vendredi 28 mai 2010

3ochweya wala fel a7lem !!!

Pour commencer ce post va être un mélange de langues et de dialectes . C 'est un post ou je vais raconter ce que j 'ai vécu cet après midi comme je le sens en ce moment .

Cet après midi, j 'ai reçu un message de l 'un de mes co-signataires  de l'avis d'attroupement du 22 Mai 2010 , me disant que des amis sur Facebook nous ont invités pour un café . J 'ai lu le message vers 15h 15 et je devais être la bas a 15h 45 . J 'habite a 15 km de la capitale . Bon j 'ai hésité un peu , puis je me suis rendue a l 'endroit indiqué . Bien sur tout au long du chemin je vérifiais si j 'étais poursuivie  et rien...
Arrivée la bas , j 'ai trouvé l 'un des signataires qui est déjà arrivé et puis  j 'ai vu nos hôtes qui sont venus l 'un après l 'autre. Certains sont des figures connues , avec des affiliations politiques ou un engagement dans le domaines des droits de l 'homme etc . Je ne connaissais pas les autres . Ils nous ont informés que wa7na jeyine mettri9 il y 'avait chkoun ytabab3 fina. Pourtant je n 'ai rien remarqué .

On a commandé nos cafés et on a commencé a bavarder un peu de tout et de rien . Ceux qui ne se connaissaient pas on pris le temps de se connaitre etc.;;

Aya 3ad wa7na 9a3dine choft we7ed menhom  que j 'appelle "ras el kelb" , un spécialiste de la torture et puis barcha menhom barcha . D5alt ba3dhi chwaya 5ater raj3ouli fi mo55i de mauvais souvenirs .  9a3dou yra9bou men b3id wmnine ndawer rassi nra zouz y3essou . A un certain moment we7ed costumé ( dh8or ra2iss ment9a ba3d) . 9rob w9al lwe7ed mejme3a elli m3ana : t2atter fihom ejme3a. Ou mche 93ad b3id . ba3d mche 3la rou7ou . MAWESLOULOUCH LES ORDRES POURTANT 3MAL BARCHA TALIFOUNET ; . ( suite a notre dernière expérience fhemna eli kol chay 7keyet des ordres) .

7asilou 9a3da kemla wa7na surveillés  wel 7a9 7aja tfara7ni wtzid tothbotli eli a7na bel7a9  ou bkol mawdhou3ia fi baladi al amn wal amene ila an 3odna ila al bayti farihina masrourina binatijeti fe3letina el bahia weli 3la 3akess ma 9alou barcha  badlet barcha 7ajet .

WRAS Le7nina  SANA3OUD

jeudi 27 mai 2010

May 22nd : the story !

Starting from the last days of April, an enormous and violent wave of censorship hit the blogosphere and the internet, in general, in Tunisia. Young Tunisian net surfers expressed their anger and disdain in different ways such as launching virtual campaigns against censorship.

Discussions about organizing a demonstration or gathering led to the creation of a mailing list to discuss the matter thoroughly. Progressively a date has been fixed. Two young persons without any political affiliation namely Slim Amamou and Yassine Ayari volunteered to deliver the gathering affidavit to the ministry of interior.
In fact, they drafted the document with the help of some friends with a good mastering of Tunisian laws.

Once in front of the ministry of interior, they were denied the access to the building. So they tried to deliver the document to the general director of national security, but they have known the same fate there and have been referred to the governorate of Tunis. There, the same has happened again.

Therefore, Slim Amamou and Yassine Ayari sent the document to the three institutions listed above with acknowledgement of receipt via post. But, they never received a reply.

After the first trial of the delivery of the document. Yassine and Slim sent a fax with the details of the story that they wrote with the help of Hana and myself , and a copy of the documents to all the Tunisian newspapers. But just one newspaper “Al mawkif”, the piece mouth of a dissident party published an article about  the story .

