eerie,

As a non Arabic speaker recently, about a few days ago, was the first time I had ever heard of the man. The sentiments are mixed about the writer. I hope to read him some day. I've gotta finish Souls of Black Folks first. See you in about two years.

Consider Angry Arabs eulogy of the man. Talk about cynicism.

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2006/08/naguib-mahfouz-this-is_30.html

Angry Arabs echoes the sentiment of Mourid Barghouti in that many Arab writers desire to be read by Westerners so they may be read by Arabs. Strange huh.

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2006/08/many-arabs-did-not-admire-mahfouz.html

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-york-times-explains-literary.html

Well, I do find the tendency to politicize everything rather tiresome, especially in terms of post-colonial-imperialist blah blah blah. Boring.

To run off on a tangent after having read some comments at Angry Arab, I do agree that Salman Rushdie's popularity is largely due to the fatwa for Satanic Verses, as he seems to be a mediocre writer on the whole (and rather self-absorbed).

Mahfouz, well, I don't give a fuck if he supported Camp David.

"Mahfouz, well, I don't give a fuck if he supported Camp David."

And like that's a bad thing.

hm, angry arrrrb sounds like an unrecognized artist at his death bed, intensely bitter and hateful he didn't get it himself. Christ almighty.

reminds me a little of a post-colonial literature course I had once. Post-colonial literature was in fact everything English, but not British or American, and for some reason Irish. I half-jokingly complained that that definition was rather ethnocentric, defining countries from their relation to the empire. Everything we read was some way or another about Europe. meh. Meaning that, just because you're aussie or egyptian, you don't necessarily have to write from a political-historical perspective. Heck, how about some love poems. No, won't do for the university. So it's a constraining, if not stereotyping perspective. But tell that to the lecturers. And the angry one.

and, in that vein, that all female writers should write about feminist issues, and blacks should write about race ones.

Well, I do think it's silly for AA accuse Mahfouz of being an uncle tom because he doesn't agree with his politics. And it is a rather convenient (if transparent) way to strip away someone's accomplishments.

AA could've criticized Mahfouz from a purely literary perspective. But to immediately frame the issue in terms of politics (specifically I-P/pan-Arab politics) shrieks of bitterness and unresolved issues.

Well, not that I want to be the devil's advocate, but I do think Angry Arab has criticised Mahfouz on litterary grounds: "I never thought of Mahfouz as an adib (a man of belle lettres); I always viewed him as a successful writer and novelist, only a step ahead of Yusuf Sib`i and Ihsan `Abdul-Quddus. As Faysal Darraj, or was it Edward Kharat, said: he was a traditionalist adherent of the extreme realism school. I enjoyed reading the trilogy and his other works, but still did not think of his books as “literature.” And if you want to give awards for Arabic literature: you think of the poets too: Adonis, Mahmud Darwish, Nazik Al-Mala’ikah, Badr Shakir As-Sayyab, Khalil Hawi, `Abdul-Wahab Al-Bayyati, and others" - cf. http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2006/08/naguib-mahfouz-this-is_30.html.

Contrary to what has been said here, he says that Mahfouz litterary recognition in the west rose with his adherence to the Camp David agreements. This clearly bothers AA, but this altogether different from ditching Mahfouz on political grounds alone - AA does so on both litterary and political grounds.

It's snide comments like "Many Arabs did not admire Mahfouz until the White Man expressed his admiration. The colonized still mimic their colonizers" that make me wonder if AA has a serious complex.

Claiming his work is not "literature" (even as he notes that Mahfouz is part of the realist school) without offering a reason is not a critique.

Contrary to what has been said here, he says that Mahfouz litterary recognition in the west rose with his adherence to the Camp David agreements.

Obviously Mahfouz became well known in the West after winning the Nobel Prize, but that's because his books were widely translated afterwards. Same thing happens to every author who wins a major book prize. Did he win because he supported Camp David? Tough to prove that one.

Actually, this discussion is making me think of parallels between Naguib Mahfouz and Orhan Pamuk.

Actually, this is something `Aqoul could use a little more of -- literary posts, apart from the nonfiction reviews in the Books section. Economy, politics (and, yes, sex) are very well covered, but some cultural input would round that off nicely. Perhaps even something on music every now and then? (Like the inshaad posts, which were excellent & original stuff.)

Of course, I could be the only one who think that, and, of course, you should all write only what you feel for, and, of course, this should have been posted in the new month open thread. But still. If there's a book geek among you that's secretly holding back, don't.

eerie,

I hope you didnt take my postings of angry arab the wrong way. I dont share his views generally, I was just spreading his point of view. I hope we are all wearing protection.

Ha Ha Ha. That was funny.

alle: Probably a good idea. Depends on the whims of our contributors of course.

bikhair: The AA comments ended up being quite thought-provoking, glad you linked them.

alle, then you don't want to miss this masterpiece:

http://www.aqoul.com/archives/2005/07/a_black_comedy.php

a model analysis, pure and simple.

I had kept meaning to read more of Naguib Mahfouz in recent years but never managed to. News of his death has rejuvenated that interest, so I'll be headed to the library pretty soon I expect. But whatever I've read from him so far has been quite wonderful.

My own obituary for the man.