Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Kamilla Khabibrakhmanova

Groupe M3

Fiche de Lecture

Méthodologie

Michel Bondurand

Patrick Modiano est un écrivain qui est connu pour ses œuvres en premier personne, écrites comme une biographie. Ses livres sont a but la quête pour une identité personnelle des les caractères principaux. La narration est comme un œuvre detectif, mais il n’y a pas un crime, justement le mystère de la vie du narrateur qui cherche la clé pendant l’histoire du roman. Avec « Un Pedigree », Patrick Modiano continue cette tradition dans ses œuvres. La seule distinction dans ce roman est qu’il n y a pas une caractère fictionnelle, dans ce livre le caractère qui cherche sa identité est Patrick Modiano, lui-même. Donc ce très intéressant de voir la quest. Personnelle de l’auteur est ça va être très intéressant pour mieux comprendre les autres ouvres de l’auteur. L’autre thème des romans de Modiano c’est le desordre dans la société. Est dans « Un Pedigree », ce thème est toujours pressente. Il parle beaucoup des personnages dans la société qui était dans la vie d’auteur, et toutes les choses bizarres que la vie a fait avec ils.

Le roman a deux grandes parties : la vie de les parents de Patrick Modiano avant son naissante, et la vie de Patrick Modiano lui-même. Quand on parle de la vie de ses parents, on voient pourqoui a developé cet obsession avec l’indenté et le désordre dans la société. Son père était un juif pendant la deuxième guerre mondiale. Alors, il s’est cache pendant beaucoup des années de sa vie. Pour un enfant, cet une chose difficile de comprendre : son père n’a pas fais mal chose, mais il est regardé comme un criminel juste a cause de son ethnicité, une chose qu’in ne peut pas choisir. Et sa mère n’était pas une mère « normale » du tout. Pendant sa vie, elle essaye d'être une grande actrice, mais elle ne gagne que quelques petits rôles et pendant toute sa vie, elle n’a pas assez d’argent et doit chercher des autres personnes qui peuvent l’aider. Avec ces parents et la situation historique, Patrick Modiano ne pouvait que grandir avec la confusion de la vie, personnelle et dans la société

Pendant tout le roman, la narration n’est pas du tout très personnelle. Modiano ne parle pas de ses émotions ou les émotions Dans tout le roman il y a un obsession avec les nommes et les dates qui figurent dans la vie de Patrick et ses parents. Il parait que le garçon pense que s’il trouve toutes les nommes et dates et places important, on pourra mettre son enfance et sa vie en ordre. Ce livre n’est pas comme un histoire ou un roman du toute-ces comme les notes organisent par quelqu’un. Nous ne pouvons pas reconnaître toutes les personnages dont l’auteur parle-sa veut dire que ce roman n’est pas écrit pour nous. Se seulement pour l’écrivain lui-même. Donc, on doit se poser le question : Pourquoi est-ce que Patrick Modiano a publié ce « roman » ?

En regardant le roman comme un grande oeuvre, pas avec les détails, on voit qu’il y a des messages importants pour les personnes qui ne comprennent pas leur vie ou la société Patrick Modiano avait un enfance tres difficie-il n’y a pas des vraies parents, il a fait son education dans les ecoles gouvernementales, sa mère ne s’occupe pas beacoup avec son fils et quand il a grandis elle l’utiliser pour l’argent qu’on pourrait lui apporter. Avec ces expériences, il n’est pas étonnant que Patrick Modiano avait de confusion de son identité et la société où il a grandit. Mais quand il a placer les nommes, les places, le dates dans un ordre, on voit que toute sa n’était pas sa faute. Comme son père n’a pas choisit être né comme on juif, Patrick Modiano n’a pas choisi ses parents difficiles. Il y avait beaucoup des désavantages, mais comme même il a crée une bonne vie pour lui-même : il devait un grande écrivain qui toutes les françaises adorent aujourd’hui. Enfin, ce roman est important en montrant que tout le désordre dans nos vies et la société ne peut pas nous arrêter dans nos ambitions.

Courbet : fondateur du peinture moderne

Jusqu’à la deuxième moitie du XIX s, le but primaire des artistes des tous gendres de peinture était de montrer la beauté et la perfection. Pour les peintres néoclassiques, c’était l’idéal de l’antiquité, pour les peintres du romantisme c’était plus une idéal des formes du monde réel, pour les paysagistes c’était la beauté de la nature. Aucun peintre ne montrait les aspects réels qui montrent un monde de laideur, de suffrage, ou de pauvreté. Avec la technique très avancée, ils ont montré le monde autour de lui dans un style très réel, mais ce qu’on montrait n’était tout la réalité de la vie dans cette époque. C’était Jean Désiré Gustave Courbet qui a changé ce culte de la perfection irréel de l’Académie française. Il a bouleversé les règles de peinture avec ses sujets qui étaient représenté dans la peinture pour la première fois : les paysans dans leur formes non idéalisés, les femmes qui montrent leur pouvoir et puissance sexuelle plus que l’idéal de beauté féminin.

