The Words by Jean-Paul Sartre

This 200 pages book hides inside a 10 000 pages literary text. How is this possible one could ask? I have no freaking idea! This is why Sartre is Sartre I guess. Erratum, that sentence should have stated this is why Sartre the Great is Sartre the Great as I have decided to "literary" refer to him from now on. Reviewing "the words" could lead to the writing of a 100 PhD dissertations and a lot more essays. I have been struggling to write something about it for long and finally decided to take that leap of faith to see where my thoughts (nothing more) would take me so here it goes.

 

 «J'ai commencé ma vie comme je la finirai sans doute : au milieu des livres. Dans le bureau de mon grand-père, il y en avait partout ; défense était de les faire épousseter sauf une fois l'an, avant la rentrée d'octobre. Je ne savais pas encore lire que, déjà, je les révérais, ces pierres levées : droites ou penchées, serrées comme des briques sur les rayons de la bibliothèque ou noblement espacées en allées de menhirs, je sentais que la prospérité de notre famille en dépendait...»

"The words" is an autobiography written by Sartre the Great and we (him and I) have never been properly introduced before. It wasn't until a dear friend kindly offered me this book that I got the chance to discover Sartre the man and Sartre the writer. I have separated the two because I have clear distinct feelings for each. I do believe the man had a lot to do with Sartre becoming the Great author/philosopher he is and the aim of the autobiography itself was to show how one lead to another. Written at the age of 59, Sartre retraces back the first 10 years of his life, claiming that he knew back then that he wanted to become an author because of the influence of his grandfather and everything he read as well as his first attempts of writing. The influence of the family and the grandfather is present in the whole book which is divided in two parts entitled "reading" and "writing", respectively. From the organization one can tell that this book is logical and well structured and clearly shows the importance of family more than anything else in Sartre's decision because of its presence in both parts of the book. However, I found this autobiography to be too well organized and clear for my taste which made it hard for me to believe that it was genuine and honest as autobiographies should aim to be. Besides, I believe that Sartre was lying on two major issues one of which is more clear and evident than the other.

First, it is quasi impossible for someone to remember all the books read during childhood or at least as much books as those mentioned in this autobiography. I mean seriously, the other day I tried to remember the books I read the past month alone and I just couldn't remember anything! It was only after I consulted Goodreads that I was able to answer this question. So claiming that one recalls the book read 40 years ago is total bogus to me. No doubt about it!!!

Second, I am pretty sure that no one has an idea about what he/she wants to become when they get older. Let's assume some do, I am sure the idea would not be as clear and extremist (oh yes we'll get back to this) as that presented by Sartre. A child is a vessel for a thousand and one ideas a day while here Sartre presents himself as a one idea/goal/aim child. He also awkwardly views literature as a religion, his grandfather as a Priest (sometimes also God) and himself, the miracle child that has to write because literature needs him, because the world needs him. Said by a child, this might sound kind of cute, but you just feel that  this arrogance cannot be that of a child but rather that of a successful intelligent yet obnoxious and shallow kind of a MAN.This further hints that the story we are reading is a fake one.

I am not evaluating the literary value of this book or Sartre the Great. It is absurd as I mentioned before. All the successes and intelligence in the world do not however justify the arrogance and pretentiousness of a man. Sartre the man, was full of that! He tries to dissimulate it in the child in him but I think he failed to convince me at least. Writing an autobiography by itself tends to stem in many cases from arrogance. The art of autobiography can also stem from other needs such as trauma or historical recording of events etc. In fact, it is for these reasons that some of my favorite literary books are autobiographies. However, Sartre was 59 when he decided to write about the reasons that made him become an author. Put into context, this book is the fruit of an arrogant big shot who feels the need to let people know how he became the successful man he is. To this aim he invents or reformulates his childhood story because one can just feel him lying as mentioned before. He fails however to overcome his arrogance at many instances starting from the moment when he starts detailing his genealogy. Seriously, what's wrong with men and family trees!!! Nothing justifies his choice of elaborating on his family tree at the very first pages of this book except extreme arrogance. The other major arrogant point was him believing he had to write to save humanity. Can someone be any more delusional than that? Please!

