Oppression is a common theme in literature; this is not surprising in light of humanity's history of struggle for power. In literature as in society, there are many factors that cause oppression – among them differences in skin color, gender, religion, and family history. The only motivation that connects them is the desire to control and the dislike of those who are different. The first step to overcoming oppression is realizing that the system needs to change. It sounds simple, but changing the mindset of an entire society is a truly difficult task that requires the efforts of many people. In the novel From Sleep Unbound, André Chedid uses characterization to reflect the theme that as long as someone is courageous enough to change, there is hope for a system to rise above oppression. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essaySamya, the main character, is an example of a victim of oppression in late 20th century Egypt, and its end Tragic is the inevitable result of an unjust system. Samya is one of the few who actively rebels against this society. She constitutes a rebellious minority compared to most women who openly accept their role in the system. However, the other women have distractions: they work, they take care of the children, they chat with each other. Samya is alone, with a pitiful family excuse and an isolation that comes from marrying into a wealthy family. She must face the corrupt system alone, and one person cannot defeat an entire system. Samya explains her motivation to rebel by saying: “Others than me must have felt their souls worn out by the interminable duration of a life without love. They will understand me… And if there is only one who understands me, it is for her that I protest as loudly as possible” (Chedid 133). Perhaps the cruelest fact is that the best thing Samya can do to fight this system is to accept death. She's a lone soldier at war with an idea, a twisted mentality. She “suffers from something much deeper than boredom… The days [come] one after the other, drowning out the past, but they bring no relief. [His] pain never [stops] burning. [She wants] to put an end to it” (Chedid 130). She feels she has nothing to lose. In light of these ideas, the reader can see that her husband's murder is inevitable. It's only a matter of time before she goes on a rampage. When Samya goes on a rampage, even his act of murder and passive acceptance of death does not convince the people of the village that there is a problem within their society. Similar to the situation in which the depressed man commits suicide by setting himself on fire, most see only faults in him. However, just as in this situation, a person sees the true core of the problem and is transformed by it. Samya’s action touches Ammal’s heart. Surprisingly, Boutros can also be seen as a victim of the system. Certainly, he implements the system passively, without a second thought, because it benefits him. For example, “Boutros never forgot to place a kiss on [Samya’s] forehead every evening, a ritual he could not do without… This thought aroused in [Samya] a final impulse of revolt… One day [she] couldn't bear it anymore. [She] knew it” (Chedid 138). Boutros, out of habit, kisses Samya. He believes it is his right as a husband and maybe even feels like he is blessing Samya with his kiss. He is unconscious of the rebellion that stirs within her and of the fact that in the depression ofSamya, “each of the people around her seemed heavy with symbolic meaning and took on an exaggerated importance in her eyes. The image of Boutros, for example, went far beyond Boutros... [she] loaded onto him [her] own sorrows as well as those of the whole world... For [her], he had become the symbol of those who live according to principles as dry as their souls” (Chedid 132-133). From Samya's perspective, Boutros is a vivid representation of the oppression in which Samya is confined.by. But the reader should keep in mind that this is the norm in Egypt and that Boutros has never known any other way of life. Can the fault be placed solely on him when society created him this way? The women of the village can be seen as a single entity, as well as representative of the most frustrating component of a distorted social system. Women are the oppressed who accept oppression, those who have allowed themselves to be convinced that they are truly inferior. This is seen when the woman Ratiba's father and brother kill her sister Sayyeda for talking to a single man, and Om el Kher (a popular woman in the village) does not support Ratiba in her anger. Instead, she asserts that “Ratiba’s father and brother are right, in a way. In all the villages, men approved of the murder. It was a matter of honor. The men especially approved of it. The women took this as a warning” (Chedid 80 years old). Here the focus is on how men approved of this murder, and women passively accepted it as a sort of reminder of their position in society. The horror of this act is of no consequence, considering the patriarchal hierarchy in place. In fact, the women perpetuate the system that bothers them by excluding Ratiba and calling her bitter, telling her to shut up and remain as passive as them. Likewise, Samya is not one of these women. She is ostracized for being infertile, and eventually ostracizes herself by rejecting the sacred Sheika's advice regarding her infertility. This gap between Samya and the rest of the women is significant, because as mentioned before, isolation is what pushes Samya over the edge and makes her more open to rebellion. Ironically, as an outsider, she has the more objective view on the nature of their situation. The question arises: why do victims impose this system on themselves? Do they think change is impossible, that it's better to pretend everything is okay rather than try to make a change? Or maybe they're too tired to make a change. Whatever the reasoning, the motive is inconsequential. The reality of this situation is that because women accept their fate, they condemn themselves and future generations to a life of suffocation under the weight of patriarchy and repressive tradition. The blind man is the only man in the novel who sees the corruption of the world. nation, and he opposes it. He is described as “a sort of silent deity who [reigns] over the village when men [are] absent.” Om el Kher tells Samya that "'The day Bahia was beaten, [the blind man] became angry.' But Om el Kher excused him by saying: “It has been so long since he saw anything. He lives in another world. When his anger rises, he hits the ground with his staff” (Chedid 81). Om el Kher must excuse the blind man for his little rebellion and his disapproval of violence, because the only socially acceptable response to what men decide is unfailing acceptance. The only reason he is allowed to even this angry act of hitting the stick is because he is old, weak, blind and therefore poses no threat to other men. Keep in mind: this is not.