1- The ending of “Bartleby”…er, what’s up that?
- Writing about any one poem, i,e, doing a close reading.
3.What is new (or, alternatively, familiar) in Baudelaire’s poetry?
4.What constitutes a breaking point for any of the authors in Revolutionary Contexts, where they feel that they have to turn the political or social order upside down?
turned, a new shape appears, or new idea…. How many facets does truth have then?” Munif is intent on challenging both the Saudi view of history and the Western colonial view of history. He mimics the Western colonial and postcolonial literary tradition particularly in his depiction of Hamilton, a character who, in several instances, seems to be modeled on T.E. Lawrence: Hamilton …. was loyal to the Empire but detested it. Money to him was a mere means of doing business, a means of entry, an autonomous power in itself. He wished he was a king people never tired of gazing upon, and yet longed to be an anonymous and unknown man. (50) When he was on camelback under the sun’s burning blaze, with the desert sand below him rolling on like the leaves of a book, he felt that he was the only man capable of this mission; that an awesome power had been entrusted to him.(51) Hamilton … was addicted to Arab clothes; he could not give them up. When he was compelled to wear his own clothes, to board a plane or travel, he felt disguised. He smiled and laughed when he caught sight of himself in the mirror—this was the thing his friends did when they saw him in European clothes: they smiled. (54 -55) With this exposure to nature and turbulence, he felt that his body would not obey him that it had mutinied and would not revert to his control again, especially after such a long time without a woman, and that only by violent action, no less violent than war, could he restore strength and discipline to his body. (70) Hamilton in fact, is a composite character of the twentieth –century orientalist man of action. Munif has made the point that Hamilton is modeled more on Harry St. John Philby 17 than on Lawrence. Lawrence, he has noted, belonged to a generation associated with the end of an era – namely the Ottoman era, to whose destruction Lawrence was dedicated. Philby, on the other hand, belonged to a subsequent era, which was dedicated to building a new society rather than tearing an old one down.18 The history of Mooran is a history of construction and consolidation, rather than dismantling and dismemberment. This is indeed a valid distinction, but one that relates more to the historiographical aspect of Variations of Night and Day than the character construction. In choosing certain details needed for portrait of Hamilton, Munif utilizes some characteristics associated more with Lawrence, than with Philby. The point is that, by creating such an intertextual character as one of the focal points of his novel, Munif is at pains to counter orientalist history. Despite the detail that Munif lavishes on the character of Hamilton, he never allows him to dominate the narrative. Rather, he is subordinate to Arab history. In this sense, Variations of Night and Day responds directly to a work such as Seven Pillars of Wisdom, in which Arab history is subordinated to Lawrence’s own personal psychological narrative. Here, the Western orientalist is a mote floating on the tide of history, rather than a maker of history. Munif makes a posture that is the inverse of Lawrence’s with respect to his intentions as a writer. While Lawrence sought to remake history into a personal fiction, Munif attempts to use fiction in order to rewrite history. While these twin impulses seem to be contradictory, in fact they spring from a similar modernist viewpoint that blurs distinctions between history or autobiography and fiction. Both produce metahistorical narratives which look back to previous historical narrative traditions. Lawrence looks back to Doughty and the medievalists, revising their literary tradition, while Munif looks back and revises the Western orientalist tradition.>GET ANSWER