Democratic Palestine : 31 (ص 55)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 31 (ص 55)
- المحتوى
-
oes os 2 cee eee eee
THT
- Naguib Mahfouz
and the Nobel Prize
This year the Nobel Prize for Literature was awarded to the Egyptian Naguib
Mahfouz - the first time it had been given to an Arab author. Mahfouz, who was
born in 1912, has been famous in the Arab world since the fifties. Novels such as The
Cairo Trilogy and Midagq Alley brought him recognition as the father of the Arab
novel. He was beloved by a broad spectrum of readers, and especially by progressive
nationalists, for his rich narrative style and social realism. Mahfouz began by draw-
ing his material from the daily reality in the popular quarters of Cairo. His early
works focused on the life and problems of the poor classes, while jeering at the
hypocrisy of those who became rich and powerful at their expense. He often
challenged standing preconceptions, as in his novel The Children of Gebelawi,
published in 1959, which in allegorical form dealt with religion in the context of
everyday life in Cairo.
Later, however, Mahfouz’s literary focus became more diffuse, while his political
views put him in contradiction with the national democratic movement fighting im-
perialism and Zionism in the area. Thus, his receiving the Nobel Prize now raises a
set of questions which are addressed by Dr. Faysal Darraj in the following essay en-
titled «The Nobel Prize for Literature - Awarded to the Great Writer or to his Petit
Status?».
Finally the Nobel Prize crosses the mountains, plains,
valleys and lanes to find Naguib Mahfouz. By doing so, it sur-
prises everybody. Why does the prize choose a literary acme
after sinking to the level of hardly significant writers? Do we
have to take this as a literary verdict and an objective evalua--
tion after it having long ago become a political ideological
judgment.
Reaching Najuib Mahfouz, the prize creates confusion - not
because the author of The Thief and the Dogs does not deserve
it, but because the Nobel prize itself has long been divorced
from all sense of objectivity, since it went to a marginal Israeli
writer, bypassing Aragon; since it went to Pasternak,
Solshenitzen, Walesa, Sadat and Begin, meanwhile avoiding
Graham Green, Peter Weiss, Vasco Pratolini and Chinghiz
Aitmatov!
For a very long time, the Nobel Prize has chosen the side of
racism, anti-communism and Zionism. Consequently, it has
not been throwing water on explosives, but scattering burning
matches here and there. The moment it came close to complete
scandal, it sought refuge in the persons of Neruda, Sholokhov
and Marquez, not to honor talent and humane positions, but to
make use of honest names as a cover on its path to Agnon and
his likes. If things followed their real names, we could take the
prize seriously; we would consider it a literary prize which has
come to a great writer. But when names have been divorced
from their meaning, we become confused and obliged to look
at the different faces of Naguib Mahfouz to pinpoint the par-
ticular face which got the prize. As soon as we come across a
suitable face, we fail to see the criteria of the prize and find it
only an enigma, nothing more.
Why has the grand prize come to Naguib Mahfouz? We may
immediately say that he deserves it and has for over thirty
years. It may also be said that it is due to the progress of the
Arabs and the development of their literature; it is a break in
the Zionist-imperialist wall; or it comes with the time of
«detente» and «unity of the world»... or through the role of
translation which has made Mahfouz readable in the different
languages of the world. Yet these justifications, chosen at
random, do not change the situation at all. Neither has wor-
thiness cropped up this year, nor has Arab progress suddenly
materialized. Besides, translation has never been the royal path
leading to genuine evaluation.
We are fully aware that Naguib Mahfouz is much worthier
of the Nobel Prize than a long list of its other winners. Yet we
are also aware, without a shadow of doubt, that the current
political context was the ultimate condition which pushed the
prize into Mahfouz’s pocket. The world we are living in has
already rid itself of the burdens of objectivity and common
sense, from the moment capitalism monopolized science, the
mass media and propaganda, as well as the issuing and
generalization of verdicts.
The Nobel Prize, in the objective sense of the term, will add
nothing to Naguib Mahfouz except its title and financial
weight. He was a great novelist before the prize and will remain
so after it. The question revolves around another point. Has
the prize come to Mahfouz for his literary worthiness, for his
political «moderation,» or for both? Was it to honor the works
of an Arab novelist, or of an Egyptian writer who lived
through the reign of Sadat without a word of protest; who ex-
perienced the time when Sadat was awarded the same prize
after his treason, without uttering a word of objection; who
lived through the «normalization» of relations between Egypt
and the Zionist state, and kept silent? We may naively ask:
Would Naguib Mahfouz get the Nobel Prize if he were anti-
Zionist? Including Arab literature in the list of «worid
literature» through the Nobel Prize means nothing but the >
55 - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 31
- تاريخ
- ديسمبر ١٩٨٨
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed