Do you love this poem? "I Know a Man" by Robert Creeley

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/171564

I love the way, Robert Creeley reads it.

Why place Chapter 10 in the middle of "Adrift on the Nile"? [A novella by Naguib Mahfouz]

This article explores the importance of placing chapter 10 in (almost) the middle of the novella (there are 18 chapters in total). It also delves into the functions it performs. Characters in the novella show nihilistic tendencies which are looked upon as well (moral nihilism).

This chapter causes an interval in the novel, it acts as a diversion from the plot line and it performs many functions: it provides extra information about the lives of characters, gives the view point of the characters by the omniscient narrator, invites the reader to make the story with the narrator, future of the characters is indicated in this intermission, reveals the narrator of the novella.

Chapter 10 begins with the title in capitals “SCENARIO FOR A PLAY”. The use of all caps and the word “play” in the novella is unexpected and a paradox (since it is not a play yet called so). “SCENARIO FOR A PLAY” is followed by “CHARACTERS OF THE PLAY” (again in all caps) as a heading.

This chapter also blurs the boundary between a novel and a drama. The chapter is like (some) director’s notes to his actors; at the same time, it invites the reader to take part in the action (or process) in defining the roles of characters.

The omniscient narrator mentions the theme as “Serious versus the Absurd” and mentions this novella as a “drama”. The journalist Samara has been called a ‘serious person’ while all other characters are directionless, moody and absurd. Anis has been titled ‘master of ceremonies’—he manages the affairs of the houseboat yet doesn’t participate in the conversation like others, likewise Ragab, Mustafa and Ali have uncontrolled sexual desires without giving justification to their desires.

Absurdity exists in the characters who have nihilistic tendencies—Anis’s lack of communication with his fellow friends, Ragab’s hedonism without any concern for his own life and for others (as he is dangerously promiscuous). Ragab is, “One of those gods who die in their fifties” (98).

Samara is an odd character. Her main motive appears to reform the people on the houseboat who are influential (civil servant, art critic, lawyer etc.) yet passively live their lives. In the end Samara turns out to be the love of Anis, which comes as a surprise for the reader. The deliberate omission of Samara in this chapter is a clear indication that she plays a key role in the end because she is principal character in the story.

Interestingly, the omniscient narrator at times appears to be Anis (protagonist of the novella), it seems so especially at the end of Chapter 10. These lines give the indication, “There was no more writing … He put the notebook in his pocket … He looked toward the door [of the houseboat], wondering who it could be who was coming so early” (100). In the next chapter the mystery of the narrator is cleared out and it turns out to be Anis (for the time being).

Omniscient narrator in this chapter leaks out more themes in the chapters that follow: “scientific method”, logic, religion versus atheism, futility and necessity of love and the accident. Scientific method is applied to ‘I-do-this-they-will-do-this’ fixed mental-frameset. In their discussions of religion, moon, sex, boredom, life on the houseboat, one comment followed another as if discovering something with an absurdist agenda of coming to no conclusion.

‘Logic’ (as in if ‘A’ happens then ‘B’ could happen) is applied between the characters who constantly bicker about trivial things on the houseboat. They lack belief in religion (Amm Amduh Anis’ servant is an exception). The smoking of pipe is as important as having sex and a veracious appetite for sex and a careless attitude towards the concerns of the events happening away from houseboat doesn’t seem to occupy their minds at all. Amm Amduh like a messenger keeps on informing them about the accidents happening outside the houseboat but they paid no heed to anything outside their domain.

Both genders are placed in an awkward position; they are presented as Epicurean in nature yet their function is reduced to sex and smoking of pipe. The puffing of pipe appears to their purpose of life–they think of nothing constructive on the life boat. Houseboat is a place for sex and trivial talk.

Only two paragraphs are given on females of the novella, namely, Sana and Saniya. Samara is not mentioned. In contrast description of male characters is given ample space. Other chapters follow strong female roles yet their lack of description almost takes away their importance from the novella. And in the end Anis’ confession of love for Samara reveals the absence of Samara in chapter 10.

The use of the subject pronoun ‘I’ and narrative device of, stream of consciousness drags the reader in the writing. The narrator says, “I imagine the scenario to unfold in the following fashion” (94)…“I am at least aware of the ideas that I must crystallize and clarify” –these show free flowing thoughts of the narrator (95).

This repetitive use of “I” (in this chapter) makes readers, the writers of the story; or at least the intention appears to be so. When describing characters the invitation is to build and evolve the decisions the characters in the play are going to take. In an interview conducted by Gareth Cook of Psychologist James Pennebaker published on Scientific American titled “The Secret of Language Code” reveals that pronouns have deeper connection than we assume, “Pennebaker has been a leader in the computer analysis of texts for their psychological content. And in his new book, ‘The Secret Life of Pronouns,’ he argues that how we use words like ‘I,’ ‘she’, and ‘who’ reveal secrets of our psychology.” Likewise by using the pronouns ‘I’ the narrator opens the door for the reader to become as much the part of narration as he wants.

