Modern Middle East Literature
A Blog for English 497/Gender
Studies 480 at Boise State University
-
- Name:Dr.
Marcy /مارسي Newman / نوما ن
- Location:Amman,
Jordan
Comparing Terror and Terrorism
Both "Wild
Thorns" and "The Lovers of Algeria" depict torture
and terrorism. I'm wondering what people think about
the differences in the way that the authors approach
these issues. Also, I find fascinating that the
protaganists of this book are a husband and wife
primarily while the two in "Wild Thorns" were male
cousins. Does this shape your empathy for the
characters at all differently? It does for me. I
think about Anna and Nassreddine losing each other
but also their children and the mother/mother in-law,
losing themselves in the fractures of a country and
the mere privilege that many take for granted in
choosing to love whoever you love without fear of
punishment. If you try to draw parallels between
these depictions of loss, Usama and Adil lose land
and power in their society (eventually Usama loses
his life but is this loss or is it as he saw it,
sacrifice?) There are so many incredible parallels
between the books, such as the issue of responding
to direct oppression and the threat of terror with
the threat of terror and violence and
self-oppression. There are also places in which the
two books are quite different. I feel the graphic
depictions of torture in "The Lovers of Algeria" far
more than the prison experiences depicted in "Wild
Thorns" and yet both occur in prison.
Last, I wanted to unpack the words terror and
terrorism. In this book, the lines of friend and foe
are deeply blurred which makes it even harder to
slip into easy categories of obviously good and
obviously evil. It is so incredibly powerful how
dropping into this crazy world through the eyes of a
character can reveal so much about how terror is
really not something so simply defined or understood.
Anna and Nassreddine are pushed to breaking points
of loss and suffering in a space pushed to breaking
points of loss and suffering. What I wonder is why
it has to get to that point that people feel
justified and make justifications for their
right to use violence to control or destroy
others. Just thinking of the word "occupy" in the
context of this book and reading what happens to
Nassreddine and to Anna and to think about how many
other people this happened to and still happens to,
makes it impossible for me to hear or say that word
and not shudder.
I wonder too how does a place or a person recover
from being that broken?
3 Comments:
The notion of viewing someone foreign as somehow less innocent in a situation such as the one in Algeria is ridiculous, of course, because Nassreddine isn’t any more to blame or any more involved than Anna. Also, as a foreigner, I suppose Anna is more aligned with the French and their ruthlessness than Nassreddine is. And in that context, Nassreddine would be more aligned with the FLN or AIS or GIA…both connections I am annoyed at myself for making and in my heart I don’t think I really buy into them.
I agree with Jen that the love between Anna and Nassreddine renders the situation all the more vivid and painful. Also, the way in which Benmalek isolates his characters is of interest. Anna, Nassreddine, Jallal, Jaourden…such an unlikely group of people who are drawn together one unifying factor: they are alone in the world. In a situation where fear drives family members to turn their backs on one another and neighbors to spy on neighbors, these four characters risk their lives for one another. I suppose this is what I found so painful and beautiful about the novel, the idea of strangers coming together in such horrible circumstances. Did the rest of you feel similarly? I’m curious how the rest of you dealt with the foreigner/native concept as well.
By racial privilege? A sort of accidental colonialist?
I think the book (and you, with this post) draws an interesting tension between foreign/foreigner and the assumption that all foreigners are bad,oppressive and aggreeing to their government's colonial ambition because Anna's character stands in direct opposition to this. The mere fact of her falling in love with Nassreddine and going to his country and losing him and their children and their mother in law and RETURNING long after their murder makes it more difficult to see her negatively or as part of an oppressive system but is she by virtue of being foreign born and visibly and religiously different?
This same tension is acting out now in parts of the world, particularly with regard to foreign policy and the reaction to it. Fantastic point Taryn!
The relationship between Anna and Jallah is interesting because they’re socially deemed to be opposites, yet their “histories” are similar. Anna is an old Swiss woman. Jallah is a young Algerian boy. Yet, they’re both alone in the world and they’ve both been effected by the terror of postcolonial Algeria. Pairing these two characters together provides the novel with an amazing humanistic aspect. Amidst the slitting of throats and street side shootings, an unexpected relationship has formed. Although it is clear that Jallah agrees to travel with Anna for the money, he grows to care for her much more- and the same goes for Anna.