Avec sa proclamation d’un nouveau style de faire la peinture, Courbet s’est différencié des autres peintres de son temps. Nous allons voire comment ses peintures controverses lui donne le statut d’une des premières peintres modernes. Pour ce prouver, nous discuterons trois tableaux de Courbet, en trois genres différents. La première sera est une autoportrait, Portrait de l’artiste, dit Le Désespéré, réalisé en 1844-45 (Image 1). Le deuxième tableau que nous regardions est une peinture d’histoire, Un Enterrement à Ornans, réalisé en 1849-1850 (Image 2). Et pour la troisième, nous regardions une représentation d’une nue féminine, L’origine du monde, réalisé en 1866 (Image 3). Avec chaque tableau, nous verrons les aspects nouveaux que Courbet a introduit, et qui, en somme, lui fait un innovateur dans le monde artistique, un vrai peintre moderne en avance de son temps.

Jean Désiré Gustave Courbet est né en 1819 à Ornans, d’une famille des paysans riches. Sa famille voudrait qu’il fait des études en droit, mais il a décidé de s’installer à Paris et a travaille pour quelques temps dans l’atelier de Steuben et Hesse. Mais son esprit individuel a fait son appel et il a quitté pour développer un style individuel, influencé par des peintres Espagnoles, Flamandes et Françaises. Il s’est formé en faire de copies de leurs peintures. En 1847, il a fait un voyage au Pays-Bas, ou les peintures de Rembrandt et Hals lui ont influencé de travailler dans un style de réalisme.

Dans la première moitie de sa carrière, Courbet a fait beaucoup des autoportraits différents, que lui a donné une mauvaise réputation comme un narcissiste. Ces n’étaient pas du tout des autoportraits en forme traditionnel, comme l’Autoportrait de David de 1794 ou Portrait de l’artiste de Delacroix de 1837. La, l’artiste se presente en forme très composée, avec un regard sérieuse. Courbet s’a mis dans des scènes intéressants, comme un foret, avec des positions assez intéressantes : une homme blessé, un homme désespéré, ou comme un modèle dans ces paysages. Il fait des différentes expressions avec son visage qu’on n’a vu avant dans les autoportraits. Dans Portrait de l’artiste, dit Le Désespéré, on voit, en gros plan, le visage de Courbet avec une expression très désespéré. Il y a des yeux hagard, et il renvoie ses cheveux vers l’arrière pour montre mieux son désespoir.

On voit l’influence de Rembrandt dans cet autoportrait. L’expression de Courbet est très similaire à celle de Rembrandt dans son Autoportrait aux yeux hagards, un dessin réalisé en 1630 (Image 4).[1] L’artiste a fait des nombreux autoportraits inspirés par des tableaux des artistes qu’il admirait. C’était une nouvelle façon de faire des travails qui en même temps lui permettaient d’étudier les tableaux d’autres peintres et de faire une travaille d’un autoportrait. Avec ces autoportraits, Courbet a bouleverser les règles de portrait et autoportrait et a presque inventé un nouvelle genre de peinture. Peut être ils son vraiment un peut narcissistes, mais c’est sur qu’ils sont beaucoup plus intéressants que celles de David et Delacroix.

Quand il a retourné, il a commencé de faire des peintures dans un style nouveau pour France. Aujourd’hui, il est considéré le fondateur du mouvement Réaliste. Pour lui, le réalisme ne consistait pas de la perfection des lignes et de formes, mais d’une peinture spontanée et ébauchée, qui suggérait une observation directe de l’artiste de son sujet. Dans ce style on doit montrer les irrégularités de la nature, pas les sacrifier pour une belle peinture. Il voudrait réaliser des œuvres qui montrent les difficultés de la vie, la situation réelle de paysans. C’était en opposition avec la peinture populaire du siècle, celle de l’Académie. La, on voyait la vie des paysans idéalisé, comme avec les peintures du Jean-François Millet. Pendant sa vie, il était critiqué comme le fondateur d’un culte de laideur. Mais aujourd’hui, le publique et les critiques d’art apprécient le vrai réalisme de ces œuvres.

