The Sheikh

In the novel 'The Thief and the Dogs,' the protagonist, Said Mahran, is portrayed as a criminal. He walks out of prison, after being jailed for four years. He waited for the moment that he could seek revenge against those who betrayed him. He was a man of evil intentions. Yet, in the midst of these wrong doings, Naguib Mahfouz introduces a degree of morality within the duration of the novel. This morality is represented by Sheikh Ali Al-Junaydi, Saids late fathers spiritual advisor. If anything, this character is the moral voice of the novel, overflowing with wisdom. He is very religious, and is identified as a Sufi Muslim. His character and dialogue suggest his faith within the pages of the novel, as well as his peaceful and meditative nature. 

His first interaction with Said is immediate proof of the personality the Sheikh possesses. His first words to Said: "peace and Gods compassion be upon you." After realising that Said required food and shelter, the Sheikh proceeds to give Said advice for the strengthening of his Muslim faith. "Take a copy of the Qur'an and read...Also repeat the words: 'Love is acceptance, which means obeying His commands and refraining from what He has prohibited and contentment with what He decrees and ordains.'" 

Had Said been more open minded in his approach, he may have considered the Sheikhs suggestion and may not have killed an innocent man at the door of Ilishs old apartment. However, he is unable to accept the moral guidance of the Sheikh, and continues, through his free will, to pave the way to his own downfall. After the killing, Said visits the Sheikh again, and ignores the morning prayer of the Sheikhs followers, and instead falls asleep. The Sheikh notices. "You've had a long sleep, but you know no rest...your burning heart yearns for shade, but continues forward under the fire of the sun."

These are a few examples of the wisdom that the Sheikh possesses as the novels voice of morality. He speaks of and advises Said constantly to carry out actions that are considered ethically correct. Perhaps the Sheikh is the only opportunity for Said to escape his fate. However, he fails to comprehend the sheer wisdom that the Sheikh has, and proceeds to murder another. After the killings outside Ilishs and Raufs homes, the sympathy of the public begins to fade. This is how ignoring the advice of the Sheikh contributed greatly to his downfall, as through failing to listen, he failed to change his fate while he could.

Thus, the Sheikh contributes to the theme of fate vs. free-will. He's role in the novel highlights Saids flaw, and how his own free-will may have set his path to self destruction. He also further characterises Said as a tragic hero, while Saids rejection of moral advice emphasises on his imperfections, and his ignorance results in his end. 

Chapter 11 Passage Analysis

Passage:

As he neared the house in Sharia Najm al-Din he saw light in Nur's window. It gave him a sense of security for the first time since he'd left the coffee-house. He found her lying down and wanted to caress her, but it was obvious from her face that she was terribly tired. Her eyes were so red it was obvious that something was amiss. He sat down at her feet.

    "Please tell me what's wrong, Nur," he said.

    "I'm worn out," she said weakly. "I've vomited so much I'm exhausted."

    "Was it drink?"

    "I've been drinking all my life," she said, her eyes brimming with tears.

    This was the first time Said had seen her cry and he was deeply moved. "What was the reason, then?" he said.

    "They beat me!"

    "The police?"

    "No, some young louts, probably students, when I asked them to pay the bill."

    Said was touched. "Why not wash your face," he said, "and drink some water?"

    "A little later. I'm too tired now."

    "The dogs!" Said muttered, tenderly caressing her leg.

    "The fabric for the uniform," Nur said, pointing to a parcel on the other sofa. He made a gesture with his hand affectionately and in gratitude.

    "I can't look very attractive for you tonight," she said almost apologetically.

    "It's not your fault. Just wash your face and get some sleep."

Analysis:

In this excerpt from Chapter Eleven of the novel 'The Thief and the Dogs,' Saids internal conflict reaches a changing point. In the majority of the novel, Said Mahran, the protagonist, experiences inner desires of revenge since his release from prison. This attitude of immense anger is shown towards many characters in the story, through internal and external conflicts, sometimes leading to murder. This is what leads home to his downfall at the end of his story.

Here, however, another side of Said is revealed. Said finds Nur outside the cafe, badly hurt. In reaction to this, he demonstrates a feeling of sorrow. There is a degree of pathos shared here, as the sight of Nur crying made Said feel 'deeply moved.' "Said was touched." More proof of his rare sense of affection in this excerpt is in his hand gestures, described through third person narration. "He made a gesture with his hand affectionately and in gratitude." 

The theme of love is  covered in this chapter. When Said finds that Nur is badly hurt, he begins to feel passion for her, as it is indicated that Said “wanted to caress her.” While Said has expressed sympathy for Nur before, this is the first time that Said has felt an emotional urge to comfort and console her. 

