Stream Of Consciousness

Why does Mahfouz employ stream of consciousness narration in the novel and to what effect?

Mahfouz revolutionized Arabic literature as her was the first author in the Arab world to use stream of consciousness within his novel. The author uses this to create a closer insight and connection into the author's mind. This is very obviously distinct from the third person narration, as it is italicized to reveal his darkest and innermost thoughts, which are normally not censored and is rational. Sa’id is the character the Mahfouz uses to manipulate the unfiltered thoughts and opinions toward the reader, making the complexity and depth of the novel much richer. Mahfouz typically uses this when Sa’id experiences very strong emotions of betrayal and anger towards the people around him.

The narration fluctuates from Third person to an indirect narration towards a direct narration when Mahfouz choses to reveal Sa’ids true emotions. This is used because it is better conveyed through a first person narration to show authenticity and to control the distance between the reader and the narrator as opposed to narrating it through a third person. This is also showing the metal state of Sa’d which gradually seems to be getting worse as the structure becomes chaotic.

Mahfouz uses this toward his advantage because it is more modernized and is a cleaner and stronger way to reveal characters unfiltered thoughts. There are more insights that are revealed to the audience compared to other literature. This is also because it follows some of the conventions of Arabic literature where every character is symbolic of something. The audience it easily found to show more emotion toward Sa’id and this is to highlight Mahfouz’s thoughts on politics and conflict within the Egyptian revolution. It also reveals internal monologue and it a very intense emotional experience.

Mahfouz, drives away from the normal conventions of Arabic literature and contextually, the themes of religion and especially society. Mahfouz chose to narrate the streets of Cairo near his hometown, where he was familiarized with the streets, making the narration richer with contextualization within the stream of consciousness. Because of this cultural embedment, there is are dual meaning between the characters making it more challenging for the audience to understand Mahfouz’s attitude towards Egyptian politics.

Literature in Translation

Literature in Translation is very important in understand our language and literature part three of the course as it is truly reflective of capturing the essence of changing historical, social and cultural contexts. This is reflective of the narration as well as deviating from the normal conventions of a cultures literature. The Thief and the Dogs by Naguib Mahfouz demonstrates this by narrating the story which is stongly embedded in a cultural context, which evidently is written after Egypt’s’ revolution which ended in 1956. Mahfouz achieved complexity and great depth in his characters by relating them towards cultural criminals through creating political statements and opinions. 

The context the author has written the text in is very important to understand and it significance to the text in translation. There are many words and phrases that are Arabic metaphors that have been translated, giving the word different connotations. The narration is also an example of this as normally arabic literature is written in poetry, making Mahfouz an author in the arab world to revolutionise arabic literature within novels. I provides very truthful and dark insights within the main character Said, as he often implements dialogue in italic font, representing his thoughts, which is different towrds western literature. Also, because in arabic literature is it gernarally known in poetry, characters are often symbolic and representative of something within the their and the dogs, showing that there are various elements of the Egyptian culture reflective upon the text

There are also many conflicts and counter narratives, as Mahfouz has opinions of the government during Egyptian revolution, which creates a more insightful depth and understanding to our appreciation and language and literature students. The characters and opinion within the text are important and they are impactful on the readers, as leaders like Nasser are very con character within this world. 

Deception is just as bad as telling an outright lie.

            During class we watched a document called “The control room” which displayed Al Jazeera’s involvement in reporting the Iraqi war. This was a very important and informative document as it was showing Al Jazeera’s depiction of the Iraqi’s point of view, which the American Government did not want the world to see. Al Jazeera is a very important media in the Arab world, in which many people trust this new outlet more than the local news channels. American Media is portrayed as being exceptionally censored and controlled by the government and politicians which shows in media bias towards the enemy country. In this case, Iraq.

In class, when posed with this prompt, I took a very long time to choose if I would agree or disagree. I was unsure about the exact meaning of the word and if both of them inflict the same affect.  But after watching this documentary I would strongly agree. I don’t particularly think that decieving and lying are much different as the result is still the same. To put this shortly, deception is like manipulating.  Just like lying, they both convey a false image or perspective and therefore it is just as bad, as the media decieves you to believe one side, completely excluding the other.

Whilst making sense of the clips, the representation of the United States were portrayed to be heroic and courages as they where showing the bodies of soldiers in the battle scene. This would really appeal to the emotions of the American public as it was rather graphic. Through this depiction, the US government is not lying as there is no false information as there is visual evidence, however the government is not illustrating the whole picture of the Iraqi people which only shows the Americans being portrayed as heroic. However as a lie, it would still contribute to the public thinking the same ideology behind this occuring news story. Therefore it is just as bad. The government publically announced that Al Jazeera was equivalent towards being “Osama Bin Laden’s mouthpiece” and that Sadam Hussien threatened the U.S with weapons of mass destruction. This is evident in relying on only emotions.

For instance, the news outlet used Soliders for evidence in how the information was being displayed which is very important for patriotism and giving the audience a sense of pride and releif. This can be supported with the fall of another Arabic country, where the citizens were very shocked that they had lost the war and came to local panic because it contradicted to how well their country seemed to be doing in the media, which shows that the portrayal of the countries strategies a lot of the time are used for propaganda only.