Une de ses plus grandes chef-d’œuvres est Un Enterrement à Ornans, réalisé en 1849-1850. C’est un tableau très large, des dimensions 314 x 663 cm. C’est une œuvre de huile sur toile, conservé aujourd’hui au Musée de Louvre. Dans cette peinture, on voit la scène de l’enterrement de son oncle, auquel Courbet a assisté en Septembre 1848. Il a utilisé les vrai personnes, les membres de sa famille et les amis de son oncle, qui sont présentés comme les modèles de ce peinture. C’était un vrai rejet de la tradition du procès traditionnel de réaliser des peintures d’histoire. Dans cette époque, les peintres utilisaient des modèles professionnels pour toutes peintures d’histoire. Ici, Courbet a fait la représentation réelle de ce qu’on a vu et de la vie à Ornans. On voit des vielles dames dans leur vêtements noires et sombres, les hommes sérieuses, les petits garçons qui aident le prêtre. Tous les personnages sont représentés avec leur vraie apparence et émotions, il n’y a aucune idéalisation de la beauté de l’homme. Et au dessus de tout, on voit la croix avec Jésus Christ. L’homme n’a plus de puissance dans cette peinture : c’est Dieu qui décide la duré de nos vis.

L’œuvre a fait des scandales entre la publique. On voit une scène quotidienne des personnages trop ordinaires, dans un tableau grandiose qui évoque la grandeur de Le Sacré de Napoléon de David. Mais ici, le sujet n’est pas un roi ou un héro d’histoire : c’est seulement son oncle qui est mort et les habitant d’une petit village. Dans cette époque, la publique n’était pas intéresse de voir cette aspect de la vie ordinaire dans le monde d’art. L’oeuvre était exposée dans le Salon de 1850, et après ça, on n’a fait plus sans Courbet. Il occupait pratiquement chaque Salon avec des tableaux qui faisaient des débats, des événements et des scandales. Chaque année, Courbet trouvait une nouvelle méthode d’étonner le publique et bouleverser le monde d’art.

La peinture la plus scandaleuse de Courbet est beaucoup plus petite, mais son impact au monde artistique est inestimable. C’est L’Origine du Monde, un petit tableau commandé par un ambassadeur Turque qui habitait à Paris, réalisé en 1866. C’était la culmination pour Courbet d’une série des représentations des femmes qui étaient de plus en plus érotiques et sexuelles. Courbet a dit qu’il va représenter une femme, mais dans cette tableau il représente juste une partie de corps d’une femme : son sexe. En fait, ici, on ne représente pas le sexe d’une femme, mais LE sexe de LA femme, de toutes les femmes, amantes et mères incluses.[2] Le tableau est présenté maintenant comme une sorte de proclamation de liberté de Courbet, d’une liberté des contraints sociale, morale et religieuse de son époque. Ce n’est pas la première fois que Courbet a défi les règles de son époque, mais c’est la manière la plus étonnant.

Avec cette œuvre, Courbet a traversé le réalisme des représentations de corps humain avec l’ouverture d’un nouveau style de faire les nues féminines. Pendant l’histoire de l’art jusqu’à ces temps, on a vu très souvent les représentations des nus masculins complets de leur sexe. Mais avec les femmes, c’était beaucoup plus différent. On voit des nues féminines avec des formes idéalisées, pas réalistes du tout. Et leur sexe n’est pas représenté, oû il est caché. La femme et plutôt affublée d’une feuille de vigne, du drapé opportun d’un tissu, d’une main judicieusement posée ou de tout autre artifice plus ou moins vraisemblable avec un souci omniprésent de gommer toute trace de pilosité.[3] Avec son œuvre explicite, Courbet a réparé cette absence du sexe féminine dans l’art pendant les siècles avant sa carrière.

Ce tableau représente une sorte de voyeurisme, un aspect d’art que les peintres modernes comme Manet vont développer après Courbet. On voit une peinture d’une scène que personne n’a pu voire avant. En fait, ce tableau était une commande pour Courbet d’un diplomate Turque, Khalil Bey. Il l’a gardé dans son chambre, au derrière d’une vert couverture. C’était une œuvre pour les plaisirs privées d’un homme et ses visiteurs et amis. L’œuvre était caché pendant des années dans les maisons des différents collecteurs privés. Maintenant, elle se trouve dans le Musée d’Orsay, ou chaque personne peur apprécier cette représentation graphique d’une partie de femme qui, pour la plupart des temps, est caché aux hommes. D’abord, c’était pour le plaisir voyeuriste de seulement un homme, mais maintenant, cette peinture satisfait la curiosité vers le corps féminine pour tout le monde. L’aspect de plaisir voyeuriste est renversé psychologiquement par l’absence du visage ou du plupart de reste de corps de la femme. Ça reste à l’imagination de spectateur de faire un complet image de la femme.[4] Chacun pense à celle qu’on veut, donc pour chaque spectateur, c’est la représentation de la partie la plus intime de la femme idéale.

