I just finished it and came with some reserves, but what Duygutekgul wrote make me want to defend the novel.
First of all, he's a dentist. Not that dentists can't write good novels, but I'd think twice before bragging about myself after this badly-constructed novel.
That is about one of the dummest argument i ever read, first you don't say dentiste can't write, but then you do?
And i think it was very well constructed, with some omission ok, but authors doesn't have the obligation of explaining or ending every sub story they start.
(If i was to be honest though Ho yua was a dentist too and i didn't like his book much, but i would not throw his dentistry at him as a first punch)
........, and some characters, like Dawlat and Malak, are so one-dimensional that I believe they didn't even have to be introduced at all.
I don't think he can be said to give us "a portrayal of Egypt" either, because what he depicts is simply not realistic. To start with, how come everyone living in an apartment building has some business to do with one another, and more importantly, I don't believe everyone in a given society can be doing at least one condemnable thing. (The only normal character in the novel is Christine, who happens to be French.) Saying that it's all Abd el Nasser's fault doesn't give you the excuse to portray everyone as "cowards, opportunists, and hypocrites" - or losers, unable to give any direction to their lives. It all looks fishy to me, whose approval is he trying to get?
This proove that who know nothing about Arabian culture or Egytpe.
I live in Morroco and clearly, everybody know most of the private life of others.
It's like a national sport.
And i know a guy just like Malak.
People live together, they are nosy, they know what you eat, how much you earn, who you sleep with...you'd have to be a trainned ninja to avoid their scrutiny
I don't believe everyone in a given society can be doing at least one condemnable thing
This sentence is puzzling me, you mean more than one, or none.
Most people think they do nothing condemnable, even the worst can moraly justify to themselves most of what they do.
And i'm not surprised you find the French woman the only "morale" charactere because she is the only one you can relate too. Why Soad shoud be condamnable for exemple? and to think about it, why condamne most of the characteres ( appart from the obvious fuckers), they are dealt cards and try to wiggle their way out of it.
I do beleive in shades of grey, and that is where those poeple live.
You just read the novel has if it was your next door neightbourgs, and with this angle, most of what happen is terribly wrong. It is a different culture, and i nearly would say a different time. I sometime think that what i witness here( Morroco) could be assiciated to France of the 50's and some of it 19 century to Middle ages.
And saying that , i won't say it's wrong, it's just different.
Modernity also has it's drawback.
I try to think about what i found unpleasant in The yacubian building and i think it comes from Zaki's charactere, the only one who get out clear of the mess, with a young lovely wife who loves him to bout.
I think their is a lot of Alaa el Aswany in him and is indulgence for the guy felt suspicious. Like while Soad hate the sexual relation the older man Assam whom she find revulsive, like a lizzard, Boussainia love the smell of Zaki ( also an old man) and is in impressed by is sexual energy ( your right !).
So while reading those two stories in parralle, i had trouble not find it a bit fishy.
The rest of the book is excellent however, if a bit fatalistic.