This is clear evidence of Said leaning more towards a feeling of affection and love, demonstrating a rapid change in his personality. Through this, Mahfouz is able to further characterise Said, while adding more complexity to his character, and perhaps getting rid of any preconceptions made of Saids ruthless character by the reader, based on the events leading up to this passage. 

Here, there is no incidence of internal monologue, direct or indirect, but his change in personality is clearly depicted through third person narration, as his feelings of affection and care for Nur are effectively described to the reader. 

Overall, the main purpose of this extract is to develop the theme of love as an internal quality of Said, and also the characterise him in this excerpt as a complex character, as more than an agrivated character, but one with an affectionate nature.

Stream of Consciousness

In literature, stream of consciousness is a relatively intimate and revealing form of narration. Also referred to as internal monologue, it is a form of narration that provides insight into the thought process of a character, and this can reveal a lot about the characters personality and emotional state. Internal monologue can be either direct, which are, quite literally, the actual thoughts of a character being spoken out loud, or indirect, where these thoughts are rather narrated to the reader. 

Naguib Mahfouz, in his iconic novel 'The Thief and the Dogs,' decides to incorporate this style of narration. In the spectrum of Arabic literature, it is the first novel to have consisted of internal monologues, as all works prior to it, including those of Mahfouz himself, were written in a realistic style. However, in his novel, Mahfouz is able to combine the sense of realism and stream of consciousness in the novel, and bring the reader in close proximity with the protagonist, Said Mahran, and his thoughts, intellect, and emotional state. The narrative technique seems to decrease the distance between the character and the reader, just as Mahfouz would have intended to achieve.

In the novel, Said is released from prison, with a burning passion to seek revenge. It is this mind set that brings him closer to his own downfall and self destruction. This is particularly obvious to the reader, as his journey to self destruction is revealed through his thoughts of hatred and volatile emotions. Slowly, he loses his own self control. Because the reader is often given direct insight into Saids mind, the reader is able to empathise with him, as the style of narration creates a more intimate literary relationship between Said and the reader. At the same time, however, the reader would begin to question Saids sanity, as his thoughts become more irrational with the progression of the novel.

In addition to revealing the internal struggles of the main character, Mahfouz may also have intended to reveal the external struggles of Said through his use of stream of consciousness in the novel. The thoughts in Saids mind could be seen by Mahfouz as a method of social commentary of the Egyptian revolution, which is where his combination of stream of consciousness and realism is particularly evident. This is where his genius comes into play, as through Saids mindset, Mahfouz is able to share his own political view point, and his dissatisfaction with the outcomes of the revolution. This is how Mahfouz manages to use stream of consciousness to highlight external struggles, in addition to those with are internal.

The use of internal monologue does carry several disadvantages. Two in particular are the decay of character and the death of the plot. The death of the plot refers to the absence of a chronological series of events. Most events are recalled directly from Saids mind through occasional flashbacks. This is much like the first half of 'Things Fall Apart,' where there is no linear plot, but an abundance of flashbacks of past events in the mind of the protagonist. Because of this, there is not true unity between space and time, and more focus is on the psyche of the character than on the development of a linear plot. Another in the decay of the character. In previous novels, the habits, physical appearance, and manners of the characters were clearly depicted. This is not the case for The Thief and the Dogs. With this technique, all focus is on the subconscious or unconscious mind of the character, and modern authors, such as Mahfouz, chose to create an internal war in the characters mind. In this way, the character begins to decay.

Despite the downsides, Mahfouz is successfully able to reach the objectives of his use of stream of consciousness in his novel, which is to emphasise on the internal and external struggles of Said, and to provide direct and indirect insight into the mindset of the character, and the reader can follow along with Said to his own mental self destruction. 

Value in Translation

Studying texts in translation opens a new window of understanding, and it provides multiple advantages in the study of literature, particularly in relation to the learning outcomes of Part 3 of the course. Texts that are translated from some other foreign language provides insight into their context. Beliefs and values may differ depending on the culture in which the text originates, and this may come through in its translation. What may also give insight into the context of a translated work are the ideals that are shared through it. It can tell us a lot about the authors views and the political conditions surrounding the writing of the original novel. Such is the case with the Thief and the Dogs by Naguib Mahfouz, as the translated text gives the reader a view on the political standpoint of Mahfouz, and his dissatisfaction with the outcomes of the Egyptian revolution, through the characterisation of Said, the main character of the novel. These are just a few advantages in the study of translated texts.

The main argument against the translating of texts is the loss in its meaning. Often, the original language his high degrees of meaning embedded within it that no other language can accurately replicate. With a loss of meaning comes of loss of authenticity, which is a disadvantage.

However, in the article titled 'Why won't English Speakers read books in translation?' which we discussed in class, the author Hephzibah Anderson argues that translated texts should be encouraged. She begins be stating that only 2-3% of English publishers output consists of texts in translation, and follows by statistically proving that translated texts are successful. But she ends it by arguing that to increase the output of texts in translation is to "preserve the variety and pungent authenticity that local fiction encapsulates." That is the ultimate advantage. 