Mais en même temps, ce n’est pas une œuvre du tout vulgaire. Aujourd’hui, on pense des représentations du sexe féminin qu’on peut voire facilement avec les photographies pornographiques. Mais cela n’est pas une photographe glanée dans un magazine, donc on ne pense pas de vulgaire ou du pornographie en voyant ce tableau. C’est un chef d’œuvre des Beaux-Arts, controversé, mais qui va rester dans le monde artistique.[5]

Avec ces trois œuvres, nous voyons comment Courbet a transgressé les règles traditionnelles de chaque genre de peinture avec lequel il a travaillé. Avec ses sujets nouvelles et controverses, il a ouvert la porte pour la génération suivante de faire des expérimentations dans leur technique et les sujets de leur travailles. On voit l’influence de Courbet dans le voyeurisme de Manet, qui est considéré par beaucoup de monde comme le vrai fondateur de la peinture moderne. Mais sans Courbet, on n’aurait pas les peintures de Monet. Courbet est allé plus loin que Manet avec son tableau l’Origine du Monde, dans une époque qui était plus traditionnelle est fermé aux nouvelles idées. Courbet a travaillé avec l’Académie, mais en même temps, il a découvert les possibilités de travailler sans l’Académie avec le marché privé. Il a commencé la révolution contre les normes sociales dans le monde artistique que les peintres suivants vont continuer.



[1] Catalogue d’exposition Gustave Courbet, 41

[2] Savatier, Origine du Monde, 11

[3] Savatier, Origine du Monde, 18

[4] Savatier, Origine du Monde, 21

[5] Savatier, Origine du Monde, 20

The constantly attacked Yacoubian Building by Alaa Al Aswany provides a comprehensive vertical metaphor for Cairo, spanning a period from 1934 down to the not-so-distant past. The independent communities and emblematic characters present an allegory for Cairo that addresses social, political, and religious concerns. The transformations that the building and the characters undergo mirror the changing shape of Cairo. The Yacoubian Building manages to register the “shifting pulse of experience felt by the individual, how the mind and the senses take in the world, construct it, or on occasion are confounded by it”.[1] Each character presents an easily identifiable stereotype that, too a certain extent, may daunt the naturalism of a novel. However, in spite of this stereotypical cast of characters, The Yacoubian Building becomes Cairo at an empirical level.

The composition of the building is the first thing that shapes it into a representative metaphor of Cairo. The cast of characters is associated with one of the two worlds that merge to form the building. The main body of the building forms the first world, occupied by elements of the upper middle class. The roof, meanwhile, is the home of the downtrodden members of society. Although these two worlds are independent, they always interact in a manner that alters destinies. The homosexual Hatim Rashid meets the heterosexual Abduh and lures him into his building. Once there, Hatim uses the space as a theater for the major operation of transforming his victim’s sexuality. This key interaction leads to the installment of Abduh in a room on the roof. Abduh’s life is gradually transformed, culminating in the death of his child. Hatim’s life, as well as the relationship between these two characters, is ended in Hatim’s apartment when Abduh “Grabbed hold of him by the neck and started beating his head with all his might against the wall till he felt the blood spurting hot and sticky over his hands”.[2] This disturbing conclusion is reached by Aswany through a three-stage process. First, the problem is introduced outside of the building, and then becomes part of the framework within. The conflicting parties are then divided according to the building’s structure. The third and last stage is when Aswany ends the interaction in one of the apartments. The ending may be as final as the death of Hatim, or as initiatory as the marriage of Zaki and Busayna. The characters in all the cases where this three-stage process is applied are easily identifiable stereotypes in Egyptian society.

In the case of characters as unique as Taha, however, this formula is not applied. Although Taha is ostensibly a tenant of the roof and a typical example of the disillusioned Egyptian “angry young men”, he is in fact a difficult character to place in either world of the Yacoubian building. Taha “struts and frets his hour upon the stage”[3] of the Yacoubian building, but never emerges to form a concrete connection with the world of the roof, or the world of the inhabitants. His “way to dusty death”[4] is to be found outside the building. His severance from the building is a necessary part of the application of the formula to Busayna’s life. As long as he is tied to her, the interaction between her and Zaki cannot take place in an exclusive manner. He is therefore forced out of both worlds, and becomes disillusioned with humankind. He observes: “Had I been held in Israel…Had I been a traitor to my country, they wouldn’t have done those things to me…What offense could merit that horrible punishment… [Is] the observants of God’s law…a major crime?...Where it not for my faith in God…I would have killed myself to escape.”[5] , and ultimately falls prey to the more welcoming community of Sheikh Sharawi.

