Wide Sargasso Sea

Prompt A- Relationship between men and women, and the differences in their role in society, are central considerations in many works of literature. Discuss the part they plan in Wide Sargasso Sea.
Thesis: Men and women in the nineteenth century typically existed in a patriarchal or male dominated society. In Wide Sargasso Sea, Antoinette and Rochester can be seen as stereotypically gendered characters. Examining the couple’s relationship demonstrates preset notions of gender roles as they manifest through economic dominance, societal expectations, and the presence of sisterhood.
Topic Sentence 1: Men of the nineteenth century dominated women economically based on patriarchal ideology. In the marriage of Antoinette and Mr. Rochester, we can clearly see a play of economic power and dominance. Antoinette is forced to be subversive.
Evidence:

·      In one scene, Antoinette runs to Christophine for advice on how to make Mr. Rochester pay attention to her and make him love her again because that is her only alternative to leaving him. Antoinette understands that she is in a situation where she is economically powerless, “He will not come after me. And you must understand I am not rich now, I have no money of my own at all, everything I had belongs to him…that is the English law” (Rhys, 69). When Mr. Rochester comes to the island to marry Antoinette he is offered Antoinette’s dowry and her estate. According to English laws at the time, the husband becomes the rightful owner of any wealth or estate the wife might have had prior to their marriage. Antoinette’s choices are limited. She is dependent on her husband and cannot leave him to make a better life for herself.

Topic Sentence 2: Mr. Rochester and Antoinette conform to certain social expectations that define masculinity and femininity.
Evidence:

·      Mr. Rochester thinks that Antoinette is irrational and interprets her rage as madness that she has inherited from her mother. In a patriarchal society, men define women’s verbal and physical attacks as a sure sign of madness. Women who show physical and verbal rage are abandoned by men as “crazy”, as well as “unfeminine”. Rage is Antoinette’s own way of rejecting Mr. Rochester’s dominance and the many years of being colonized. She is refusing his superiority.

·      His expectations of women of his class are based on nineteenth century English values of sexual reticence and respectability

·      When Antoinette fails to reach these standards in his eyes, he starts to see her beauty as being deceitful and as non-English, alien and Other

·      He uses his dominance to injure and imprison her. He not only renames her but calls her his marionette, his puppet as well as his mad girl. Defining her as mad also puts her in his power.

·      The importance of appearance in constructing a woman's identity

·      Appropriate behavior for a young woman of her class is taught at the convent school. It is not intellectual, but focused on accomplishments, passivity and obedience to Catholic teaching of a relaxed kind

·      Her infidelity defies the Christian model of chastity. There are intimations that Antoinette has had a relationship with Sandi that continued after her marriage

Topic Sentence 3: Sisterhood is present in this novel, especially in Antoinette and Christophine’s relationship. Sisterhood is a challenge against patriarchal oppression. Men do not understand sisterhood. Sisterhood threatens men and their position in a patriarchal society.
Evidence:

·      Attempting to make Mr. Rochester pay attention to her, Antoinette visits Christophine to get a “love potion”. Antoinette slips the potion into Mr. Rochester’s wine which makes him restless and sleepy. Mr. Rochester later realizes that it is the combination of Antoinette and Christophine and the alliance they have that makes him loose control.

·      Subsequently, he believes that the sisterhood of Antoinette and Christophine can affect his position as a dominant figure in his marriage. Mr. Rochester tries to break up this sisterhood. In one scene, he tries to convince Antoinette that Christophine is nothing but trouble. “Christophine is an evil woman and you know it as well as I do,...She won’t stay here very much longer”. Mr. Rochester threatens to call the police to remove Christophine from the island.

Sheikh vs Said

Sheikh Al Junaydi serves as a foil to Said in the Thief and the Dogs. Throughout the novel, he is peaceful, wise, and constantly reciting proverbs. Thus, Said’s rash behavior and disrupted state of mind is highlighted. While the Sheikh has a very clear conscious and is the epitome of innocence and purity, Said has committed many wrong doings. Said does not even hold himself accountable for his actions or seek repentance, but rather gives himself excuses. The stark contrast between the two characters is especially present in the scene in which Said escapes to see the Sheikh after he murdered whom he thought was Ilish. Said observes how the Sheikh can complacently look at the sky and be filled with an ambience of harmony; however, Said is not able to let the beauty of the sky fill him with the same sense of tranquility since he is so troubled by his wrongdoings.