I am not sure if Sartre was self aware of the image he was giving of himself. But I believe that probably he was and he found nothing wrong in being arrogant. One cannot judge a literary masterpiece based on the character of its writer I agree, but I still believe that modesty in addition to the intellectual capacity makes the most captivating writers ever and probably the smartest (those who brag on the opposite fall in the annoying category).

In conclusion, reading this book made me discover two Sartres, Sartre the man and Sartre the Great. One I loved and one I hate. Sartre the Great will never become one of my favorite authors because of the man I discovered behind. I cannot dare to deny Sartre the Great of his rightful literary and intellectual value. Then again some books' influence on you just cannot be detached from their authors' influence. But one thing is sure, I will not forget the Sartres.

The Book of Mirdad - Mikhail Naimi

Mikhail Naimi is a prominent Lebanese author of the early 20th century. He is known for being one of the founders of the movement for the rebirth of Arabic literature presided by Gibran Khalil Gibran. Some people believe he was the best Lebanese writer of his era. I sincerely do not wish to think for a second that he might have written another book as horrible as this one. With all objectivity, this book is what I call a mutilation to writing and an offense to readers. The author should have been ashamed of himself upon writing this book which he clearly wasn't for he had insisted on publishing it in Lebanon after failing to do so in London.

 The only nice thing about this book was the cover.

What were the people who published the book thinking at that time? Were they that blinded by his name and fame or were they just that bad at evaluating texts? I tell you one thing, they should have followed the Brits and spared me this great pain I felt while and after reading the book!

The book of Mirdad was a masterpiece until Mirdad opened his mouth. I cannot describe you my disappointment. I got seriously hooked on to the story as soon as a man decided out of nothing to go up a mountain taking the hard road, the road of no return. As he climbed, I felt my reading pleasure going crescendo with him. When he arrived at the top, I saw myself standing next to him. He dies and resurrects and I follow him. Then all of a sudden, I felt as if someone pushed me off the top of the Everest into the 7th hell below. The pleasure of reading, the creative and surprising encounters or misencounters that lead to the delivery of the book of Mirdad, and the petrification of the messenger priest all vanish as soon as Mirdad enters the scene. There was no more plot in the book, I wasn't reading a story anymore but rather listening to gibberish talk by the author or Mirdad (it doesn't matter). My personal interpretation is that the character reflects the author's perception of himself: someone who has something to say about everything. Unfortunately, as a reader I found that all that was said had no added value whatsoever because the ideas were pretty much reformulations of previous teachings from the Bible, Coran and almost every religious book. Can you imagine the horror in reading the "deja" heard about stuff that Mirdad had to say about any subject imaginable? He had to have a word about prayer, love, judgement and many many other stuff including IRONICALLY silence (He couldn't just shut up now could he?)!

What was more annoying than Mirdad talking is that he had a pattern-like way of talking: All Mirdad had to do to put up a sentence was to combine several adjectives that mean the same thing and then add to those the opposite adjectives. Everything I read was pretty meaningless. Not only the book story was bad but the writing was even worse! I was suffering, agonizing at every single page turn but I kept going because I thought that the book cannot finish with Mirdad speeches alone. I was waiting for Mirdad to come back, for the man who turned to stone to be freed, for anything that doesn't come out of Mirdad's mouth! The story could have been much better if only the ending was different alas, I was disappointed again and Mirdad kept moralizing until the end. Let me tell you that I had to go through a seriously intensive reading cure program to heal from this book. Thank God I feel much better now, in case you were wondering.

Now on a different issue, I have to say that some people I have discussed the book with, told me it reminded them of Jesus and that they felt as if the book indeed was spreading some teachings they already know. I agree with them on that for I have to admit that I instantly remembered the teachings of Jesus although I felt that there were no two persons more different than Mirdad and Jesus. How could one even confuse the two? Jesus is good and rarely talks while Mirdad is a devious a** who never stops talking with his arrogant tone, and the worst is that he's plagiarizing! It's funny that the Brits' reason for rejecting the book' s publication was that they were afraid that the book's aim was to spread new religious ideas or if you want old religious ideas by a new prophetic figure. Nonsense! Mirdad is so despicable that it makes it so easy to resent him and his teaching than to follow him one bit!

To conclude, I believe the author committed the worst imaginable sin in writing and that is publishing a book that is intended deliver to people a person's own morals and views on life and its hurdles. This automatically dethroned the author from his title in my eyes. How arrogant can one be to think that people would be interested in what He or his character think about every possible subject? Can someone please explain it to me?

