Ihsan Abdel Quddous left “sixty books,” six hundred short stories, and thousands of other articles to Egyptian literature. Naguib Mahfouz left thirty novels. Both of them adopted the realist doctrine in literature and politics. Both of them began in the monarchy period and continued in the republican period. Mahfouz delved into ancient Egypt, its alleys, and its stories. He also went to the Pharaonic heritage, to paint a complete “painting” of Egypt, mixing its Nile and its soil, between the pasha and the farmer, the torturer and the hero. Ihsan remained in modern Egypt and its small, ordinary things, and wandered in the concerns of its youth. Most importantly, he tried to please its young women, by standing by their concerns and issues, but he went a little beyond “conservative Egyptian life,” and saw that he represented modernity in the souls, and that the era could not stop at ancient Egypt and its social life, whether middle or wealthy.
Cinema contributed greatly to the industry. Cairo was shining with colorful posters spread on the walls: Jamal Nadia Lutfi, Sahar Lubna Abdel Aziz, and Dalal Zubaida Tharwat. However, the difference remained “clear” between the image of the two men among the fans of literature and art. Ihsan was unable to carve for himself an image of influential thought, “literature” or politics. He could not attract the appreciation that people held for him, the man who would one day win the Nobel Prize for Literature. Of all of Ihsan’s works, one or two books have been translated. As for Mahfouz’s works, they have been translated into more than forty of the world’s major languages. Of course, “winning the Nobel Prize played a fundamental role” in its global spread, but there is a feeling among critics that Ihsan’s works do not deserve wide translation, with or without the Nobel Prize.
Is translation a measure of literary value? “Not always,” but it is an additional indicator. It must be said that the translation movement during Ihsan’s time was very limited. Politics played an “important” role in sympathizing with Egyptian literature or vice versa. During the Nasserist period, which witnessed Ihsan’s literary inability, Egypt was exposed to a global war on all fronts, “politically,” “literarily,” and “economically,” not to mention actual military wars. Therefore, the porter of triviality was quick to say: The Nobel was given to Mahfouz because of his position in support of “Camp David” and some of his anti-Abdel Nasser actions. He had to spend a long time before making sure to everyone that his literary status had nothing to do with the industries of empty promotion and decoration.
I was prompted to write these thoughts by an article by Egyptian novelist Yasmine Attia in the elite magazine Millions, in which she attempts to restore some respect to the author of “I Don’t Sleep” and “A Nose and Three Eyes.”