Both the rogue Taha and the formulaic couples, with their “dangerous liaisons”, are easily identifiable personas in Cairene societies. To a certain extent, one may give names to the more recognizable characters due to the public exposure they are afforded by the media and societal grapevines. The Big Man can be inferred to be the President of Egypt. Hagg Azzam can be seen as the archetype of the immunity hunting drug lord, of which there are too many to name, all dying to be the partners and tools of the "Big Man". As a representative of the people, Azzam's acceptance of the words of El Fouli that "the Egyptian keeps his head down his whole life long so he can eat,"[6] is a clear indication as to how lowly he thinks of his constituents. The low opinion the Azzam dynasty hold of the populace is echoed by Azzam Jr. later on: "This country is ours, Hamidu. We have a long reach and we have all kinds of ways of dealing with people. Choose the kind you want."[7] Malak and Absakharon are the stereotypical caricature type Copts who gathered information about a fellow Copt and used it as well as their disabilities and natural talents in order to bargain over the price of a room on the roof of the Yacoubian building.[8]

Islamic "malpractice" is even more harshly dealt with than its Coptic counterpart. As Islam is the religion of the majority, the stereotypes are more abundant and we cannot help but laugh sadly in recognition. The shadiest and most "impious" of transactions are shrouded with religious utterances praising, thanking, imploring, or invoking Allah, His wisdom, His grace, His will, and, most hypocritically, his Omnipotence. In the scene where Hagg Azzam arranges to buy himself a seat in the People's Assembly, God is mentioned twelve times and the sinister deal is sealed by reciting the Fatiha.[9] Further down the line, we see Azzam exercising considerable self deceit as he sacrifices animals and donates large sums to charity as a form of thanking God for winning the elections. Given the power brokering that took place earlier, it is clear that Azzam ultimately believes he has more power than God over the election results. It is easy to see this particular kind of charity as a form of deferred payment that strips the entire gesture of any nobility or piety and renders it laughable and stereotypical. Hatim Rasheed delivers another salvo of religious mockery when he attempts to appease Abduh with even more laughable sentiments than those expressed by Azzam and El Fouli: "Our Lord is big and He has true mercy… Our Lord will forgive us."[10] The dark sub-conscious blasphemy of Azzam and Fouli along with the fully conscious and unscrupulous twisted logic variety offered by Rasheed provide the two ends of the spectrum of verbal religious hypocrisy, both taking place inside the building or its immediate environs. This brand of religious malpractice is one that is popular in Cairo and does not go unnoticed even by the most casual observers.

Another brand of religious malpractice is offered by Aswany in the most stereotypical manner possible: Islamic extremism. Here the stereotype gains strength due to its truthfulness and realism. The beards, the chants, the demonstrations, the indoctrinations, the persecutions, the military training, and the killings that result from this type of religious observance, are all carved into the Cairene conception of reality whether we are factually and consciously aware of it or not. The stereotype is also enhanced by its media and literary image to the extent that the all white "uniform" of the Muslim Brotherhood is stigmatized and recognized only as a genre of military fatigues. The Yacoubian building itself does not house this symbolic stereotype, but it does provide the stimuli that make Taha easy prey to the forces of indoctrination. These take the form of his father's occupation as the doorman of the Yacoubian building, as well as the loss of Busayna to pragmatism. The first stimulus renders impossible his dream of becoming a police officer, forcing him to enter Cairo University instead. The loss of Busayna is the knockout that severs his emotional connection with the building, leaving him in search of a new community. He begins to spend more time in the mosque, and is thus practically delivered into the arms of his new "Brothers".

Cairo is a large, imposing, busy, divided, yet whole, mega-city. The same may be said of the Yacoubian building. Both are battlefields where the inhabitants come and go while leaving scratches and scars that write a history. These histories tell compelling stories of lives that start and end in stereotypical ways that strike familiar chords with the readers. The Yacoubian building becomes Cairo in almost every sense, even in the sense that it too was founded by a foreign hand. Most importantly, the Yacoubian building and Cairo are potent storytellers in their own right. Aswany's novel ends theatrically and conveniently, unlike its namesake and the city it symbolizes, with a song that echoes Prospero:

Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
[11]

Such will not be the case with Cairo; here the similarity between metaphor and object ends.



[1] Alter, XI

[2] Al Aswany, Alaa. The Yacoubian Building, 235

[3] Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5

[4] Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5

[5] Al Aswany, Alaa. The Yacoubian Building, 167

[6] Al Aswany, Alaa. The Yacoubian Building, 84

[7] Al Aswany, Alaa. The Yacoubian Building, 195

[8] Al Aswany, Alaa. The Yacoubian Building, 29-31

[9] Al Aswany, Alaa. The Yacoubian Building, 82-85

[10] Al Aswany, Alaa. The Yacoubian Building, 134

[11] Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act IV, Scene I

Characters

Zaki Bey

  • The eldest resident of the building; revolves his life around women

Abaskharon

  • Copt
  • The only one with real street smarts
  • “We must not, however, be fooled into thinking of Abaskharon as no more than an obedient servant, for the truth is that there is much more to him than that and behind his servile, weak exterior lies concealed a strong will, and precise goals that he will fight courageously and obstinately to achieve” pg 25