            Sheikh Al Junaydi also demonstrates how fate is not the only factor acting upon Said’s happiness. The Sheikh is able to see many alternative opportunities and options that could have prevented Said’s downfall.

            Although Mahfouz does not necessarily claim that one’s fate is the product of forces that extend beyond an individual’s control and do rely on free will to some extent, he does allow the reader to question the role of context in determining free will. In other words, he conveys that the uncontrollable context surrounding a character can lead them to bring about their own fate, and while those decisions may be considered as actions taken by free will, mere circumstance is an overpowering driving force. For instance, at the beginning of the novel, it may seem as if Said is the cause of his own downfall when he accidentally murders the tenant in Ilish’s apartment. The murder is by no means justifiable, even if he did kill his intended target. However, taking a closer look at Said’s motivations in committing the murder, we see a mentally unbalanced individual rejected by all turns of society. His wife betrayed him, his daughter does not wish to know him despite his unconditional love, and his former friend did not even attempt to reach a helping hand at Said’s time of despair. These crippling conditions that form his environment can be seen as the roots of his actions. He simply wishes to avenge himself though his means in doing so may be deplorable. Ultimately, through displaying the volatile character of Said alongside his background and the series of unfortunate events he has faced, Mahfouz is able to communicate that although all characters have the option of free will in determining their fate, context can make such an option extremely difficult to take, especially when the characters’ moral standing and ethical mindset is weak in the first place.

            In fact, we frequently see Said attempting to make excuses for himself when Mahfouz exposes his inner thoughts through internal monologue. In order to distance himself from his actions and guilty conscience, he claims that he had no choice and that fate was the only determiner. In this explanation, he relinquishes all responsibility for his actions and frees himself of consequences. Mahfouz is able to expose the flaws in these thoughts and display the dangers of relying completely on the domination of fate. Essentially, in fate’s name, any vice that the character has planned can occur without giving it a second thought.  

            In terms of happiness, it largely relies on context. It would take a very strong personality and clear mentality to be able to take in negative surroundings and ignore a series of degrading events for the sake of appreciating life. Said cannot be described as a strong individual. Therefore, we witness his decline throughout the novel. Whether or not he has a choice in how he perceives his own context can be argued since it could just be a product of biological genes or a disruptive nurture which would delve into the psyche of the character. The fact that he is unable to cope with negative turns in his life indicates that context does have an influence, but so does personal disposition.

            Therefore, Sheikh Al Junaydi almost represents how a peaceful state of mind is required as opposed to Said’s bordering on mental illness which explains the ease with which the Sheikh can find happiness as opposed to Said.

During the novel, Mahfouz poses several questions regarding morality and justice. Firstly, he has us question whether Said is a hero that works for the purpose of justice in the novel. While Said’s internal monologue narration reflects how he views himself as a facilitator of justice, his actions simply cannot be justified for this reason. He has committed treacherous crimes including theft and murder; however, he does so at the advancement of his own agenda of revenge. He does not consider punishing anyone who has not wronged him. He is set on a personal vendetta rather than a fight for idealism. In fact he lets go of his own ideology of refusing to become wealthy and the expense of others and asks Rauf for a job in the newspaper. He does not revert back to his warped sense of justice until he is rejected, and attempts to thieve from his former friend. It is almost as if he is exploiting the name of justice in order to be able to cope with the crippling twists of fate that surround him. He also quenches his guilty conscience by claiming that he is only committing rightful acts. He justifies the murder of the tenant in Ilish’s house to himself, for his own mental sanity, as an unjust act and almost distances himself from the scene in order to appear as the objective, all knowing judge. Although he felt pangs of guilt before he discovered he murdered his unintended target, he was able to live with himself since he believed Ilish severely betrayed him. After he received the news, we see a shift in narration from remorse to an unaffected demeanor. Ultimately, Mahfouz has us question Said’s morality. He makes it very difficult for the reader to acknowledge Said’s depravity since we are so exposed to his inner thoughts and struggles that we begin to make excuses for his actions as well. 

Passage Analysis

Passage

The rope would be after him now, while Ilish sat safe and secure. The truth was as clear as the bottom of an open tomb.