The narrator at times takes control and sets the direction for the characters revealing his belief (along with the belief of his characters). Under the subheading of “(4) KHALID AZZUZ” (unidentified) narrator writes “I do not believe it impossible that one day he will return to his tradition faith when his creative spring dries up” (98). The statement starting with “I do not believe” reveals Narrator’s belief, and it revolves around how the lives of the characters will be shaped in the novella. In the hands of the narrator the plot and this novella in the larger context becomes a game of disclosure of the inner workings in the construction of the plot (98).

In the erection of the framework of the plot, the narrator does not hold back the process of creation, not even the surprise a certain character like Ragab carries for future action in the story. Narrator describing Ragab’s whimsical ability to twist the plot says, “His power is unlimited. His real release lies in sex; the water pipe appears not to affect him very much. His possibilities for the play do not need mentioning” (99).

At the end of each evolving-descriptions of the characters a hint to their future direction is revealed. Ahmad Nasr—“On the outside, he [Ahmad] will remain the steady person, the believer, the efficient and untroubled man…” (96). The future of Mustafa is decided by the narrator like this, “A lawyer. No harm in my leaving him as such in the play, to justify his powers of the argument” (96). Mustafa’s power of the argument lies in his belief in the Absolute which “is simply an excuse for addiction”, which he uses to counteract any argument arisen against him (96).

Ali according to narrator is a type who “wanders aimlessly through life without beliefs or morality” and the suggestion is that he would remain the same (97).  For Khalid, narrator says: “I do not believe it impossible that one day he will return to his traditional faith when his creative spring dries up” (98). Ragab is full of “possibilities for the play” (99) and Anis is, “Useful for a comic exploitation, but he will not play a positive role in the play”; Anis physically fights with Ragab shedding blood, which is brought to light in the last chapters (17 and 18). A physical brawl takes between them because of an accident that took place when the houseboat-members went to a road trip in a car and accidently hit a person on the road. It was later revealed in the newspaper that the man had died. The death and fight breaks the group apart.

The narrator uses Anis for comic exploitation in the earlier chapters (Director General and Anis’ tussle, Amm Amduh’s and Anis’ interaction on the subject of street prostitutes). In this chapter, the narrator reveals his role for future chapters by saying “[Anis plays] not … a positive role [in the novella]” (99). In the chapters to come Anis takes a stand to expose the group and himself to the police and stakes the liberty of his group which vexes the group and especially Ragab (which becomes the cause of their dog-fight).
In this chapter short summaries of the characters are given. Distortion in the summaries is created by mysterious involvement of the reader with the narrator (who is difficult to identify –as he changes sides). It appears as an experiment by the narrator in order to understand his mind and make the reader as much a part of the process as himself.

In the light of ‘Nihilism’ (a philosophical doctrine advocating the meaninglessness of life, ‘Nihilism’ originates from the Latin word ‘nihil’ which means nothing) the characters show a tendency to fall back in their peaceful empty zone—the houseboat, whenever they can and logically analyze life in whatever manner they like.

In Turgenev’s novel Fathers and sons the description of a ‘Nihilist’ is given as: “A Nihilist is a man who declines to bow to authority, or to accept any principle on trust, however sanctified it may be” (Turgenev 23). This aspect of nihilism is reflected in every character in the play Amm Abduh, Anis’ servant, is the only character who believes in God, nobody else does.

The characters in the play are moral nihilist. When Amm Abduh tells Anis and his fellow houseboat companions that a woman has fallen in the street and later in the play a man is drowning in the sea, nobody responds. As ethical nihilist (same as moral nihilist) believes that all moral claims are false, likewise the concerns for people outside the premises of the houseboat seems just another news to them. They limit moral concerns are limited, as a result. Even though they can help they don’t.

They consider themselves independent of the moral responsibility in regards to the injuries of others (especially those outside the boat). Amm Abduh always brings bad news to group on houseboat. The characters are immune to the news. They treat every kind of news as a piece of entertainment, something not worthy of taking action.

This chapter is a deliberate disruption in the flow of the novella. Its function is to the highlight the episodes that follow it and provide an insight to the ones that are presented earlier.
Naguib Mahfouz by provides a separate space for the character descriptions of the ‘players’ in the novella, their profession, tendencies, beliefs and future by placing it in the middle of the novella. Nihilism (in this novella) has a utilitarian cause; it makes them a united group. This novella resembles absurdist drama Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett in terms of confusion created (Amm Amduh news of accidents, indecision of the characters as a result of the accident), nihilistic attitude (disbelief in authority) and repetition of scenes (arrival in the houseboat, Amm Amduh’s messages).

The unlikely placement of the chapter invites the reader to look at the novella in the shape of a play and places the character as an open book. Mahfouz has used stream of consciousness as a narrative technique to make the reader as much the part of creation as the writer.

Keywords: Language code, Epicurean, Nihilism, Moral Nihilism, Narrator

                                      Works Cited

Mahfouz, Naguib. Adrift on the Nile. Trans.
   
       Frances Liardet. New York: Random House,          

      1966. Print.

Pennebaker, James. Interview by Gareth Cook.

    Scientific American. Scientific American, 2011.

    Web. 31 Oct. 2012.
     
Turgenev, Ivan Sergeevich. Fathers and Sons.

       Wordsworth Editions: Hertfordshire: 1996.        

       Print.

Note: I will correcting the mistakes in the assignment soon. The corrected assignment I couldn't upload!