Meanwhile, they consulted an attorney in order to avoid any infringement of the laws. The latter suggested some improvements on the document and advised them to add a third signature to it, to avoid the rejection of the gathering notice. Lina Ben Mhenni( Me) , a Tunisian blogger with no political affiliation signed the document too. The three of us re-sent it to the same three institutions, with acknowledgement of receipt but we never received any replies and we did not know about the fate of the previous documents as we never received the acknowledgements of receipt.

We went to inquire about the matter in the post office and to present a complaint.
According to Tunisian laws an affirmative answer or the absence of reply equals the legitimacy of the gathering.Nevertheless , we decided to record a video , to announce that we never received a reply and to advise people to avoid coming on Saturday .

But before , recording the video Slim and Yassine disappeared. In fact , they had been arrested and forced to make videos to announce that  the gathering has been delayed  .



Tomber sept fois , se relever huit

-->
Dans son livre « Tomber sept fois, se relever huit », l’écrivain, journaliste, et réalisateur  Français Philippe Labro nous relate son expérience  personnelle avec une maladie : la dépression nerveuse durant la période allant de Septembre 1999 jusqu’ en Mai 2001.
Le titre du livre est emprunté a un poème populaire japonais « Telle est la vie
                                                                                                                  Tomber sept fois
                                                                                                                  Et se relever huit. »

Des vers qui  nous font penser  a un proverbe et qui portent et transmettent le sens du défi, de la résistance, et du refus de la défaite. 
Dans ce récit l’auteur nous retrace les détails minutieux  de sa descente aux enfers  de la dépression nerveuse, dont personne n’en est a l’abri  comme il nous le  raconte lui-même : « Nul, n’est a l’abri, la dépression est en augmentation constante depuis de nombreuses années. De plus, en plus de gens connaitront un épisode dépressif au cours de leur vie. C’est pourquoi elle est d’ailleurs considérée comme la maladie du siècle par certains spécialistes ».
 IL nous fait part de ses maux à travers  des mots et des phrases simples mais expressives. Il alterne entre la description  de ses propres sentiments, soucis, doutes  et douleurs psychologiques, comme il le fait ici : « ‘ Je ne sais pas ce que j’ai’ est une  phrase inexacte. Il faudrait dire :’ je ne sais pas ce que je suis’.»,  et entre  les signes cliniques de la maladie, comme quand il décrit son réveil  matinal en sueur : «  Lorsque je me réveil, je suis en nage, c’est une image facile, elle ne raconte rien. Il faut corriger  je ne suis pas en nage, je baigne dans ma sueur, ça sent cette odeur de vêtements usés quand on visite un appartement à  vendre »,  ou encore : «  Tu te réveilles en sursaut, en plein après midi, le cœur battant, effrayé par ce seul acte du réveil, par la conscience de ton corps déréglé, tu trembles de froid, tu es en nage », ou aussi en nous décrivant une séance avec son médecin :
« -Montrez-moi vos mains, là, mettez-les à plat au-dessus du sol, écartez les doigts et tendez les.
Je me lève et m’exécute. Ca tremble, que dis-je, ça tremble, ça branle à la façon des os des foires foraines, ça grelotte, ça trémule, ils ont la danse de Saint-Guy, les doigts, ils font la gargouillarde. »
Page après page on découvre l’évolution de la maladie, les différentes réactions des siens,  ses comportements vis-à-vis sa famille, ses psychiatres et thérapeutes, et même ses médicaments : 
« Les antidépresseurs ! Je les avais abordés avec crainte, avec la même réticence avec laquelle j’avais approché celui qui les prescrivait, l’homme de science, le médecin. »
L’homme nous transmet les réactions de son entourage, de chacun des membres de sa famille, qui l’ont soutenus jusqu’au bout, de ses amis, et de certaines personnes qui l’ont dénigré : «  Et je n’appellerai pas les gars a la station. D’ailleurs, ils le savent déjà, ils se sont fait une raison, ils n’attendent plus mes appels. Ils ont suffisamment entendu la rumeur : - Il est foutu. »
Vers la fin du livre, l’auteur nous conte les premiers signes de sa guérison. Il nous décrit la patience de sa famille et leur rôle dans sa victoire contre la maladie.
Le livre est un appel à la compréhension de cette maladie qui apparait subitement sans prévenir : «  C’est arrivé subrepticement, sournoisement, sans prévenir, une vraie saloperie, une lente et insidieuse pénétration. Je suis l’esclave d’une chose indéfinissable qui est entrain de me détruire et je lui obéis sans aucune résistance. » . Le livre est a la fois utile aux gens qui souffrent de la dépression et a ceux qui les entourent sans pour autant être un livre médical, il détaille tout a propos de la maladie mais il relate aussi le coté humain et l’importance  du soutien moral. Il peut aussi  être  utile  a ceux qui souffrent de la dépression sans le savoir , à ceux qui souffrent de  cette maladie sans trouver du soutien  et en finissent mal comme l’ami de l’auteur qui a fini par se suicider : «  J’aurais tellement aimé pouvoir accomplir le même geste de solidarité a l’égard de Bernard, un véritable ami, lui, qui , s’est tué d’un coup de fusil pendant l’hiver, à la stupéfaction de ceux qui l’aimaient. Si seulement j’avais compris, lors de notre dernier coup de téléphone, qu’avait retenti comme une frêle sonnette d’alarme cette tonalité morne et morose dans une voix que j’avais toujours connue éclatante, énergique et dynamique. »




