Thoughts on the video of Dr. Uraziee and Sugar Street.
I think Dr. Uraziee made a lot of good points about post-colonial and neo-colonial literature that relate to Mahfouz's Sugar Street.
One thing she said was that Mahfouz writes about the daily lives of people, with the political events happening only in the background. In doing this, he is giving us (the reader, the West) an idea of what it is really like to live in Egypt in that time, something that can only really be done by giving huge amounts of detail to the everyday activities of a family of characters.
I think this is an important observation. Something I liked about the book was that Mahfouz seems to be putting forth a wide variety of viewpoints through his characters. Instead of writing from one frame of mind or espousing one ideological stance, like some of the other writers we have read do, he is offering a chance for more readers to connect with the book by finding a character they can relate to. He is also showing that there is not one easy answer to the problems left by the colonial power.
Another thing that Dr. Uraziee mentioned about what post-colonial lit and neo-colonial lit (coming from Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean in particular) have in common relates both to Sugar Street in general and the point I have just made. Dr. Uraziee said that both are political, and necessarily so, not because the author made a revolutionary choice to write politically, but because politics impinges on their lives in so many ways, that it becomes an obvious thing, and forces them to form political loyalties that are fairly strong some way or another. This really struck me as something that maybe difficult for the average (modern) Western reader to really understand, because it is fairly easy in our culture to tune out to politics and embrace ambivalence. Dr. Uraziee is saying that in the post-colonial and neo-colonial world (some people include the US as part of, which I would reject because technically the colonizers have never really left and have instead appropriated the nation for themselves and created a new identity that is closely linked to their old), it is impossible not to be political. Kamal in Sugar Street may seem like an argument against this idea, but just the fact that he is constantly questioning things proves that is forced to think about them, something that isn't true in America (which is apparent if you ever try to talk to the average American about anything political). Kamal wants to be strong in some political loyalty, and something he thinks on pg.118 as he looks at his nephews with "admiration and delight" shows this, and further proves Dr. Uraziee's idea, "The new generation was making its difficult way to well-defined goals without doubt or anxiety."
That quote also may tie to something I said in a post before (with the help of Mark Twain) about how the revolution isn't going to happen with a singular action, but is a longer struggle where each part is necessary to reach the end, and connects to something else Dr. Uraziee said about Mahfouz's use of time in the Cairo trilogy. She commented that Mahfouz was fond of trilogies or tetralogies because he didn't think he could get everything out in one book. She added that his books have the sense that things take their own course, eventually the consequences will come out, but you won't necessarily see them in a short period of time. Perhaps that is what is happening through the generation of the family in Sugar Street.
This is kind of getting long, so I think I'll continue this thought in class, or in my next blog posting, or perhaps in a paper.
I think Dr. Uraziee made a lot of good points about post-colonial and neo-colonial literature that relate to Mahfouz's Sugar Street.
One thing she said was that Mahfouz writes about the daily lives of people, with the political events happening only in the background. In doing this, he is giving us (the reader, the West) an idea of what it is really like to live in Egypt in that time, something that can only really be done by giving huge amounts of detail to the everyday activities of a family of characters.
I think this is an important observation. Something I liked about the book was that Mahfouz seems to be putting forth a wide variety of viewpoints through his characters. Instead of writing from one frame of mind or espousing one ideological stance, like some of the other writers we have read do, he is offering a chance for more readers to connect with the book by finding a character they can relate to. He is also showing that there is not one easy answer to the problems left by the colonial power.
Another thing that Dr. Uraziee mentioned about what post-colonial lit and neo-colonial lit (coming from Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean in particular) have in common relates both to Sugar Street in general and the point I have just made. Dr. Uraziee said that both are political, and necessarily so, not because the author made a revolutionary choice to write politically, but because politics impinges on their lives in so many ways, that it becomes an obvious thing, and forces them to form political loyalties that are fairly strong some way or another. This really struck me as something that maybe difficult for the average (modern) Western reader to really understand, because it is fairly easy in our culture to tune out to politics and embrace ambivalence. Dr. Uraziee is saying that in the post-colonial and neo-colonial world (some people include the US as part of, which I would reject because technically the colonizers have never really left and have instead appropriated the nation for themselves and created a new identity that is closely linked to their old), it is impossible not to be political. Kamal in Sugar Street may seem like an argument against this idea, but just the fact that he is constantly questioning things proves that is forced to think about them, something that isn't true in America (which is apparent if you ever try to talk to the average American about anything political). Kamal wants to be strong in some political loyalty, and something he thinks on pg.118 as he looks at his nephews with "admiration and delight" shows this, and further proves Dr. Uraziee's idea, "The new generation was making its difficult way to well-defined goals without doubt or anxiety."
That quote also may tie to something I said in a post before (with the help of Mark Twain) about how the revolution isn't going to happen with a singular action, but is a longer struggle where each part is necessary to reach the end, and connects to something else Dr. Uraziee said about Mahfouz's use of time in the Cairo trilogy. She commented that Mahfouz was fond of trilogies or tetralogies because he didn't think he could get everything out in one book. She added that his books have the sense that things take their own course, eventually the consequences will come out, but you won't necessarily see them in a short period of time. Perhaps that is what is happening through the generation of the family in Sugar Street.
This is kind of getting long, so I think I'll continue this thought in class, or in my next blog posting, or perhaps in a paper.
posted by Kate Merwald at 11:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home