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.

Stream of Consciousness Technique Analysis

Thief and the Dogs: why does Mahfouz employ stream of consciousness narration in the novel and to what effect; purpose and the complexity of the novel, the shift of narration throughout the novel, an appreciation of language and style, advantages and limitation of this technique, use evidence from multiple chapter- connection looking at similarities or differences with things fall apart

During class, we perceived Mahfouz’s frequent shifts between various narrative techniques. This expectation has been set early from the first chapter of the novel. The novel employs interior monologue- in which we briefly perceive Said’s thoughts- indirect interior monologue- in which a third person narration is influenced by Said’s bias and perceptions of his surroundings- and soliloquy- which is quite similar to interior monologue with the slight difference of his thoughts being directed or guided by keeping a certain character in mind. The text signifies a shift from indirect monologue and objective third person narration to direct monologue, soliloquy, and stream of consciousness by italicizing the text to more easily integrate the various forms and ease the transitions into and out of Said’s mind. However, even without the italics, it is easy to distinguish between narrative styles due to their stark differences.

The text’s first instance of stream of consciousness narration occurs here: 'Confused cries seem to seep from the curbside garbage. (I swear I hate you all). Houses of temptation, their windows beckoning even when eyeless, walls scowling where plaster has fallen. And that strange lane, al-Sayrafi Lane, which brings back dark memories. Where the thief stole, then vanished, whisked away. (Woe to the traitors.) Where police who'd staked out the area had slithered in to surround you'

Mahfouz utilizes stream of consciousness narration to provide readers with additional insight into an explanation of character’s thought processes and their actions, giving a more holistic approach to characterization. Stream of consciousness can manifest in text as interior monologue or indirect monologue. In the case of direct interior monologue, it refers to a continuous ramble of the character’s thoughts while in indirect monologue, the author guides readers through the character’s thoughts. In both cases, readers gain greater understanding of character’s authentic, uninhibited, uncensored emotions and motives.

Stream of consciousness allows the reader to connect to the text on a deeper level and become more engaged with the complexity of characters at hand. However, the technique does so at the expense of a set structure usually found in novels written plainly in the third person in which sentences are constructed with a high level of articulation and syntax. The focus of stream of consciousness is to come as close as to depicting an individual’s jumble of thoughts which can be much more telling than fully thought out, edited sentences. The process gives a more accurate representation of the character’s mental processing when dealing with different events as the plot of the novel unfolds. The information presented to the reader comes directly from the character’s mind, so it may not be completely reliable. Specifically speaking of Mahfouz’s The Thief and the Dogs, Said is a mentally disturbed character, and so this type of narration enables readers to grasp the world as Said perceives it.  Readers are able to more easily empathize with Said after contextualizing the novel through his lens of biases and beliefs, seeing as he is a character motivated more by his emotions and sentiments rather than by logic. It becomes harder to pinpoint Said as a perfect archetype of a protagonist or antagonist after growing close to the main character and understanding their internal struggles. In this aspect, Mahfouz strays from the traditional definitions of good and evil usually depicted in literature and is able to form a very multifaceted character.

Mahfouz combines the two genres of realism and stream of consciousness seamlessly. This combination makes Said's narrative more comprehensible, striking a balance between structured and unstructured writing. I would hypothesize that his reason for doing so reflects the great censorship that surrounded the era he wrote the novel in, which was several years after the Egyptian rebellion. In order to genuinely embody the opinions of the Egyptian people, connecting with laymen to identify with the novel creatively while simultaneously escaping persecution for criticizing Nasser’s post- Revolution regime.

Ultimately, both Things Fall Apart and The Thief and the Dogs provide counter narratives. The Thief and the Dogs is a counter narrative detailing the fight of Egypt’s working class with its intellectuals while Things Fall Apart details a colonial counter narrative revealing the authenticity of African culture. However, while Mahfouz relies on stream of consciousness writing specifically zoomed in on Said’s thoughts, Achebe utilizes third person omniscient to broaden the familiarity of readers with multiple characters in the novel.

Translated Texts

Language is the main component of culture in a particular place, so when one translates, one could feel as if they are creating a cultural tie between one country and the other and narrowing the gap. It is important to note that being a translator requires you to go beyond mere literal meaning, but also to consider common phrases, metaphors, and idioms specific to the language as it could drastically change interpretation of a phrase. The author of the quote we examined in class believes she’s a smuggler, which refers to people who cross people over to immigration in another country, which could essentially mean that he is clarifying to foreign people. Studying literature in translation holds great global value as it sheds more light on the original culture within the text. In my particular article, a poet named Feng Tang took the arduous task of translating a revered Indian poet’s work. His translation was flawless, succinct, and much better organized except for the fact that he inserted 5 sexually connoting words. The article depicted how there is a generational gap in interpretation of traditional texts. The controversy arose over a translation seen as taboo for conservative critics. Language reflects a transition, and an overall change in mindset in respective eras. A translation is not to be taken literally; in fact, it varies by person to person on the mere basis of personal interpretation. This part of the course relates to our study of the Thief and the Dogs as Mahfouz manages to capture the consciousness of Egyptian culture at the critical period after the Egyptian revolution. The fact that The Thief and the Dogs was originally written in Arabic, it is inevitable that in our study of the text of the English, certain meaning is lost which can be easily discerned by the class given that there is a large majority of Arabic speakers which can provide further insight on certain euphemisms or expressions.