vendredi 14 mai 2010

Do women Talk too much


I  am studying language  and have interest in  women studies . This is why the 6th  chapter from « Language Myths »,  a book edited by Laurie Bauer and Peter Trudgill seemed so interesting to me and wanted to share it with thev readers of my blog . In this chapter Janet Holmes discusses the language myth saying that women talk more than man do :

Women Talk Too Much
Do women talk more than men? Proverbs and sayings in many languages express the view that women are always talking:
Women’s tongues are like lambs’ tails – they are never still. –English
The North Sea will sooner be found wanting in water than a woman at a loss for words. –Jutlandic
The woman with active hands and feet, marry her, but the woman with overactive mouth, leave well alone. –Maori
Some suggest that while women talk, men are silent patient listeners.
When both husband and wife wear pants it is not difficult to tell them apart – he is the one who is listening. –American
Nothing is so unnatural as a talkative man or a quiet woman. –Scottish
Others indicate that women’s talk is not valued but is rather considered noisy, irritating prattle:
Where there are women and geese, there’s noise. –Japanese.
Indeed, there is a Japanese character which consists of three instances of the character for the concept ‘woman’ and which translates as ‘noisy’! My favourite proverb, because it attributes not noise but rather power to the woman speaker is this Chinese one:
The tongue is the sword of a woman and she never lets it become rusty.
So what are the facts? Do women dominate the talking time? Do men struggle to get a word in edgewise, as the stereotype suggests?
The Evidence
Despite the widespread belief that women talk more than men, most of the available evidence suggests just the opposite. When women and men are together, it is the men who talk most. Two Canadian researchers, Deborah James and Janice Drakich, reviewed sixty-three studies which examined the amount of talk used by American women and men in different contexts. Women talked more than men in only two studies.
In New Zealand research suggests men generally dominate the talking time
In New Zealand, too, research suggests that men generally dominate the talking time. Margaret Franken compared the amount of talk used by female and male ‘experts’ assisting a female TV host to interview well-known public figures. In a situation where each of three interviewers was entitled to a third of the interviewers’ talking time, the men took more than half on every occasion.
I found the same pattern analysing the number of questions asked by participants in one hundred public seminars. In all but seven, men dominated the discussion time. Where the numbers of women and men present were about the same, men asked almost two-thirds of the questions during the discussion. Clearly women were not talking more than men in these contexts.
Even when they hold influential positions, women sometimes find it hard to contribute as much as men to a discussion. A British company appointed four women and four men to the eight most highly paid management positions. The managing director commented that the men often patronized the women and tended to dominate meetings.
I had a meeting with a [female] sales manager and three of my [male] directors once…it took about two hours. She only spoke once and one of my fellow directors cut across her and said ‘What Anne is trying to say Roger is…’ and I think that about sums it up. He knew better than Anne what she was trying to say, and she never got anything said.
There is abundant evidence that this pattern starts early. Many researchers have compared the relative amounts that girls and boys contribute to classroom talk. In a wide range of communities, from kindergarten through primary, secondary and tertiary education, the same pattern recurs – males dominate classroom talk. So on this evidence we must conclude that the stereotype of the garrulous woman reflects sexist prejudice rather than objective reality.
Looking for an Explanation
Why is the reality so different from the myth? To answer this question, we need to go beyond broad generalizations and look more carefully at the patterns identified. Although some teachers claim that boys are ‘by nature more spirited and less disciplined’, there is no evidence to suggest that males are biologically programmed to talk more than females. It is much more likely that the explanation involves social factors.
What is the Purpose of the Talk?
One relative clue is the fact that talk serves different functions in different contexts. Formal public talk is often aimed at informing people or persuading them to agree to a particular point of view (e.g. political speeches, television debates, radio interviews, public lectures, etc.). Public talk is often undertaken by people who wish to claim or confirm some degree of public status. Effective talk in public and in the media can enhance your social status – as politicians and other public performers know well. Getting and holding the floor is regarded as desirable, and competition for the floor in such contexts is common. (There is also some risk, of course, since a poor performance can be damaging.)

