― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 30 August 2006 15:57 (twelve years ago) Permalink
― trees (treesessplode), Wednesday, 30 August 2006 16:00 (twelve years ago) Permalink
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 30 August 2006 16:05 (twelve years ago) Permalink
― M. White (Miguelito), Wednesday, 30 August 2006 16:26 (twelve years ago) Permalink
his prominence in Western eyes rose in the Sadat era—when Sadat’s trip to Israel made Egypt an acceptable model of Arab countries, when things Egyptian became less controversial than things Arab or Muslim in general. The respect for Mahfouz was a reward for Sadat. This explains why Chirac, who took time from his busy schedule of meeting daily with rich Arab royals, hailed Mahfouz today as a "man of peace." And do you think that the Nobel Committee or Western literary critics are qualified judges about Arabic literature? And why was Mahfouz not discovered back say in the 1960s? Or during Suez? This also was possible because Mahfouz was never offensive—in Western eyes. He knew what to say, and he certainly does not deserve awards for courage—he was not courageous under King Faruq, or under Nasser, or under Sadat, and certainly not under Mubarak. His criticisms of regimes were most general and least offensive—as in Miramar. Mahfouz would never be considered the best choice to represent Arabic literature in the 20th century. If you look at the 20th century, you can think of so many other more qualified candidates: Mikha’il Nu`aymah for Sab`un (his autobiography), Taha Husayn for several of his works, including Al-Ayyam; Jubran possibly for Al-Mawakib or for his Al-Arwah Al-Mutamarridah; Tawfiq Al-Hakim for his plays or for his work especially `Awdat Ar-Ruh; Tawfiq Yusuf `Awwad for Ar-Raghif; or Jurji Zaydan for his historical novels; and obviously`Abdur-Rahman Munif for many works; even `Abbas Mahmud `Aqqad; or even Yusuf Idriss.
― Flopsy (Flopsy), Saturday, 2 September 2006 16:51 (twelve years ago) Permalink