Thesis Statement

Through the eyes of a tragic hero, Mahfouz exemplifies Said’s drive for revenge using the stream of consciousness technique, thereby displaying us the biased nature of humanity in general. 

The Thief and the Dogs

Thief and the Dogs is a very fast paced novel, especially in the way it was written. Throughout the book there are abrupt shifts in narration between third person and the thoughts of the main character, Said. Being able to be so connected to a character, is another way of writing called Stream of Consciousness. It is a concept in writing that allows the reader to be so in tune with the character, that the reader is fully invested in the character’s life and how they view the world. This is a very prominent concept in the novel “The Thief and the Dogs” because of the direct link between Said and the reader.

The thing that I found most interesting about this novel was that although I felt a connection to Said, near the end I felt distanced. This, one could say was due to the Stream of Consciousness, because as the novel progresses it is hard not to question Said’s sanity. In addition, throughout the extension of the novel I started to move further and further away from Said, and became to be more aware of how his mind works, and if his fueled revenge and bottled up anger are really the right direction that Said should take. Overall, a very complex, yet interesting way of writing a novel, but I believe Mahfouz did it justice, giving a different outlook on a controversial topic.

When the reader is able to understand all the complexities of the narration and begin to question the mind of the protagonist, they begin to understand why the author chose to write the novel the way he did. In the novel a lot of Said’s internal struggle was drawn out of his external experiences. For instance: when his best friend and wife betray him, he is fueled with a lot of anger internally. The reason this idea of external implications to one’s internal struggle is important to the plot of the novel is because the same can be said about the author, and Said’s hardship could be debated as to being a parallel to Mahfouz’s reality.

Being able to grasp this concept it becomes clear in the reader’s mind as to why Mahfouz chose to write the novel the way that he did, and it was because of the post-revolutionary censorship that constricted Mahfouz’s writing. Therefore, Mahfouz had to find a way to explain the corruptness of his country without being caught through “The Thief and the Dogs”, but more explicitly through Said’s thoughts about the world he lived in. This in turn, I believe, is another reason why the author took the reader on a journey from viewing Said as a sane character to a more corrupt one. And the reason I, as a reader, began to feel distanced from the protagonist through the use of Stream of Consciousness; because it became clear to me that Mahfouz used Said and his fictional life in a way to depict his own cultural adversities that led to his own internal struggle that took place in his country at the time.

            Lastly, although Stream of Consciousness does have a lot of advantages and does play a crucial role in the development of the plot in this novel, there are limitations to the technique as well. When an author decides to use this technique it is very easy to continue the plot but keep the characters thoughts linear, which is incorrect because the beauty in writing with this technique is the realism of it. But humans do not think linearly, we think in a jumbled fashion, not one thought at a time. Thus, using stream of consciousness the author has to be aware of more than one thought at time to keep the complex realism of it, or else the main purpose of the technique is gone, and the reader begins to lose interest. Another obvious disadvantage in using this way of writing is that the readers are only subject to one character’s thoughts at all times and are not able to make their own judgements on situations themselves, but are forced to have the same opinion as that character because it is the only option available to them.  

            In conclusion, Mahfouz was able to create a controversial novel at a very difficult time, using an extremely complex style whilst still maintaining to keep the interest of the reader. 

Word Count: 733

Literature in Translation

When one translates a literary text one is creating a connection between the languages it was written and the language it is translated into. Thus creating a link between the language’s ideas, beliefs, and traditions. Being a translator is more difficult than just translating words into words, because they have to understand specific idioms, proverbs and metaphors and create literal substitutes into the new language. For me personally (being a bilingual speaker of languages) it is easier to understand what I mean by translating is difficult, because often times when I want to translate words that I know from Arabic to English or vice versa, I can never find the exact meaning to fit what I am trying to say. For example: When one uses the word inch’allah in Arabic, they use it in the context of ‘I wish’ or ‘hopefully’, but when it is translated to English the literal meaning means ‘if God wills’. That being said it is easy to understand why translating literature is a very demanding task on anyone, because they not only need to fully know another language they have to understand the way the text is written, the context, the specific way of writing etc. This creative translation involves synthesizing a series of elements, such as rhythm, punctuation, syntax, mood, and meaning (or, in other words, content and form). In conclusion, it is an extremely hard task to be able to translate literature, however it is a very beneficial task considering the people that want to learn about someone else’s culture and history, or just wanting be able to read a specific text in the language they understand. 

Why Fight For Russia?

Norman Angell (Author)

This is a leaflet by British Pacifist, Norman Angell in 1914 as it clearly states on the bottom right hand corner. It is also a leaflet because he is trying to get ‘members’ to partake in persuading the British government to stop them from getting involved in the war. The context as to why it was written was because Britain was just on the brink of a war (the first World War actually), thus seeing as how Norman Angell was a pacifist, he utilised his power in the media to get his ideology across of maintaining peace. Hence, is why he wrote this leaflet; to get his countrymen on the side of peace as well. This text is unique because it shows the evolution of what we know; how things were in the past to what we know them to be now, seeing as how eventually Britain did take part in the war, and actually fought on the same side as Russia. However, there was a time when this was not always the case and this leaflet is a testament to that.

