December / Egypt Reading: The Map of Love by Soueif

[oblivion252]

Well I have given up, can't take any more of this obviously stated drivel.
I'm off to read some Dickens!

[Paige19]

I didn't vote for this book, but I have to say I had higher expectations for it.

Having read the Guardian article on the writing of it, I can see where I think Souief foundered (perhaps arrogant of me to say that, because the book got many good reviews, and was on the Booker short list; I just don't happen to agree with those people).

I think the first place she went astray was in believing that she could get away with writing not one, but two romances where there was little to no character development. Too bad. She says in the Guardian article that her goal was to have her "hero and heroine belonging to warring sides so you get a big bang when aggression turns to attraction." If only she had followed through on this! This would have been interesting! But, in truth, Anna was portrayed as a convert to Egyptian culture before she meets Sharif, so all we got was a bit of chafing at his trying to talk her out of her desert trip. Neither is Sharif given any particular attitude towards English women. It's just a typical "two beautiful people fall in love at first sight" story. After which they resist for a little while, then marry and are blissfully happy.

The contemporary romance was just as ridiculous. And, as I said in an earlier post, Souief asks us to swallow a whole lot of amazing co-incidence. Not only must we believe that Isabelle just so happens to meet Omar, who turns out to be her cousin, but that she has a trunk full of things, some of which are the journals of her great grandmother, and some of which are the writings of her grandmother's sister in law, which just so happen to be there to fill in all the missing bits.

Of the brief plot twist in which Omar discovers he had an affair with Isabelle's mother twenty years earlier, I can only say - WHY? Not necessary to the plot, asks us to stretch our disbelief to the limit (I mean, what are the chances...) and pretty grotesque. And never resolved! Isabelle gets pregnant with Omar's child, and when she learns that there is a chance he could be her father, Souief resolves it by having Isabelle "just know he isn't." One wonders what the point of that whole piece of the plot was there for in the first place, and why some editor had not questioned its usefulness to the story.

Finally, I think that the real weakness here is that Souief fell in love with her research. She speaks of how much she did for this book, and of the charts and timelines she drew up. Yes, research is necessary for almost any novel, and particularly for an historic one, but the intelligent writer knows that you don't need to use every shred you collect. Even what you do not tell the reader informs your writing.

The most interesting character in the novel was Amal, and we get none of her story. Souief says that there was a great temptation to tell her story as well, but that she managed to pull back every time. Too bad. I would have liked to have heard Amal's story.

Okay. I really felt I had to get that all said. I'm going to rate this book "average." It would have gotten a "didn't like it much" but for the character of Amal, and the fact that I came away with an understanding of how America is seen in Egypt at this point in history (or at least by some people - I can't know who Souief was speaking for, but certainly for some demographic), and I think it is useful for me to know that.

[NickAdams]

Seems as if I dodged a bullhit, but can the prose of a work be judged by its translation? I'm sure no one would disagree if I said that you can not judge the prose of Dostoevsky accurately based on Garnett's translation.

[Paige19]

Agreed, but this was not a translation. Souief was born in Cairo but educated in England.

The Map of Love was written in English. So fair to judge.

[NickAdams]

Agreed, but this was not a translation. Souief was born in Cairo but educated in England.

The Map of Love was written in English. So fair to judge.

Indeed it is. Poorly written with undeveloped characters; does the book have any virtues?

[Paige19]

I would say it was poorly constructed; the writing itself was mediocre.

But that's my opinion. The New York Times Book Review called it "intensely engaging" and "wonderfully accomplished" (according to the cover of the copy I got from the library), so go figure.

I have friends I could have given this book to who probably would have loved it, bodice-ripper romance and all. Although they might have gotten bored in the last third of the book, which was basically a history text dolled up as a journal.

I suppose if I'd been stuck in an airport and bought a copy at a shop to while away the time I would have considered my $14.00 well enough spent. As I said in my long post, I did not come away from it with absolutely nothing. I was just expecting a lot more from a book that garnered such good reviews.

I'll be interested to see how the other forum members who read it - or tried to - rate it.

[bouquin]

I didn't vote for this book, but I have to say I had higher expectations for it.

Having read the Guardian article on the writing of it, I can see where I think Souief foundered (perhaps arrogant of me to say that, because the book got many good reviews, and was on the Booker short list; I just don't happen to agree with those people).