Al Jazeera’s approach was very incitefull as in the documentary, on the the producers argued “We want both news exposed, this guest only exposed the American’s point of view. That’s not how we do things.” It is inciteful because not many news outlets think this way. It is very heavily influenced by western coverage, where Al Jazeera wanted to cover the news in Iraq as well providing both aspect to an extent that it was very contreversial. This channel was very contreversial that some Arab Governments banned it. This highly important as they are letting their audience-which is extremely important in media- to come up with their own solution and perspective on the media. This shows that the channel does push their demographic to be viewed as neutral sides and information being conveyed, despite having American bias at the beginning. However in the end, they did comment on the capture of Baghdad and how they interpreted the situation which shows how trustworthy the news is .

Toddler dies after Church Attack. (Media Bias)

Jakarta, Nov 14, 2016 (AFP) - 

A toddler died Monday after being injures in a Molotov Cocktail attack on an Indonesian church. The police said shortly after the shocking incident happened.

Two year old Intan Olivia Marbun was with four other small children who were also hurt when the alleged attacker, who was wearing a T-shirt, which was reported to have the written word Jihad on it threw explosives at the church on Borneo from a motorbike.

The innocent children that were only two to four years old were playing in the car park of the church in the city of Samarinda at the time of the attack.

Local police Fajar Setiawan told the Marbun suffered severe and fatal burn injures, in which he added “Unfortunately the doctors could not save the victim... she died early this morning.”

The other children who were still hurt are being treated in the hospital. Their parents have been waiting for their children to be released. “We hope they can come home soon.” Said Setiawan. Who were in the waiting room with two other Chinese mothers. At this point, polic have arrested the suspected attacker, who was a 32 year old man with a history of crime violence such as plotting a parcel bomb in 2011. Chief of Police Tito Karnavian stated "Their aim is to incite violence, I urge people to stay calm."
There recently there has been an increasing number of attacks on mass groups of people targeted randomly.

Sunday’s attack was the latest on a religious group in particular in recent months. Police have reported to increase the number of security within religious groups and the government has issued more protective care. The religious communities Christian, Buddhists and Muslims all Targeted.
Parents of the children are devastated and only blame the man individually stating “Something should have been done about this a long time ago. Now my child had to suffer another one of Indonesian civilians violent crimes.” Therefore the crimes that have been reported to be dealing with Javanese minorities against the government.

Lady Lazarus; Sylvia Plath -IOC Practice.

http://www.megafileupload.com/kidX/Lady_Lazarus_IOC_practice.m4a

Coriolanus Practice IOC outline.

This passage is Act 1 scene one from the play Coriolanus, which is written by shakespeare. It was considered one of his worst play’s during the time however after re-evaluation, it was considered on of his best plays. It was introduced and written during the elizabethan Era and for Elizabethan audience. This particular passage is during the beginning of the passage when Shakespeare begins to characterize Coriolanus. This is was before his re-naming, and was known as Caius Martius and it a very important passage within the story as we begin to become aquanted with the main character. There is a lot of characterization within this passage which shakespeare uses to introuce Coriolanus, as the audience begins to realise that he is not a likeable character. This also shows the theme of power within the passage and how Coriolanus does not belong to this society. This will be conducted in a sequential order.

            Caius Martius is presented to us with a very long stanza. In which he uses many figurative language revealing his character.

            -First stanza; name calling and metaphors are use to compare the plebicians to a body parable. A scab, which is something nobody wants as it is irritating and unwanted. However from hindsight we know that the city is like a body, and need to work together.

Next stanza in Coriolanus is a long winded speech. A lot of imagery used “In lines _ and _” which shakespeare creates and effect to make the audience hate coriolanus.

There is also the use of a lot of animal imagery within this speech, which can be seen in “________”

The plebicians are also considered very useless even though they have the right to vote. This leads to political power. We see Coriolanus’ old power into use and how he knows how to couragesly fight the war.

“WE have ever your word” it seems like they’re obeying whatever coriolanus is saying, but could be used like Sarcasm, which Shakespeare creates as a power for foreshadowing to his new power, as Coriolanus is an outsated hero.

This comes into the next point, which is about Meneius. Although he does not have a much lines in this passage, it can also be used to characterise Coriolanus more, because as they juxtapose Menenius with Coriolanus.

-“____” State quote” alhtough it may show his ignorance as he develops a social class, it can also be seen how he talks to the public, instead of coriolauns. Coriolanus is seen as very tembered because of his figurative language mentioned in the next stanza. 

-Foreshadows conflict as after he fights the battle, the audience will see that he is in fact useless in negotiating and listen, and only good in battle.

            Last stanza, Coriolanus is furhter characterized by  his hierarchy. More powerful terminology in his hierarchy are used and used specifically to direct the words toward The plebicites.

            -In the first three lines “_______” state a few words” Coriolanus shows no respect for his people and believes that he does not understand the sophisticated matter within the play.

In the next few lines, it shows how coriolanus believes in this social hierarchy.

The last line shows how Coriolanus solves problems with violence, which is indicative of his old power and how he cannot fit into this new world.

In conclusion, this passage from Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, was implied to provide characterisation of Caius Martius. Coriolanus seems to be very rude and arrogant toward the lower class and plebicites. Which can be heavily analyse within his two long winded stanza’s. Menenius was also used to juxtapose Coriolanus and how they contradict each other. This shows the beginning point of Coriolanus as he is presented towards the audience as having old power, and Menenius foreshadows how Coriolanus cannot fit into this society with the power he thinks he has as it is outdates. Coriolanus cannot fit in as the new power is mostly around persuading and winning the publics favour, which shows the foreshadowing of his transition to power. Which is very important to the the story plot.