The British public was the target audience for this leaflet and the reason being (as stated before) was to persuade and convince them to take part in his ideology, being a pacifist. An assumption could be made that there were already talks of Britain participating in the war, which is most likely why Normal Angell used his power of being in the media and wrote this leaflet. In addition why he sprung this ‘rebellious’ attitude in fight for peace, and for people to join that ideology.

The tone that is expressed by the author throughout the whole text is somewhat preachy. Starting with his use of diction and how the leaflet is set-up. His diction is very strong but short and brief; allowing his phrases and sentences to stick in the audience’s minds. In addition it was intended that the writing be basic and easy to follow, instead of using excess amounts of jargon. This was so that more people could understand and appreciate the overall message that was trying to be conveyed. For example: ‘Russia is the country to fight which we spent 50,000,000 (P) in the Crimea’. This example displays the strong phrasing, shortness of the sentence and the ‘easy/basic’ language that is used (relating back to his diction). The author also utilises statistics and vocabulary that all link back to the theme of being preachy. This tone leads to the left behind mood on the audience of feeling guilty, because since he is showing a very one-sided ideology people could be blinded to simply what and how he is saying rather than maybe looking at both sides.

There is a wide range of literary devices that were applied throughout the whole leaflet in order to help his argument and ideology. For example: the use of Logos in several places in the text like: “which we spent 50,000,000”. This can be considered logos due to the inclusion of statistics. And leaves the impact on the audience of just seeing a better well-rounded argument, and a more convincing one at that. In addition it sets the situation in the perspective that the author intended it, leaving a sense of shock in the reader’s minds. As well as the use of Pathos “Russia is the country to fight which we spent 50,000,000 in the Crimea. This is pathos since it is appealing to emotions and making the British feel bad for the Russian people. It basically pulls on the people’s heart strings, feeling for their country’s troubles. In addition Ethos as well, considering that Leaflet is written by a British Pacifist, which allows the audience (British people) to feel the reliability of what is being said in the text, and believing it.

In conclusion this leaflet by Norman Angel before the start of the first World War, was used to get new ‘members’ to join his ideology of pacifism. This was explained by how he used literary devices such as ethos, pathos, and logos to target the British public to join his movement of peace. In 1914. 

It is acceptable for a government to try to shape public opinion through information campaigns.

Firstly, public opinion is defined as a “citizens’ view on politics and government actions”. In the case of the documentary we watched in class yesterday (Control Room), I disagree with the statement that ‘It is acceptable for a government to try to shape public opinion through information campaigns.’, because the people of their nations have a right to know what’s going on in the world around them and what they are involved in. To fabricate lies like the Jessica Lynch example of her being a heroine, is a blatant lie and I believe it not only morally wrong to show the Iraqi state in a certain light, but it is morally wrong for the civilians of the United States as well.

               In addition for news stations of the United States and the Western world to be fabricating stories of what is ‘going on’ in Iraq, does not have benefit to anyone; because the American civilians are not only assured that everything is ‘under control’, but it builds more hate against their enemies hearing stories like the Pat Tillman case or the Jessica Lynch one as well. Thus it essentially doesn’t promote safety it makes people want the war more.

However in the case of Iraq, by them sharing footage of what happening in their own homeland, they are not only just telling them that this is what’s happening today but also warning their people about the situation. I feel like they should tell people what’s happening and let them decide what they want to do. As in nothing should be left hidden from the public, because they deserve to know what their country is involved in, in all cases not just this one.

Therefore, I do disagree however I do not strongly disagree, because in certain situations I believe it is okay to try and sway public opinion. For example: an election campaign, the candidates do have the right to be bias and try to get votes from their people. There is a flip-side to this though that correlates to what I was saying about the war because if there is a campaign the public should know everything about the situation. Because if they don’t that’s when it falls back onto the public negatively because they should have the right to decide for themselves. 

Bias Techniques Used in the Media.

Real Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/international/11WIRE-U2.html 

Title: Iraqi fighter jets pressured and threatened two American planes, making them return and abort the United States of America’s mission.

Someone from the Pentagon stated that the decision to conclude the mission was taken due to the ‘interest of our countrymen’s safety’.

Our planes were flying over Iraqi soil to get to the UN weapons inspections in time. According to two of our men, that’s when the Iraqi fighter jets threatened our soldiers.

The problem with this act put on by the opposition is that, usually, a lot of flights are permitted to fly over countries under a UN Security Council rule. Thus, everyone at the UN was saying how shocked they were that this had happened.

The worst part is that the army had told us that they warned Iraqi prior to their launch that they were going to be flying over Iraqi soil.

This threat is not only a threat against the US, but is a testament to the weak relationship that Iraq has with the UN.

The two American planes were already in the air and approved by the UN council and was a unanimous vote, the US official said.

 However Iraq “had to start a problem with USA”, the official stated and the two planes were recalled back. America is complying and staying level-headed as always checking with the UN before recommencing the flights again.

Everyone in the UN backed America up as Iraq had no justification for what they had done obviously. This backup of the US was for a new resolution to use force against Iraq as a last resort.

These flights were going to investigate whether Saddam Hussein is storing chemical and biological weapons to use against the US in terrorist attacks.

 Furthermore, ideally our nation’s men should be allowed to do their duty. And people trying to stop and restrict that are just causing more issues for the patriots fighting for our country. We should not let this go on. God Bless the United States of America.  

Family Furnishings Practice IOC

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5FDZWglXyzgQzFyYnhhY1AyWU0