I think the first place she went astray was in believing that she could get away with writing not one, but two romances where there was little to no character development. Too bad. She says in the Guardian article that her goal was to have her "hero and heroine belonging to warring sides so you get a big bang when aggression turns to attraction." If only she had followed through on this! This would have been interesting! But, in truth, Anna was portrayed as a convert to Egyptian culture before she meets Sharif, so all we got was a bit of chafing at his trying to talk her out of her desert trip. Neither is Sharif given any particular attitude towards English women. It's just a typical "two beautiful people fall in love at first sight" story. After which they resist for a little while, then marry and are blissfully happy.

The contemporary romance was just as ridiculous. And, as I said in an earlier post, Souief asks us to swallow a whole lot of amazing co-incidence. Not only must we believe that Isabelle just so happens to meet Omar, who turns out to be her cousin, but that she has a trunk full of things, some of which are the journals of her great grandmother, and some of which are the writings of her grandmother's sister in law, which just so happen to be there to fill in all the missing bits.

Of the brief plot twist in which Omar discovers he had an affair with Isabelle's mother twenty years earlier, I can only say - WHY? Not necessary to the plot, asks us to stretch our disbelief to the limit (I mean, what are the chances...) and pretty grotesque. And never resolved! Isabelle gets pregnant with Omar's child, and when she learns that there is a chance he could be her father, Souief resolves it by having Isabelle "just know he isn't." One wonders what the point of that whole piece of the plot was there for in the first place, and why some editor had not questioned its usefulness to the story.

Finally, I think that the real weakness here is that Souief fell in love with her research. She speaks of how much she did for this book, and of the charts and timelines she drew up. Yes, research is necessary for almost any novel, and particularly for an historic one, but the intelligent writer knows that you don't need to use every shred you collect. Even what you do not tell the reader informs your writing.

The most interesting character in the novel was Amal, and we get none of her story. Souief says that there was a great temptation to tell her story as well, but that she managed to pull back every time. Too bad. I would have liked to have heard Amal's story.

Okay. I really felt I had to get that all said. I'm going to rate this book "average." It would have gotten a "didn't like it much" but for the character of Amal, and the fact that I came away with an understanding of how America is seen in Egypt at this point in history (or at least by some people - I can't know who Souief was speaking for, but certainly for some demographic), and I think it is useful for me to know that.

I voted for this book - I even nominated it. The excellent reviews prompted me and also the fact that it was shortlisted for the Booker (one review said that it was the "best read" of the shortlist). I was very surprised about the love story part, at how Mills & Boon-ish it was (Ahdaf Soueif herself admitted to it being so). The method I adapted in order to be able to go on reading it right to the end was to suspend disbelief at full throttle! When I read about how Anna has the presence of mind to criticize her disheveled appearance (the morning after her kidnapping!) right at that fateful moment when she meets Sharif; how apparently Sharif does not oblige Anna to convert to Islam upon their marriage (very broad-minded of him) but how he almost goes haywire after he learns that she went to the bank by herself to withdraw some money from her own account - and how that instance is obviously the only time in their marriage that they have a spat (no other similar occurences are ever recorded again in Anna's or Layla's diary); and never once is there ever mention of desiring a son, I would imagine that that would have been very important in their culture (and other cultures besides).... So like I said, if I had not suspended disbelief I would have thrown the book aside after a few chapters.

On the upside, the novel allowed me to scratch the surface concerning Egypt and its history about which I knew next to nothing.

[Saladin]

I am a bit surprised that nothing of Naguib Mahfouz or Alaa Al-Aswany were nominated.

[Paige19]

I believe two Mahfouz were nominated, Saladin.

bouquin, my expectations, based on the across the board good reviews in high places, were that it would be a good read. Without the book in hand, that's what you go by.

All of the points you raise regarding the improbability of the plotting also occurred to me.

And apologies for having repeatedly spelled Soueif's name incorrectly (as Souief) in my posts!

Whatever I thought of your book, Ms. Soueif, I owe you the respect of getting your name right!

[bouquin]

I am a bit surprised that nothing of Naguib Mahfouz or Alaa Al-Aswany were nominated.

I right away became an avid fan of Naguib Mahfouz after reading Les Fils de la Médina (the French translation, I don't know what the title is in English). But I nominated The Map of Love because it seemed like a good opportunity to read another Egyptian writer and furthermore, the book did receive excellent reviews.

[Virgil]

I think there were several of Mahfouz nominated. I would have participated in the current read, but I couldn't find the book. I guess I'm lucky in that respects.