He tore his eyes away from the paper and found the Sheikh staring through the window at the sky, smiling. The smile for some reason or other, frightened Said: he wished he could stand at the window and look at exactly the same bit of sky the Sheikh was looking at so he could see what it was that made him smile. But the wish was unfulfilled.

Let the Sheikh smile and keep his secret, he thought. Before long the disciples would be here and some of them who’d seen the picture in the paper might recognize him; thousands and thousands would be gaping at his picture now, in a mixture of terror and titillation. Said’s life was finished, spent to no purpose; he was a hunted man and would be to the end of his days; he was alone, and would have to beware even of his own reflection in a mirror—alive but without real life. Like a mummy. He’d have to flee like a rat from one hole to another, threatened by poison, cats and the clubs of disgusted human beings, suffering all this while his enemies kicked up their heels.

The Sheikh turned to him, saying gently, “You are tired. Go and wash your face.”

“Yes,” Said said irritably, folding up the paper. “I’ll go—and relieve you of the sight of my face.”

With even greater gentleness, the Sheikh said, “This is your home.”

“True, but why shouldn’t I have another place to shelter?”

The Sheikh bowed his head, replying, “If you had another you would never have come to me.”

You must go up the hill and stay there until dark. Avoid the light. Shelter in the dark.

Hell, it’s all a waste of time. You’ve killed Shaban Husayn; I wonder who you are, Shaban. We never “knew each other. Did you have children? Did you ever imagine that one day you would be killed for no reason—that you’d be killed because Nabawiyya Sulayman married Ilish Sidra? That you’d be killed in error, but that Ilish, Nabawiyya, and Rauf would not be killed in justice? I, the murderer, understand nothing. Not even Sheikh al-Junaydi himself can understand anything. I’ve tried to solve part of the riddle, but have only succeeded in unearthing an even greater one. He sighed aloud.

…

Said rose, then said, as he was about to go, “Farewell, my Master.”

“Utterly meaningless words, whatever you intend by them,” the Sheikh remonstrated. “Say rather: until we meet again.”

Analysis

This passage occurs in Chapter 8, at the significant turn point of the novel in which Said discovers he killed a man he did not intend to kill. While he viewed his killing of Ilish justified through his own warped decree of justice, he begins to feel a greater sense of guilt for committing the same act against an individual he did not know and did not hold any personal grudges against. However, as the passage continues, we begin to see Said’s justification for his crime and his attempt to ease his conscience.

The passage begins when Said first becomes aware of his mistake. Mahfouz utilizes an image-evoking metaphor, stating that: “the rope would be after him now”, referring to the punishment of his crime by hanging. Through indirect dialogue, Mahfouz demonstrates how Said believes that it would be so blatantly obvious to pinpoint him to the scene of the murder when he compares the clarity of the truth to the bottom of an open tomb in a visual simile.

The fact that the Sheikh is sitting in the same room as him allows Mahfouz to highlight the stark contrast between them. The two characters essentially serve as foils to each other as they look to the sky, a symbol of purity. The Sheikh is able to smile at the beauty of the break of dawn as he is the ultimate depiction of virtue in the novel; he commits no faults and only speaks in peace and wisdom. Meanwhile, Said is a tainted character whose mind does not allow him to reach the same level of tranquility, not only because he committed murder, but because he realized he killed a potentially innocent man whose death came to no fault of his own or of his family.

Said is so downtrodden by guilt, he considers relieving himself of his secret and confess to the Sheikh. He comes to the terrible conclusion that before he was in prison he was “hunted”, and now he would be once more with no true significance to his life: no achievements, no friends, no family. He ceased to recognize the value of life, describing himself as a “mummy” as he carried on through life only in a biological sense, with no lasting milestones or true ties/motivation to persist in his current world. But perhaps he was more disturbed by the fact that his perceived enemies would have the luxury of freedom and companionship by society while he did not.

Said proceeded to plan an escape, but then he follows this thought with a soliloquy, keeping Shaban Husayn in mind, almost as if he attempted to get to know him and personally apologize to him. He claims how, as his murderer, he did not understand the workings of fate and sympathized with him, claiming that what had occurred was unjust. It was almost as if Said distanced himself from his crime and acted as the judge. Said is desperate to gain some emotional grounding.

When Said mentions “Farewell”, he signifies that he would not be returning to the Sheikh, foreshadowing a pursuit for a suicide attempt as he murders other people in abidance to his moral code.