Malak

  • Abaskharon’s brother; the other Copt-together they’re working to get a room on the roof
  • Stereotypes of Christians in the meeting with Fikri Bey-bargaining over the price (pg. 30)

Aziz

· Owner of Chez Nous; “the Englishman”; imposes order within his bar

Hatim

· Francophone intellectual

· Product of a French mother and famous Egyptian jurist

· Editor-in-chief of a francophone newspaper

Abd Rabbuh

  • Part of the Central Security-separated from the regular people

Busayna-39

  • Unable to keep any job due to her sexuality colliding with morals
  • Eventually agrees to do whatever her boos wants, as long as her virginity is preserved

Mr. Talal

  • Busayna’s boss

Sheikh Hagg Muhammad Azzam-48

  • Even though he is called a Sheikh, there is nothing to revere about what he does later on
  • The millionaire who was able to rise up from the bottom (started as a migrant worker from Sohag)
  • Pg. 195: "This country is ours, Hamidu. We have a long reach and we have all kinds of ways of dealing with people. Choose the kind you want"

Sheikh El Samman

  • Celebrated man of religion and president of the Islamic Charitable Association
  • Distorts religion, as seen in the scene with Souad’s abortion

Souad-55

  • Sheikh Azzam’s second wife
  • Hates him but at the same time is grateful for all that he provides
  • puts on a show for him every time he visits

Taha-56

  • the son of the doorman-unable to accomplish his goals because of this
  • unclear why he wants to be a policeman to begin with

Dawlat-64

  • Zaki Bey’s wife
  • From the upper class; this is her third marriage
  • Bitter and resentful about her lack of accomplishments in life

Hammid Hawas and Ali the Driver 69

Idris 74-Hatim’s childhood Nubian stewart and first lover

Kamal el Fouli -80

  • Power in the form of information
  • Can keep anyone quiet because he has dirt on everyone
  • Controls the elections

Sheikh Shakir

  • Represents religious fundamentalism
  • Able to control a whole crowd of people with his speeches
  • Uses the pre-emptive strike argument that is usually attributed to America
  • Indoctrination in his speeches

Christine Nicholas-107

  • Zaki’s former lover and longtime friend
  • Gives him advice on all his life problems
  • Makes his relationship with Busayna work out

Radwa

  • Taha’s widowed wife
  • A tool used by the leaders to placate Taha

Distortion of Religion:

Sheikh Shakir: pre-emptive strike and dramatic irony: pg. 99

“In God”: pg. 115

Slogans: pg. 141

Hagg Azzim’s campaign against TV and commercials: pg. 146

Hagg Azzam bribes God for his victory: pg. 123

Sheikh el Samman and Abortion: pg. 173

Abduh’s view on religion: pg. 134

The neighbors view of Abduh: pg. 154

Motifs:

Acting/Movies/Illusion:

7: "With its locked stores and old-fashioned, European-style buildings the street seemed dark and empty, as though it were in a sad, romantic, European film."

56: "It was just like that when you watch a film-you get engrossed in it and you react to it, but in the end the lights go back on, you return to reality, you leave the cinema, and the cold air of the street, crowded with cars and passerby, strikes you in the face; everything returns to its normal size and you think of everything that happened as just a movie, just a lot of acting"

37: "With his smart clothes, svelte figure, and fine French features, he would look like a scintillating movie start were it not for the wrinkles that his ritious life has left on his face and that miserable, unpleasant, mysterious, gloomy look that always haunts the faces of homosexuals"

48: "Were it not for his advanced age and the years of hardship that have left their traces to his countenance, Hagg Muhammad Azzam would look like a movie star or a crowned head, with his towering height and imperturbable gravitas, his elegance and his wealth, his face rosy with overflowing good health and his complexion all polished and shiny thanks to the skill of the experts at La Gaite Beauty Center in El Mohandiseen where he goes once a week"

182: "You played the role of the cultured European among the savages. You kept grumbling about Egypt and the Egyptians treating everybody coldly and haughtingly."

193: "The double doors with two round glass portholes looked like those in an operating theater in an Egyptian movie from the forties"

203: beating in the police station; satirical film

243: "You look like a movie star!"

Kamilla Khabibrakhmanova

Dr. Mehrez

October 31, 2007

A Foreigner in Cairo:

Adjusting to Life in the Big City

"I against my brother, I and my brother against my cousin, my brother and our cousin against the neighbors, all of us against the foreigner". This Bedouin proverb holds true for most of Egypt, not just desert tribes. In the literature of Cairo, one sees the same mentality, where survival depends on the ties you are able to forge with those surrounding you. Most people in Cairo are lucky enough to be born with certain ties already in place, such as family and neighbors. All they have to do is maintain these ties and their reputation. A foreigner who moves to Cairo, however, starts from scratch and must find alternate ways to forge links for safety and survival.