The Arch and the Butterfly by Mohammed Achaari

I have mixed feelings about this book. I wasn't quite captured after the first reading, but scanning through the book again made me see it from a completely different perspective. I was deeply touched by the words the author had put next to each other and the ideas he had exposed and reflected upon. This isn't any ordinary, easy or straight forward book as it might seem, but it's rather a valuable Moroccan historical, social economical as well as philosophical chef d'oeuvre to say the least. No wonder this  book won the Booker prize in 2011. The prize had nothing at all to do with me choosing the book  to read. With all due respect to the juries and organizers of this prestigious award, I chose this book because the author is Moroccan and Morocco has a very dear place in my heart. If you have visited or lived in that country you would definitely understand. Who knows maybe you might even experience the same joy I felt every time the author mentioned the name of a city, especially my most favorite one: the one and only "Marrakesh" or as I like to call it " the city of one thousand and one nights".

! إن الخروج من الطفولة هو التكرار الأبدي لمسألة الخروج من الجنة

Growing out of childhood is the eternal repetition of leaving heaven

My first impressions of the book were pretty negative as mentioned above, because mainly, I was unable to tell what was the story all about or even follow it. At one point I thought it was about Youssef, at another that it was about his son who died in Afghanistan or his dad or his gay friend or his other friend and his sister. I even thought it was a book about repression and corruption in Morocco. At the end I figured it out, but in between there was too much digression in the plot that made the book confusing and boring at several instances. It's such a shame that the beauty of the book decreased as the author increased the number of characters.

Moreover, the author presented Youssef in a very peculiar way: sometimes he was a cruel son, at others he was a husband void of love. Then he was this lover who apparently had two women in his life. Youssef had many personality traits one would hate him for and no charisma to get you attached to him. If we want to summarize it, for me he was totally despicable and I believe that because I hated him, my judgement of the book was seriously affected. I was biased: I hated the book while reading it because I hated the main character.

But then again, after I had finished it, and on my second evaluation, I have found the beginning and end of this book to be among the best ever written (or the best that I have ever read). What better way to captivate the reader than to start telling the story of a man who has lost all emotional feeling as well as the sense of smell? Who has ever imagined such character?  Who would not want to know what is going to happen next? The brilliant idea gave rise to a very fertile space for writing and imagination that literally took over me while reading the book. Also, the strength and beauty of the end (that arouse from the surprise effect and the connections that were established/completed) reflected the strength and elegance of the author's pen as well as his creativity. I will not give any more detail about the ending because there was too much ingenuity put into it that in my opinion, deserve not to be spoiled. (Yes, it's that good)

What I liked most in this book was discovering this interesting, intellectual person that wrote it. His own life experiences, education, travels as well as jobs (former minister of culture among others) can be felt in his book. I also greatly appreciated the ideas or reflections on different subjects that he successfully enriched his text with (numerous new ideas that could take more than one review to address).

Finally the major point I would like to highlight, is that the book might come in handy for those who wish to visit the monuments of Volubilis, a roman city near Meknes, between Fes and Rabbat. My mom being a history teacher and having passed her passion over to me, I found a lot of pleasure in reading this part of the book, especially because I haven't been to these sites yet. I can only thank the author for making this part as clear and enjoyable as it can get and kudos for all the elaborate historical, archeological as well as touristic detailed description. The author's effort and skills really worked on me for I felt as if I had literally flown over to Volublis, physically exploring the city before getting back to my bed to finish the book. It was just heavenly.

Hope this helps you in your reading decisions.
Isabelle

Agatha Christie

Hello readers, today I want to tell you "my story" with my favorite author, Agatha Christie (1890 - 1976), who is by the way the best selling writer of all times.

I was only 10 years old when I discovered Agatha's world. I was bored with no books, so my mom suggested reading "Murder on The Orient Express" and that was the official start of a life time love story between me and Mrs. Christie.

Agatha Christie

The world of Agatha is really amusing: crimes, detectives, police, and lots of details. The most valuable thing in her literature is the way she creates her plots and links them to human nature understanding. There is a lot of ingenuity in her style. Detective Fictions in general depend on cheep excitement, but Christie took that genre to another dimension. She wrote stories about "human nature", whereby the crimes are only master keys to unlock the mysteries inside every single one of us.

