The transformations of the narrator in the story “The Orphan”

As we develop methodological and theoretical knowledge, we can read the ancient texts with readings that differ from those reached in their context in previous periods. This is why we accept ourselves again and again to reconsider the old readings, to stop at their limits and compulsions, and what we can overcome in terms of new visions and perceptions if we master the reading competencies that have developed with time. Can we reread the story “The Orphan” by al-Manfaluti a new reading? Or did Al-Mazini have the last word on it, and we are left with nothing but the acknowledgment that the texts used in the past by “serious” criticism had had their say, and there was no longer any justification for reading them or to analyze?
If that were the case, we would say that the texts that have been read and critically assessed, we have no choice but to ignore and forget them, and not even refer to them with the intention of their readings but rather their analysis. But if we really develop reading methods, we will be able to explore the things in those ancient texts that have not been taken care of, and go beyond what was said about and about them. This is some of what we found in our reading of Al-Mazini’s analysis of that story. His lack of distinction between the narrator and the narrator led the critic to complete a reading that we can at most confirm was the daughter of her time. And if it be lawful for us to go further, we point out that some of his additions to his reading, and his quotation of the text which he did not say, were again the result of the want of that discrimination.
Al-Mazini stopped in front of the space between Al-Manfaluti’s room and the orphan’s room, and his fate is far from criticizing the author. But the text otherwise assures us that the distance was very close. The narrator even heard his rattle, and some of his voices indicating his presence. We can say the same about the love an orphan had for his cousin. The text is clear in multiple references to that saint or monk love between them. This is what Al-Mazini denied, judging the text with incoherence and weakness. Rereading the old texts with new approaches and perceptions is enough to make us pause before the epistemological obstacles that prevented the proper reading of our texts at an earlier time. The importance of this type of reading lies in transcending the patterns of consciousness that used to govern our readings and interpretations in times unrelated to our own.
When I returned to reading the story “The Orphan” by al-Manfaluti in the light of the notes presented, it became clear to me that it is a well-structured story, and it has the various elements of building the story as it was written in its time and for readers connected to their time. And that its narrator (Al-Manfaluti) had a specific narrative vision, and specific intentions that lead him to write a narrative experience that has its own characteristics and aesthetics. Perhaps these combined elements of Manfaluti made a special place in the history of Arabic narratives at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Starting from the distinction between the narrator and the narrator, I see that the story of “The Orphan” proceeds to us through three narrative voices, and not through the voice of the narrator (the author) as seen by Al-Mazini and the readers of his time These three sounds scatter over the three narrative discourse structures in their development from beginning to end. The story begins with the voice of the moderator framing the story, who takes the position of the narrator – the familiar narrator who narrates as he sees the orphan (the subject of growing up) in his weakness and sorrow. After he stopped monitoring these cases, the case ends with the voice of the external actor when the orphan’s condition reached the moment that required intervention, so the narrator visited the orphan and brought the doctor to him, and with him in conversation entered into. for the purpose of relieving and supporting him in his wretched condition.
In the first structure, we moved from the external narrator (the regulator) who does not participate in the story, to the narrator (the external actor), who will become part of the story without being attached to it, because his role will be limited to the transfer of the story from the external source to making the subject of focus (be), Related to combo and focus together. Thus the transition to the third voice is reached, which is the subjective subject (the orphan), who will tell us his story in which he is a party, and we will distinguish the causes of the situation in which he has ended up, and the fate that will lead to him to the end.
These three narrative voices show us the gradation in the construction of the discourse that begins with anticipation at the level of time, then we move to the present, recorded for us at a distance by the external regulator, to the narrator’s visit to the hero, and this transition is an expression to the past to identify the reasons that made the hero live the situation in the misery in which it was. After learning about the orphan’s story, his life with his uncle’s wife, his childhood with his cousin, and what their relationship was like, until the moment when the woman insists on keeping the orphan away from his cousin. This deportation was the defining moment in the life of the orphan and his cousin, leading to the isolation of the orphan in the room, and here we come to where the story began, and then the events continue until we finally find the news of the cousin, and the death of the orphan afterwards. And the regulator returns again to complete the story by confirming that he executed the will made by the orphan.
The narrative and rhetorical details of the story show us that the narrator (Al-Manfaluti) constructed the discourse of his story in a careful way that made us grade from a moment in the present narrative, to the past that pushed its realization, by identifying its causes. After learning about that past, he brings us back to the present, which again leads to the end of the story. The transition from the regulator to the external subject to the subjective subject made us come to know the story through a speech presented to us by three voices that move us from the first person pronoun undertaken by the regulator, to for us the possibility of its transition from an external narrator (regulator) to an actor (participant in the story) By trying to help the hero, and at the same time, by pushing the orphan to tell his story, the causes of to reveal his condition. At this moment, the dialogue between the two actors was together, so that the subject of focus first became a narrator, and whoever was the subject of focus was told to him. After learning about the character’s fate through what the doctor told him, we find that death awaits the hero who the narrator recommended to bury him with his cousin.
The subject of the story is not of the insignificance that Al-Mazni stopped short of and presented it with bitter irony. The narrator, while planning to write narrative texts about grief and lessons that are the title of the fates of characters living a miserable reality (the distinction between rich and poor, the pressures of daily life), the narrator drew on the virginal love, and based his story on it to confirm that the human ties that united the uncle, the wife and the orphan And his cousin, when the woman’s behavior alienated a part of her and the connection broken between her components can only lead to tragedy: the orphan’s move to live in modest housing, his inability to pay school fees, and the illness of the niece her niece used to see as part of her life. Therefore, the death of the two lovers was a statement of rejection of inhumane social behavior.
The life of ancient texts is found only in new and renewed readings.
*A writer from Morocco

Leave a Comment