Classroom research suggests that more talk is associated with higher social status or power. Many studies have shown that teachers (regardless of their gender) tend to talk for about two-thirds of the available time. But the boys dominate the relatively small share of the talking time that remains for pupils. In this context, where talk is clearly valued, it appears that the person with most status has the right to talk most. The boys may therefore be asserting a claim to higher status than the girls by appropriating the majority of the time left for pupil talk.
The way women and men behave in formal meetings and seminars provides further support for this explanation. Evidence collected by American, British, and New Zealand researchers shows that men dominate the talking time in committee meetings, staff meetings, seminars and task-oriented decision-making groups. If you are sceptical, use a stopwatch to time the amount of talk contributed by women and men at political and community meetings you attend. This explanation proposes that men talk more than women in public, formal contexts because they perceive participating and verbally contributing in such contexts as an activity which enhances their status, and men seem to be more concerned with asserting status and power than women are.
By contrast, in more private contexts, talk usually serves interpersonal functions. The purpose of informal or intimate talk is not so much status enhancement as establishing or maintaining social contact with others, making social connections, developing and reinforcing friendships and intimate relationships. Interestingly, the few studies which have investigated informal talk have found that there are fewer differences in the amount contributed by women and men in these contexts (though men still talked more in nearly a third of the informal studies reviewed by Deborah James and Janice Drakich). Women, it seems, are willing to talk more in relaxed social contexts, especially where the talk functions to develop and maintain social relationships.
Another piece of evidence that supports this interpretation is the kind of talk women and men contribute in mixed-sex discussions. Researchers analysing the functions of different utterances have found that men tend to contribute more information and opinions, while women contribute more agreeing, supportive talk, more of the kind of talk that encourages others to contribute. So men’s talk tends to be more referential or informative, while women’s talk is more supportive and facilitative.
Women seem to use talk to develop personal relationships
Overall, then, women seem to use talk to develop personal relationships and maintain family connections and friendships more often than to make claims to status or to directly influence others in public contexts. Of course, there are exceptions, as Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto and Jenny Shipley demonstrate. But, until recently, many women seem not to have perceived themselves as appropriate contributors to public, formal talk.
In New Zealand, we identified another context where women contributed more talk then men. Interviewing people to collect samples of talk for linguistic analysis, we found that women were much more likely than men (especially young men) to be willing to talk to us at length. For example, Miriam Meyerhoff asked a group of ten young people to describe a picture to a female and to a male interviewer. It was made quite clear to the interviewees that the more speech they produced the better. In this situation, the women contributed significantly more speech than the men, both to the male and to the female interviewer.
In the private but semi-formal context of an interview, then, women, contributed more talk than men. Talk in this context could not be seen as enhancing the status of the people interviewed. The interviewers were young people with no influence over the interviewees. The explanation for the results seems to be that the women were being more cooperative than the men in a context where more talk was explicitly sought by the interviewer.
Social Confidence
If you know a lot about a particular topic, you are generally more likely to be willing to contribute to a discussion about it. So familiarity or expertise can also affect the amount a person contributes to a particular discussion. In one interesting study the researcher supplied particular people with extra information, making them the ‘experts’ on the topic to be discussed. Regardless of gender, these ‘experts’ talked more in the subsequent discussions than their uninformed conversational partners (though male ‘experts’ still used more talking time in conversation with uninformed women than female ‘experts’ did with uninformed men).
Looking at people’s contributions to the discussion section of seminars, I found a similar effect from expertise or topic familiarity. Women were more likely to ask questions and make comments when the topic was one they could claim expert knowledge about. In a small seminar on the current state of the economy, for instance, several women economists who had been invited to attend contributed to the discussion, making this one of the very few seminars where women’s contributions exceeded men’s.
Men dominate conversations between traditional couples