This "foreigner in Cairo" experience is explored through the main characters in two works of Cairo writers: Thieves in Retirement by Hamdi Abu Golayyel and “The Siren” by Yusuf Idris. The two main characters are very different: one is a new bride, her head filled with stories of the wonders of Cairo, following her husband as he moves from the village to the city ; the other is a poor Bedouin who leaves his wife and tribe behind to try to provide himself with a better life. Despite their different expectations and experiences, the two characters end up taking very similar steps in their process of adaptation and assimilation into the culture of Cairo.

As in most countries, the rift between villagers and city dwellers in Egypt is great. Villagers have their image of sophisticated, cultured individuals living a life of beauty and ease in the exciting cosmopolitan. What they do not realize is that all Cairo consists of “two distinct physical communities”, “a manifestation of the cultural cleavage” (Abu-Lughod 230). They imagine the rich, European section in Cairo, when in reality those who move there end up in the poorer, “Egyptian” half. When Fathiyya marries Hamid in order to move to Cairo, she dreams of the city whose “splendour and luxury peeled away the deposits left by squalor and abuse and transformed those who lived there into men and women of class”(Idris 104). Her very first impression does nothing to disprove these hopes-she is amazed by the lights, the noise, the number of people outside, the mere spectacle of which makes it seems “as if it were a saint’s day or feast” (106). However, by the second day she realizes that her initial reaction was a bit naïve, in fact Cairo is filled with people “properly poor, and hungry, and beggars; even in their village itself poverty did not exist in such extremes of ugliness” (106). Instead of beginning to resemble a European, “Fathiyya, beautiful in their [her] village, appeared strange in Cairo” (105). Before she can come closer to the Cairo of her imagination, Fathiyya has to learn to adjust to the reality of the city.

Fathiyya’s first reaction after she sees the real Cairo is to draw back in fear. Her withdrawal sounds exactly like that of an animal being plopped into a strange, hostile environment: she “shrinks back” behind the half-open door to their room and observes Cairo from a safe distance. As the city flows by, she is stuck inside, thanks to “chains of her own making” (108). Little by little, Fathiyya is able to unlock the world around her until the entire street is open to her. She quickly learns the importance of information about other tenants-or gossip-in this new place. Her position in this respect is powerful-as the wife of the doorman, she witnesses the entire flow of the building, and can accumulate more information on the tenants than anyone else. She soon begins to take advantage of this, and notices “the scandals and intrigues that took place constantly beneath the respectable affluent surface” (108). As she accumulates more of these secrets and intrigues, she becomes an integral part of the community. The inhabitants start to depend on her as a source of information and, at the same time, realize she has a certain amount of power over them because of what she knows about every one of them.

But Fathiyya is still not really part of the bustle of city life. Instead of swimming in the sea, she is stuck at the edges, either on the surface or on the bottom. When she tries to join Cairo life, she decides that the secret “must lie in learning how to float” (110). So she beginnings floating, letting life take her wherever those surrounding her direct the current. When she encounters an element of sin in her path in the form of the “Man in the Suit”, instead of plunging into the sea itself, she simply sinks to the bottom. She becomes a creature of the world below, until she resembles more a “snail than a human being” (113). The layout of the building itself symbolizes part of this, as she lives at the very bottom, and can only watch as people pass by on their way to the homes above. She is still afraid, and draws back from the “treacherous sirens calling to her, smoothing the way for her to plunge in” (108-109).

In order to become a living part of the city, Fathiyya must accept all the realities of Cairo, including the slimy, sinful ones. The sinful aspect presents itself in the form of the “Man in the Suit”. He sees himself as a liberating force: “There was no cure for her introversion, for her fear of him and of Cairo and the people there; but perhaps if he went to her, and had her, then she would stop hiding away, and learn to associate with her fellows in the city” (Idris 112). Fathiyya, deep down, desires to become a true part of the city-after all that is why she married Hamid and left the village. However, this fear of the sinful city keeps her from embracing Cairo in its entirety. She spends so much of her energy on fighting these two opposing forces, that when the “hyena” finally enters her room, she is too weak to resist. In the middle of the ensuing scene, she recognizes that she is about to be freed: “She had often dreamt about this smile, as she had dreamt of the outstretched hands inviting her gently but insistently to leave the safety of land and plunge in and sink down to the shadows and slime” (119). Immediately after the act, she is finally part of the Cairo she has dreamt of: “Smooth handsome faces, elegant clothes swam before her eyes, perfumes that aroused and lulled her…” (120).