I read about 40 to 50 Agatha Christie novels so far, but I couldn't solve any of them by myself. She always succeeded at fooling me that I felt I was so stupid. Nevertheless that was very inspiring for me as a writer. She herself didn't believe she could ever write a story. She got a very bad cold one day and was forced to stay in bed for a couple of weeks. Her mom asked her to try writing, that's somehow was the first sparkle in her impressive carrier: 66 novels and 15 short story collections. She sold more than 4 billion copies, and holds the world's most-widely published books record as well as the most-translated individual author. Her books have been translated into at least 103 languages. Finally, her stage play The Mousetrap holds the record for the longest initial run (1952 - now) at Ambassadors Theater in London.

I have to admit that Agatha is one of the reasons behind my love for England. She described that far cold and cloudy country so eloquently that sometimes I feel I know it like the palm of my hand. I have only visited England through books, hers in particular. Maybe my thoughts about England are a little bit outdated for I always imagine myself travelling in a SLOW train in the middle of nowhere in the English country side, drinking a DECENT cup of tea, and complaining about the bad weather.

Slow Train

I highly appreciate the characters in Agatha's books. They are full of life due to the abundance of details especially the protagonists.  The Belgian detective Hercules Poirot (33 of Christie's novels and 54 short stories) and Miss Jane Marple (12 of Christie's novels and 20 short stories) for instance, were both old and super smart. They solved lots of crimes by just meditating and thinking. The other characters are important as well, especially for the comedy that reflects Agatha's sense of humor. The funniest character in my opinion is Ariadne Oliver (a friend of Poirot, who is the fictional Agatha as she is a weird writer too). Oh, by the way I believe that all of Agatha's characters are real and I still think that I can meet Poirot or Miss Marple on the streets.

Agatha wrote about people in many strange places and eras: ancient Egypt 3000 years ago, or Baghdad after the world war II, or even in a stopped train in middle of Europe. This makes it hard for me to choose my favorite book. However, I guess "Murder on The Orient Express" is my most favorite as it introduced me to Agatha. I adore a couple of other titles like "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" and "And Then There Were None" as well as her first published novel "The Mysterious Affair at Styles" that was rejected by 6 different publishers before it became an international hit in 1920.

Murder on The Orient Express

I don't know what to add more. Everything mentioned above are the most important things in my experience with Agatha. However, I want to ask you all about your experience with Agatha. Have you ever read any of her books? What do you think about them? Don't forget to tell us more about your favorite authors as well.

Hunger by Knut Hamsun

"God in heaven, to what extremity I had come!" cried the lonely desperate man living in a harsh cruel material world. This man is the main character in Norwegian novelist Knut Hamsun’s (1859 - 1952) masterpiece: "Hunger". What else to expect from the lips of a poor columnist who suffers homelessness, poverty, and hunger in the cool streets of Christiania (the old name of Oslo)?

From bad to worse, the nameless hero of this novel spends his days wandering the streets, trying to make his living with little success. He blames his bad luck for his suffering. He tries journalistic writing which ensures him a little income from time to time in order to pay his debts and buy some food. The funny thing is how much he always spends on charity, thast reminds him of his "nobleness", "honor" and "humanity".

When all the doors are closed, with no money in his pockets, and no roof to protect him from winter’s harsh cold, he gets to know exactly how real hunger feels like. Shirtless, living on the streets and too proud to let himself degrade to the level of begging or stealing, he will have long uninterrupted days without a crumb. He reaches an advanced stage of rave and idiocy, but the Divine Providence helps him after all, sending him away on a departing ship to leave behind him the scary city and the ghost of hunger that is on the hunt for a new victim on the streets.

The novel was published in 1890, and had a wide fame all around the globe. It is considered today as one of the best classics ever written. It is behind Hamsun’s literary success and has even earned him the Nobel Prize of literature in 1920.

In “Hunger”, Hamsun started a new literary revolution, a totally innovative type of writing that is based on internal dialogue, one that dives so deep in the human mind and its floating ideas. We could call it "the psychological literature", which later, strongly influenced other writers like Virginia Woolf and Henry James.