Another study compared the relative amount of talk of spouses. Men dominated the conversations between couples with traditional gender roles and expectations, but when the women were associated with a feminist organization they tended to talk more than their husbands. So feminist women were more likely to challenge traditional gender roles in interaction.
It seems possible that both these factors – expert status and feminist philosophy – have the effect of developing women’s social confidence. This explanation also fits with the fact that women tend to talk more with close friends and family, when women are in the majority, and also when they are explicitly invited to talk (in an interview, for example).
Perceptions and Implications
If social confidence explains the greater contributions of women in some social contexts, it is worth asking why girls in school tend to contribute less than boys. Why should they feel unconfident in the classroom? Here is the answer which one sixteen-year-old gave:
Sometimes I feel like saying that I disagree, that there are other ways of looking at it, but where would that get me? My teacher thinks I’m showing off, and the boys jeer. But if I pretend I don’t understand, it’s very different. The teacher is sympathetic and the boys are helpful. They really respond if they can show YOU how it is done, but there’s nothing but ‘aggro’ if you give any signs of showing THEM how it is done.
Talking in class is often perceived as ‘showing off’, especially if it is girl-talk. Until recently, girls have preferred to keep a low profile rather than attract negative attention.
Teachers are often unaware of the gender distribution of talk in their classrooms. They usually consider that they give equal amounts of attention to girls and boys, and it is only when they make a tape recording that they realize that boys are dominating the interactions. Dale Spender, an Australian feminist who has been a strong advocate of female rights in this area, noted that teachers who tried to restore the balance by deliberately ‘favouring’ the girls were astounded to find that despite their efforts they continued to devote more time to the boys in their classrooms. Another study reported that a male science teacher who managed to create an atmosphere in which girls and boys contributed more equally to discussion felt that he was devoting 90 per cent of his attention to the girls. And so did his male pupils. They complained vociferously that the girls were getting too much talking time.
In other public contexts, too, such as seminars and debates, when women and men are deliberately given an equal amount of the highly valued talking time, there is often a perception that they are getting more than their fair share. Dale Spender explains this as follows:
The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence. Women have not been judged on the grounds of whether they talk more than men, but of whether they talk more than silent women.
In other words, if women talk at all, this may be perceived as ‘too much’ by men who expect them to provide a silent, decorative background in many social contexts. This may sound outrageous, but think about how you react when precocious children dominate the talk at an adult party. As women begin to make inroads into formerly ‘male’ domains such as business and professional contexts, we should not be surprised to find that their contributions are not always perceived positively or even accurately.
Conclusion
We have now reached the conclusion that the question ‘Do women talk more than men?’ can’t be answered with a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The answer is rather, ‘It all depends.’ It depends on many different factors, including the social context in which the talk is taking place, the kind of talk involved and the relative social confidence of the speakers, which is affected by such things as their social roles (e.g. teacher, host, interviewee, wife) and their familiarity with the topic.
Who talks more is based on social context
It appears that men generally talk more in formal, public contexts where informative and persuasive talk is highly valued, and where talk is generally the prerogative of those with some societal status and has the potential for increasing that status. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to contribute in private, informal interactions, where talk more often functions to maintain relationships, and in other situations where for various reasons they feel socially confident.
Finally, and most radically, we might question the assumption that more talk is always a good thing. ‘Silence is golden,’ says the proverb, and there are certainly contexts in all cultures where silence is more appropriate than talk, where words are regarded as inadequate vehicles for feelings, or where keeping silent is an expression of appreciation or respect. Sometimes it is the silent participants who are the powerful players. In some contexts the strong silent male is an admired stereotype. However, while this is true, it must be recognized that talk is very highly valued in western culture. It seems likely, then, that as long as holding the floor is equated with influence, the complexities of whether women or men talk most will continue to be a matter for debate.