 

The Perfect Paper #1

The given text is a piece of British propaganda from the year 1914, by the British Pacifist Norman Angell. The title of the piece is ‘Why Fight For Russia?,’ and given the year of publication, we are assured that the text is concerned with the approaching tragedies of the Great War. Britain, along with Russia and France, fought together on the warfront to form the Triple Entente, but the text highlights the key reasons that Russia should rather be considered an enemy, based on a negative history with the British. Through this text, the author hopes to express the ideology that Russia is the enemy alongside which Britain should not fight, and hopes to persuade the audience of this ideology through the use of style and structure, in addition to the tone and mood of the piece.

The targeted audience in the text are majorly the middle working class of Britain. Proof of this is seen throughout, as the text seems to address political and social issues, that the particular audience would tend to concern themselves with. Significant evidence can be identified from the final five lines of the text. “Get your local notables to hold meetings…” (Line 36) This line suggests that the text reaches out to an audience with a significant amount of authority in their fields, or those who have the power or capability of making a significant change. Namely: the middle working class. The overall purpose of the text is to express the ideology of Russia being the enemy. As stated in bold text: “A War for Russia is a War against civilisation.”the British attitude towards autocracy is made clear its desired expression. The text also wishes to persuade the audience of this ideology, through facts and the appeal to pathos, among other techniques which will be discussed later. This sheds light on the possible desires of the target audience that hope to be satisfied, such as those of the audience that already oppose the Russians, and whose desires are therefore fed through this piece of propaganda. 

The text begins with a rhetorical question as its title, already implying that fighting alongside should is a questionable matter. In the main body of the text below the title, the ideology develops as it begins to describe Russia through a lens of total rejection. This is supported by an abundance of factual information that is used to justify the negative claims made against Russia, as well as multiple appeals to pathos. This hopes to fuel disagreement within the viewers minds. Following this section are the words: “BRITAIN, STAND CLEAR!” This is considered to be the climax of the piece, the section noticed first by viewers. These words would seem to drive the public opinion away from Russian support during the war. Following that climactic statement, comes the final section of the text. This is considered to be the resolute call to action, where the text asks the audience to act upon all that they have been given to think about and muse on. The main themes lie within the actual ideology hoped to be effectively expressed, which, as stated previously, suggests that Russia is the enemy, and that “a war for Russia is a war against civilisation.”

The tone is significant in this particular text. Firstly, multiple statistics are given to justify any claims made against Russia. All of these statistics seek to shine a negative light on Russia. An example is given in the third paragraph. “...we spent £50,000,000 in the Crimea.” This is one of the many examples of statistics used through negative incentive. It portrays the downsides of Russia's history with Britain. Furthermore, the use of specific words and phrases can instil negativity in the minds of the audience. An example lies on line 16: “Russia is...the greatest enemy of British ideas.” The statement is as extreme as to accuse Russia of being the greatest of all enemies, even greater of an enemy than Germany, or any opposition in the war. This further enhances the mood, as it fuels anger and disagreement towards Russia within the viewers. This leans them more towards accepting the ideology expressed, thus achieving the overall purpose of the text.

Lastly, a collection of literary devices, in addition to the structure of the text, contribute greatly to the purpose of the piece of propaganda. First to take note of is the appeal to pathos, already briefly mentioned and discussed. In the heart of the text, the utter negativity of Russia's history with Britain is all but overly emphasised. Evidence of an appeal to pathos lies in paragraph 6 in a line used before. “The greatest enemy of British ideas of liberty and justice, the most opposed to all that we value in western civilisation.” Again, the use of the words “greatest” and “most” portrays Russia to be at the extreme end of the spectrum of negativity. Furthermore, emphasis should be put on the use of plural personal pronouns throughout the text. The use of “we” and “our,” in addition to the choice of words, more effectively draws out an emotional response, which will lead to a more guaranteed response to the call to action. This overall is a strong appeal to pathos, and thus effectively fuels the British public's opposing thoughts of Russia as a whole. Typical of propaganda, the text also consists of name-calling of the Russian people. In particular is line 23. “140 million Russians, the slaves of a corrupt autocracy. Considering that Britain at the time was very much against the political ideals of Russia and autocracy itself, this would again fuel disagreement, anger and opposition in the minds of the audience as individuals, thus achieving the purpose effectively once more. Also to note is the sheer a,punt of times that Russia is mentioned. In fact, Russia is mentioned in every one of the first 6 paragraphs, most of which following the sentence structure: “Russia is…” This is normally followed by statistics that shines negative light on them. This keeps the desired focus on Russia, which is very effective in response to the question “What is Russia?” in line 4. 