The rape scene also transforms the relationship dynamic between Fathiyya and her husband. He has been slowly being feminized by the city, because as a doorman he simply acts on the building inhabitant’s wishes. He is unable to muster the strength to kill his wife after her betrayal and when she tries to speak she realizes she has become too powerful for him: “…when she opened her mouth to plead, a shout like the roar of an angry lion rose up, and she was transfixed where she lay” (121). Fathiyya realizes that she is too strong to simply succumb to the will of her husband and return to the village. So she decides to slip away from him “back into Cairo of her own free will this time, not in response to any siren’s call” (122). Her newfound strength and freedom will now allow her to create the Cairo experience she has been envisioning all along.

The expectations of the Bedouin narrator in “Thieves of Retirement” are a little more realistic as he enters the city. He arrives knowing very well that he will just be a construction laborer, but he is very proud of the “splendid-looking successes” he creates (Golayyel 55). Instead of being disillusioned himself, he creates disillusionment by making his situation seem much more impressive to the members of his tribe. He admits that this is the only reason he is looking to rent his own place: “I had been so fixated on improving my life, once I was on the city, having left the Bedouin settlements truly behind, that I had lied about a few things, especially my material circumstances. So it would have been inconceivable for them to imagine I would live in such a rundown place.” (56). The narrator cannot admit that his flight from the tribe and family resulted in material circumstances not much better than he had enjoyed before. Instead, he continues the myth perpetuated by generations before him: that moving to the city is a magical transformation that makes people happier, wealthier, and better off.

Unlike Fathiyya, the Bedouin narrator does not crouch back in fear when he recognizes his new surroundings. He immediately accepts the existence of sin and learns to use it for his own benefit. When forced into a sexual encounter with Sayf, he doesn’t draw away in fear. Instead, he uses the definite information he has gained about Sayf’s orientation: he now possesses yet another secret that will help him become a part of the “family” of his building.

The building the narrator decides to inhabit is presented like a piece of wilderness: “The façade was green and marked out by ornamental squares of a more intense green. The strategic zone had been sprinkled down, and against the wall was tipped a chair befitting a fairly commanding backside. From above the door stared the head of a wild animal, its mouth open in a savage grin, its teeth so sharp you couldn’t but feel that the blood still ran streaming through its veins” (Golayyel 57). In such an environment, the main goal is to survive, and protection is bought in the form of secrets. The narrator quickly begins accumulating these, giving his prey a false sense of trust and warmth as he quietly pries valuable information from them. The right story can mean expulsion from the “jungle”, as is shown in the example of Shaykh Hasan, who confesses to sleeping with his mother-in-law and is expelled from the building. “…Every household knew exactly how far the secrets of every other household went and kept them carefully under wraps. No one had the slightest tolerance for a stranger entering their midst to create scandal in this way” (48).

The only way to enter the building is to fulfill two conditions: the person must be from the Said, and he or she must have some affliction, “which category could include a woeful mistake that person might have happened to make” (50). This insures that the owner of the building, Abu Gamal, always starts out ahead of his residents: he knows their secret before they even move in. With the narrator, the “affliction” that afforded him entry was not that great: “he [Abu Gamal] had diddled with the rental contract with my [his] apartment in a way that made it very easy to throw me [him] out” (50-51). The narrator knows he must tread very carefully if he wants to stay in the building. He safeguards his space from thieves by using an “electric wiring scheme” (76). The narrator admits that he is not looking to catch an everyda burglars, but rather a true thief: “a conceptual thinker, a true intellectual, indeed a genius of a thief whose only motive is the pure pleasure of setting in motion and seeing through his shrewd schemes which require efforts far beyond the value of whatever it is he is bent on receiving” (76). This stress of intellect suggests that perhaps it is not his physical possessions that the narrator is worried about. Rather, he is worried that someone will steal his secrets, just as he has been stealing those of the other dwellers.

In the end, Amer is killed by the security wiring that the narrator had installed. The narrator comes out victorious in the environment of the building: his valuables are protected and Abu Gamal can no longer easily kick him out, since, as he points out, “it would be shameful for him to throw me [him] out of the building” (126). At this point, the narrator knows too much about the residents, while Abu Gamal knows too little and now has no power over him. Whether Abu Gamal likes it or not, the Bedouin narrator has become a member of the family, a replacement for the son who has just died.

Fathiyya and the Bedouin move to Cairo in hopes of a better life, but soon realize that there is a cost for all the wonders the city may have to offer. They cannot partake in the full life of the city until they can accept the sinful, dirty aspect of cosmopolitan life. Once accepted, they are able to use this sin to their advantage. For no one in Cairo wishes to expose the sinful part of themselves. Instead, they will do anything to contain these secrets within their building, even if this means accepting a stranger into their family.