Hamsun is believed to be the godfather of the modern literature. He considers that the main purpose of literature must be "Describing the whispers of the blood, and seeking the bone marrow" while focusing on the various intricacies of the human reason. On this, says the great American author Ernest Hemingway: "​​Hamsun taught me how to write." All those characteristics appeared for the first time in "Hunger".

Ernest Hemingway

The protagonist’s thoughts and reflections create a deep connection between man and the nature around him and in fact, Hamsun ensured that his character reaches delirium in that wild, crazy and merciless winter.

In spite of all the tragic events in the days of hunger, the novel is totally far from the blue sad writing style. Comedy is strangely present in the weird ideas that cross the journalist’s mind. That was actually one of the best things about the book. I enjoyed black comedy situations spread all over the pages.

The peculiar thing about "Hunger" is the loneliness in the hero's life: he has no family or close friends. In a way, he represents the poor human that lives inside every single one of us. By representing the nameless character as such, the hunger is no longer physical but it also becomes a hunger of the soul. Hunger therefore will also reveal an ugly truth about the human nature of people nowadays.

The philosophy of Hamsun is a reaction to the materialistic thinking that invaded the world at the beginning of the last century. This shows how he was affected by senior philosophers like Arthur Schopenhauer or Friedrich Nietzsche, and former authors like Russian Fyodor Dostoyevsky‎.

At the end, I just wanted to say that "Hunger" is really a great book. It is original and unique. I guess without doubt it deserves to be on the New York Times' list of 1001 Books that must be read before death. I am just glad to share this book and my experience with it. Hope you like it as much as I did. 

L'évangile selon Pilate - Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt

For those of you waiting for posts from Isabelle, I was kindly invited by her to contribute to this blog, so bear with another voice for a while :) I just finished a book recommended by her and would like to share my review here, as brief as it may be. I am not a fan of long reviews which go into details that I don 't necessarily need. When I look up a book, it's mostly because of THAT sensation the reader felt which clearly oozes from their personal reviews. I am basically summarising what got to me hoping it might interest you as well. 

Isabelle already mentioned "L'évangile selon Pilate" in an earlier post and I really wish I had read it earlier. The author deals with the necessity of doubt and reason, most imperatively, in the context of the history of the bible. Divided into three sections, we find three "heroes" realising their true potential, going against audiences that do not necessarily appreciate their inner dialogues. Throughout the three stories, a lot is revealed about human nature, and its resistance, its need to rationalise all events. This gives flavour to the biblical tales told, to which we feel no attachment at all. Emphasising the rationality and human emotions of different random events leading to an epic event is what this story reminded us of, as the secret to great storytelling. A small term mentioned towards the end of the second part perfectly describes the condition in which the three "unsung" heroes find themselves in "troubled yet never convinced". Maybe this is the take-home message of this book, that you need only to be troubled to start your journey towards fulfilment. 

Here's my original review in french:

Il fallait livre ce bouquin avant mon âge (23!). L'auteur traite la nécessité du doute et du raisonnement même, et impérativement, dans l'histoire biblique. Divisé en trois blocs, on retrouve trois "héros" réalisant leur potentiel, tout en s'enchainant contre une audience qui n'apprécie pas vraiment leurs dialectiques intérieures. Dans les trois histoires, beaucoup se révèle à propos de la nature humaine, de sa résistance et son besoin de rationaliser tout évènement. Ca donne du gout à ces histoires dont on se sent détaché, puisque l'élément raisonnable et humain est rendu aux circonstances qui ont abouti a l'épopée. Un petit mot vers la fin de la deuxième section décrit parfaitement la condition des trois caractères "troublé jamais convaincu". Peut être c'est mon message de cette oeuvre, qu'il faut juste être troublé pour enfin se réaliser.

First mention of the blog in media

This is a great day because the blog has been mentioned for the first time in media. It seems that working hard pays off. At this link you can find out what the press had to say about the blog:
http://www.almodon.com/Media/Articles/%D8%A7%D8%A7%D8%A7

Here' s also a glance of what the article looks like:

I am really flattered, although the title seems too generous. This blog is not about challenging other blogs, it' s just a way of expression, an escape in Beirut from all life hurdles towards something good, peaceful and beneficial. I am thankful for the support and appreciation of all those around me and for all the blog readers and followers on facebook.

A big thank you from the heart.