Two stories which have as many similarities as differences, both with a variety of purposes and aims. Although a noticeable variance in aimed audience seems to be a point to discuss later on. Nevertheless, both texts still manage to deliver quite descriptively with the potential for the readers to truly envision the words and allow them to stay within the labyrinth of the concepts, trying to figure them out, both directly and indirectly. The way the authors approach their respective texts is quite interesting as well, with both countries having a percentage of over 95% muslims. This way it can be perhaps easier to see what else the stoies can offer in terms of their own countries, specific details and noticeable differences will be a major factor in my conclusion of the winning team.
Starting off with Pakistan’s ‘Enemy’ by Khalida Hussain the purpose of understandig the character physically as to who or what it is is an absolute masterpiece. With layers and layers of ironic writing, readers tryign to chase the main character whilst the main character is hiding and running around trying to find answers to her existential questions. Death, morality and the answer to Why? The text capacitates the use of descriptive language to foresee the advantage of visually appealing imagery. Imagery which is able to formulate a correct equation with the help of the fast-paced action. It is noticeable that the story has taken inspiration from perhaps a few movies and concepts, relatively general however, it remains true to its originality. We see foreign muslim names such as Hassan and Sajjad which add a nice touch. But nothing too major, such as distinguishable traits and ideas which could have added a twist to the story with multiple events going on at once. With this said, the impact of cultural significance, values and traditions is devoid. Major factors which could have added so many more levels to a way the reader distingushes this story from others. ‘Enemy — Words Without Borders’, seems just like an average scene from a fast-paced action thriller. A conventional but different approach to the main character being hunted down and has nothing to protect itself. Although the use of past history for context may have been useful in delivering a rather creative approach, this method was not all too bad. The straight-into-the-action had the potential for making the reader race to find answers and truly discover what was going on, but once again even withou tthe lack of cultural concepts there was also nothing distinct about it. Nothing which described the country, its views or a different aspect.
‘Flamingo #13 of the Caspian Sea’, has a much more unorthodox approach to making the idea of the story relative to the country’s cultural significance and thoughts. The story begins by describing a flamingo belonging to the avian species deemed illegal to hunt. It explains a mythical importance revolving around that certain flamingo, and the lengths people have gone to trying to act like they have caught it. Automatically, this constructs a consistent longing for more to know about the flamingo. What is the reason? Why is it like that. Why has the author decided to even talk about it? A few critical readers may even voice that the idea is almost cliche, with someone who would want to hunt the flamingo and perhaps the village condemning him for his act. But in reality the was the author interacts with the reador to create a different experience with each individual thought is incredible. Every reader will initially have the same thought but later on they would start to weave a train of though which will coninue on going, advancing perhaps past notions. However, this is still in between the second paragraph and the reader starts to realise that perhaps there may be a lack in fast-paced action, but each sentence will be worth it. Then we see, right off the bat, a mix of variant expressions of the same ideology.
“People trusted Solomon. They had heard fewer lies out of him. He was a middle-aged man, tall and muscular. His thick mustache meant he had a more masculine-looking face. He had said things about this bird that people turned into tall tales, none of which was based on fact.”
This gives a very nice explanation packed into a brief summary with subliminal messages to be perceived for the reader. Such as the line,
“They had heard fewer lies out of him” but also something to object that “He had said things about this bird that people turned into tall tales, none of which was based on fact,”
which gives us a very nice elucidation of the people around him. So although it sounds like Solomon had told tales about the bird which seem to be fiction he was still more honest and reliable that most other people. Giving us a nice and thought out depiction of what to expect. We then read that the flamingo supposedly causes misery unto the hunter who catches it. Slowly, we see that some inspiration was taken from Greek myths. Where something deemed almost invulnerable brings upon misfortune due to the action of others around it. Furthermore, Solomon’s aim to capture the flamingo becomes duly transparent with the revelation of a few lines,
“nothing mattered to him except catching the flamingo, not even his wife and child… when the beautiful Famingo appeared like a moon in his line of vision…”
Now we can start deducing that the so-called misery should be divulging itself by now. And we do see that. Solomon’s purpose had been accomplished, he has hunted down what made him watch in awe and aspiration. The desparation eventually has its consequences on him when he is dragged underwater. The concepts behind this are also pretty cool seeing that twists are seen everywhere is ways the readers had assumed the story would go down. Later Solomon in the form of a flamingo is een by his wife where she seems to recognise him and tears up. The story ends in an almost normal manner (not convential however), with the phrase “It was just another Autumn day.” Askign the reader whether it really was “just another.” Was this normal? Were these consequences possibly imagined? The author executes his reasoning in a way where the reader almost feels sorry for Solomon, knowing that eh had unjustly killed the #13 flamingo in the first place. With the power of words, his expression is clearly stated. What the lack of cultural significance was, this story made up in concept and originality.
This wasn’t, however, just another story.
For me personally, both stories drew a slight sketch of their respective cultures and countries. Although I had expected more considering the huge population of the same religions. However, I believe that Iran had much more to offer and ended with the score 3–1 in favour of Iran.
Winner: Iran