The debris of history

That night, she was so nervous, anxious and sad                         
       
She opened the bottle and gulped the liquid 
Then , she just started to talk gebbrish
Her voice began to quaver
Is she a quarry?
Why are they blaming her?
For which wrongs are they judging her?
For which crimes are they trying her?
Is she at fault?
She asked whether her contract is going to be renewed 
An ominous silence is all what she got 
Their discourse is nothing but lies
It has nothing new and is full of political prattle and clichés.
She was shivering, trembling, and shaking 
Is she agonizing?
Is she dying?

jeudi 13 mai 2010

لا لن أحمل إسم رجل

تمسك القلم                                                                                                 
تحاول لملمة  افكارها
تحاول الكتابة
تحاول تحاول و تحاول
تفكر و تفكر فلتستوي الكلمات
تنهمر دموع  تغطي الصفحة
إلا من مكان صغير
ينزف قلب تنفلت بسمة
تتمالك نفسها
تخط بيد مرتعشة
وبعين بها دمعة
وبقلب تتملكه رعشة 

لا لن أتنازل أكثر

samedi 8 mai 2010

الى عمار


بربّي علاه هكّة واحد نهار نهارين و البلوغ مسكّر , بربّي براس الحنينة اعملولنا قايمة في المواضيع اللّي نجمو نحكيو فيها أنا شامتها قارصة لما حالة خاطر المواضيع كلّ ممنوعة حسب ما فهمت . تحكي على الفن تتصنصر. على الكوجينة كيف كيف . شنوّة شنوّة تحب تحط تصاور؟ ممنوع يزّي حرام ’ عمّار يحرقك بالنار . تحب تحكي على الطلبة؟ بجدّك و لاّ تفدلك ؟ تحطّ مقطع من كتاب ولاّ غناية؟ شبيه هو الكتب الكلّ يتقراو قلّل و دلّل أكثر من التداوي بالعسل و الأعشاب تحرم القراية , قلّو تاريخ و علم نفس و علم اجتماع و كتب سياية . نعم نعم الشيخ امام و مرسال خليفة؟ شبيك؟ يا سيد شدّ ببوشتك و يزّي بلا مشاكل. تحكي على مشاكل الكورة و العنف في الملاعب , شبيك لاباس ؟ مصلح اجتماعي سيادتك؟ تحب تحكي على الحفر في الكيّاس ؟ يبطى ما عنّاش حفر في الكيّاس يزّي بلا ريق بارد . عندك مشكلة مع الأمد ؟ لا ما تحكيش قدّام الناس و عاد شبيه المشاكل تصير في أكبر العايلات مش لازم ننشرو صابونا المسّخ هكّة قدّام اللّي يسوى و مايسواش الصوف يتباع بالرزانة و شبيه كان مستوى التعليم تكبّ ؟

