the text cementing Australianism within a wider international context, for e.g. in referencing “other British colonies” (line 18).

The function of an introduction is usually to engage the reader and begin their journey through a topic. With the dictionary’s usual function of recording words and conserving a language in mind, we see that this introduction specifically does this by allowing the reader to reach a better informed understanding of the themes behind the conservation of a language. Throughout this analysis, we will see that this extract uses diction and style to present its readers with a background on Australianism, focusing on how it differs from English spoken elsewhere, how Australian English came to be this way, and the potential issues in dealing with its origins – in order to justify the conservation of ‘Australianism’.  

Having understood the general function and cultural context of the text, we can proceed to its audience and purpose. The given text appeals to the target audience using their main purpose of explaining the origins and historical events associated with Australian English. The central audience is comprised of people interested in linguistics. This can be gleaned from the wordy nature of its diction, and the choice of long and complex sentences over more easily understandable alternatives (e.g. the first sentence in four lines long).

Building off of this, the central purpose of the text is to introduce the audience to Australianism, focusing on how it differs from English spoken elsewhere, the reason for its origins, and the potential issues with identifying said origins. These main points outline the ‘how’, ‘why’, and ‘so what’ of Australian English. Doing this adds dimension to the dialect, and allows its conservation to be better justified.

The purpose of the text is strongly linked to its content and theme. Throughout the extract, the text provides the reader with historical and background information regarding the dictionary; explaining the concept of Australianism and reasons for the creation of the dictionary. The content of the extract can be split into three main parts, which tackle the topics in the following order: how Australian English differs from other English and why; the historical events that led to the creation of it; and the potential issues with identifying the origins of Australian English.

Clearly expressed in this text is the theme of conservation. From the earlier summary of the content alone, we can see that the author is mainly explaining and justifying Australian English. This links well with the general function of a dictionary. This theme would have been useful in engaging readers, since it presents the readers with reasons why they should read the dictionary, by making Australian English seem multi-faceted and interesting. Justification in this manner thus serves the introduction’s function of making people read the dictionary.

To support the given extract’s objectives of garnering more readers and reinforcing the theme of conservation, it uses a pedagogical tone to develop a formal and scholarly mood. The pedagogical tone is expressed in the many sentences of high modality which are presented as facts. For example, “Australian English reflects also the composition of the immigrant population…” (line 16). Phrases like “Most obviously…” (line 9) also imply to the reader that it is not in order to refute the statements of the dictionary. Finally, the scholarly mood is also created through the academic language and use of jargon (e.g. “regional dialect” in line 18), and the referencing of establish dictionaries like the “Oxford English Dictionary”.

The tone and mood of the text validate it and make it more creditable, contributing to its central purpose of justifying and encouraging the conservation of Australian English. This is also done using stylistic devices. For example, the earlier mentioned complex sentences give the author credibility, since they are well-written and perfectly crafted in terms of grammar. The audience may reason that someone who can write like that is qualified to make statements about language. This is thus an appeal to ethos.

The literary device of distinctio is also used in line 36, with “puncher (as in bullock puncher)”. This explanation of the original term furthers our argument that this text was intended for non-Australians, to encourage them to be interested in Australianisms. Alliteration and repetition is also achieved with the term “special significance”, which was used twice in the text. This reiterates the uniqueness of Australian English and the author’s attempts to promote it.

The absence of literary devices and the focus on style over literature also functions as an appeal to logos, since their argument seems more objective and less disputable. The strong structure of the content also makes the introduction seem more ‘essay-like’ and academic. The only stylization of the text is the heading, ‘Introduction’ (line 1), in bold at the top of the page. With this simplicity the text fits in better with the scholarly community, by indirectly stating that the content is what matters, not the outward fanciness or appearance of the text. The style and structure could thus be concluded to show the thought process behind the ideals of Australianism.

In conclusion, we have shown how this extract used diction and style to present its readers with a background on Australianism ­- specifically focusing on how it differs from English spoken elsewhere, how Australian English came to be this way, and the potential issues in dealing with this -­ in order to justify the conservation of Australian English. In all, the text generally achieves its purpose, since it conveys the theme of conservation by adding richness and depth to Australian English. With this, readers will see the value of preserving this language, and hopefully do their best to do so by reading the dictionary.