But judging by the first book in the trilogy - Mahfouz obviously has far more space to tell his story in, and his characters have far more depth as a result (likely also because he's simply a better writer). I wouldn't call this book a "bad copy", though. Obviously today's (or, well, 2002's) Egypt is a very different place from the time Mahfouz was writing about, and the problems dealt with here are different ones. But I agree that the merits of Imarat Yacoubian are more in the sheer number of taboos it tackles and its willingness to openly discuss the many things wrong with Egyptian society, than in real literary quality. Which is the reason why I'm more enthusiastic about the movie - that movie does star some fine performances.