أمّان بربّي بربّي براس العزوزة يا عمّار فسّرلي ووضّحلي فاسش نجّم نحكي راهو دليلي حار و النوم هجر عيني ,

dimanche 2 mai 2010

كم كرهت هذه البلاد...لا خير في سلطتها و لا أمل في معارضتها

كيف وجد جابر ذاك" المرماجي" البسيط نفسه في غياهب السجون و بصفة سجين انتماء؟ كيف وصل ذاك الراعي الأمّي البسيط إلى قاعات المحاكمات والمثول أمام القضاء في محاكمة سياسية بحتة, هو الذي لا يعرف حتى كتابة اسمه أو قراءته؟

تبدأ رواية "رغم أنفك" لعبد الجبّار المدّوري لحظة يخرج جابر,عامل الحظيرة البسيط للتجوّل قرب حظيرة البناء التي يعمل بها و ذلك بعد يوم كامل من العمل المضني و المرهق, لتضعه الصدفة أو هي لعنة الأقدار أمام سيارة شرطة كانت تلاحق رفيقين من حزب معارض كانا يقومان بطلاء بعض الشعارات على الجدران و بتوزيع بعض المناشير بإلقائها تحت أبواب بعض البيوت في تلك المنطقة.يقوم رجال "الحاكم", و هي التسمية التي يطلقها التونسيون على رجال الشرطة, بإيقاف جابر و اقتياده إلى مركز الشرطة للتحقيق معه خاصة و أنّه قد ضبط و هو يحمل أحد المناشير الذي حمله حب الاطلاّع على أخذه من تحت أبواب أحد البيوت .
وهكذا تبدأ رحلة معاناة جديدة لجابر الذي طالما عاش المعاناة و الحرمان و الظلم و القهر مذ كان يعمل كراع بمنطقة "غار الثعلب" الريفية النائية, حيث كان يعيش مع والدته .فقد كان مالك القطيع الذي يحرسه لا يبخل عليه و على والدته بالشتائم و الإهانات المختلفة .يبدأ جابر في اكتشاف معاملات رجال الشرطة و هو ما يزال في سيارتهم في فيسمع عبارات من قبيل" بلّع فمّك... اسكت "لا أعرف " و "خاطيني" لا نريد سماعهما ...نريد أن نعرف كلّ شيء مفهوم "و "ههه أين وصلتم مع ولد القحبة؟" ليفهم أنّ كلّ ما يسمع عنه من أنّ رجال الشرطة في خدمة المواطن و أنّ كلّ ما يحتويه ميثاق رجال الأمن من التزام بالسهر على راحة المواطنين و مبادرة بالتحية عند كلّ تدخّل و غيرها لا تعدو أن تكون سوى شعارات توضع في أطر لتزيّن بها مراكز الأمن.
ّ ينتقل جابر إلى طور التحقيق و ما يرافقه من تعذيب و إهانات و ننتقل معه , فيكتشف و نكتشف الطرق البربرية الدنيئة المستعملة في الاستنطاق بداية من الركل و اللّكم و التعليق في وضع "الفرّوج" وصولا إلى بيت عزرائيل التي قلّما خرج منها موقوف سالما دون عاهة مستديمة أو إعاقة , هذا إذا خرج منها حيّا.فأغلب من دخلوها لم يخرجوا منها أحياء بل خرجوا جثثا هامدة .