The structure also strongly supports the purpose. Any given person viewing the piece of propaganda from afar would see two lines stand out more boldly and clearly than any others. Naturally, these two lines should summarise the main content or idea of the text without any required use of factual information, and it certainly does in this case. “Why Fight for Russia?” “Britain, stand clear!” Upon drawing the viewer's attention through the use of these two lines, both bolded, capitalised, and increased in size relative to the rest of the text, they are greeted with factual justification of the broader, bolder statements. This effectively persuades the audience to accept the expressed ideology. The structural layout of the text also expresses the main points in a clear, concise, and easily understandable way, as even singular sentence are given their own paragraph. This makes the information stand out more clearly, and it allows the audience to take in the information more easily. 

In conclusion, the British truly did hope to express the ideology in the piece of propaganda that Russia should be rejected as an ally in the war, as they are a true enemy of Britain. To support and justify this statement, the given text has been analysed for evidence of the contribution of tone, mood, literary devices, and structure to achieving the main purpose of the text, which is to express and convince the British middle working class of the main ideology. 

Prompt #1 Response

The article from the Guardian about the rescue of Jessica Lynch further developed my opinion regarding the prompt: "Deception is just as bad as telling an outright lie." Initially, I strongly disagreed. Our justification as a group was that deception is almost always much worse than a outright lie. This is because a lie could be told to benefit another person in any given situation, where deception is often a result of bad or evil intentions, with the hope of hurting someone. After reading this article, I realised that the twisting of the original story by American media was also a for of deception. The deceived the public. However, this was not through malicious intent. They did so to instil confidence and pride in the hearts of the American people. Although this could heavily be considered to be propaganda, it does not encourage any negativity, and this idea goes against the ground I stood on initially. After the read, I lean more towards disagreeing with the prompt instead of strongly doing so, as I now have evidence of a case in which deception is not a result of malicious intent. 

This was further emphasised by the documentary on the war in Iraq, and how the Arabic news broadcaster Al Jazeera seemed to portray the war to their audience. In the documentary, Al Jazeera were referred to as both "American propaganda" and "the mouthpiece of Osama Bin Laden." Also mentioned in the documentary was The American broadcasters, and how they seem to reveal a different side of the story. This was suggested by John Rushing. Both broadcasters have different audiences, and the information provided depends on the audience. As a result, information can be twisted, and bias can be created in favour of supporting the ideologies of the audience being reached out to. This further supports my claim, that deception, like in this case, could be for the better of the audience. The Americans gain confidence in their troops, as they are portrayed as exceedingly heroic in Baghdad. However, the Arabs are given a different perspective, supporting their ideology of Americans taking over and causing high rates of attrition. Both ideologies are supported by news broadcasters through deception. 

Media Bias

Rationale:

The original article is from the Wall Street Journal, which supports the idea of ISIS being responsible for bringing down the Russian jet liner last weekend. The article further supports the ideology that ISIS will become a worldwide threat if not defeated. The rewriting of the article supports the opposite ideology, that ISIS did not "down" the aircraft, as they don't have the capabilities to do so and are not at all a worldwide threat. The original article and my rewritten version support two contradictory ideas, but both use evidence to support it.

Original article URL: 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-terror-warning-in-sinai-1446854602

New article:

ISIS NOT responsible for "downing" Russian passenger jet

Cockpit of the Russian passenger jet prior to take-off.

It may be some time before investigators in Egypt can likely deny claims by Islamic State (ISIS) that it is responsible for the “downing” last weekend of a Russian passenger jet over the Sinai peninsula. Russian commercial carriers have a notorious safety record, and it’s too soon to rule out that a structural or mechanical failure caused the plane to break apart in the sky, killing 224 passengers and crew.

The wife of the co-pilot of the Russian plane that crashed in Egypt says her husband had complained about the plane's condition, according to a Russian TV channel.

State-controlled NTV ran an interview Saturday with Natalya Trukhacheva, who was identified as the wife of co-pilot Sergei Trukachev. She said that a daughter "called him up before he flew out. He complained before the flight that the technical condition of the aircraft left much to be desired." Technical issues could still be a major factor.

As far as ISIS is concerned, The Islamic State group seems to claim responsibility for bringing down the Russian Metrojet plane in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula — but it has have offered no evidence and is not known to have the capability to do so.

Militants in northern Sinai have not to date shot down any commercial airliners or fighter jets but there have been media reports that they have acquired Russian shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft missiles. These missiles, however, are only effective against low-flying aircraft or helicopters.

Outrage at the tactics of ISIS is certainly justified, but fears that it presents a worldwide security threat are not. Its numbers are small. They work by threatening, but not by carrying out those threats. They seek attention. In February President Obama was asked by the Vox website whether “the media sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism.” “Absolutely,” he replied, adding that level of attention given to terrorism is “all about ratings.” The solution is not to give them attention.