و هاأنّ جابر يدخل سجن الإيقاف و ها نحن نرافقه إلى تلك الزنزانة الضيقة المتّسخة , كريهة الرائحة , الضيقة بنزلائها , و هناك نلتقي "حندوس" بصيص الأمل في عتمة الزنزانة.

و نحن نعايش معاناة جابر و مظلمته نكتشف في نفس الآونة شخصيات أخرى , ففي الرواية مراوحة بين قصّة جابر و نضالات مجموعة من الشبان الذين أبوا إلاّ أن يخاطروا بحياتهم من اجل التصدّي للظلم و القمع و الاستبداد و من أجل خير وطن يرزح تحت أعباء دكتاتورية قامعة و خانقة فنكتشف فقرهم و تضحياتهم و مخاطراتهم بأنفسهم. هم مجموعة من الرفاق قبلوا بالعيش في السرية و بالفقر و الجوع , هم يكتبون المناشير ويقومون بتوزيعها رغم ما يشكّله ذلك من خطر.و الذين تبنّوا قضية جابر في وقت لاحق و جعلوا من البحث عن والدته العجوز المفقودة مهمّتهم الأساسية. و نتعرّف على سارة تلك الممرّضة التي اعتنت بجابر بعد إقامته ببيت عزرائيل و التي ستلعب دورا أساسيا في آخر الرواية. و يظهر حسن ذلك الرفيق المتخلّي الذي اختار الابتعاد عن النضال و التحق للعمل بصحيفة لا علاقة لها بالحقيقة سوى العنوان.


و ها أنّ جابر يودع سجنا آخر فندخل معه إلى الغرفة المكتظة و نكتشف حياة السجن فنتعلّم عبارات مثل "الاريا" و "الكدس"و "السيلون" و "الفلقة" و "القاميلة "و "الكبران" و نلاقي الرفيق محمود هذا السجين السياسي الشيوعي الذي سيتبنّى جابر و يحاول مساعدته في السجن و خارجه فطالما ما رنّت كلمات محمود في أذني جابر و هو في أتعس حالته فلقد قال له و هو يجاوره في "السيلون"ز "إيّاك أن تفكّر في الموت يا جابر , الموت يبدأ بمجرّد التفكير فيه سنظلّ أحياء بالرغم عنهم ... لن نموت يا جابر ... لن نموت لن نموت . و نتعرّف على المعاملات داخل السجون و نعايش الخصومات بين المساجين . و نشهد معاناة عائلات المساجين السياسيين و ما يلقونه من ضغوطات و إهانات و معاناة. و نعرف أكثر عن استقلالية القضاء على هذه الأرض الطيّبة و عن نضالات نفر من المحامين خيّروا خدمة الوطن و الدفاع عن الحق على ملء جيوبهم بالأموال .

و يهرب جابر من السجن يوم محاكمته...

تقرأ الرواية فتحرّك فيك العديد من الآلام و الأوجاع فعلى الرغم من أنها كتبت في سنة 1994 إلاّ أن دار لقمان بقيت على حالها, نفس الاختناق , نفس السجون الصغيرة و الكبيرة ,نفس القبضة التي تكبّل الحريات و خاصة منها حرية الإعلام و الصحافة .يهزّك الألم يعصرك , تشعر بالذنب أحيانا و بالقهر أحيانا أخرى , فأنت عاجز أمام هذا الكمّ الهائل من الظلم , لابل أنت تخيّر الصمت إزاءه عملا بالمثل القائل "اخطى راسي و اضرب" فالطلبة شحّ اهتمامهم بالشأن العام إن لم نقل انعدم و أحزاب المعارضة دخلت في حسابات ضيّقة جدّا صرفتها عن المشاكل الحقيقية لمجتمع برمّته . الرواية دعوة للتفكير فمثل ماوجد جابر نفسه ملقا في السجن لذنب لم يقترفه فقد نمرّ كلّنا بنفس الوضع و نعيشه .