Ch. 1-7
The First Seven
The first thing that I want to mention is the general subject of this book as I see it, and as it is summed up in the review quoted on the cover (at least of my version): “[Pamuk is] narrating his country into being.”—Margaret Atwood NYTBR
Though, I am not sure that country is the right word for Atwood to use. It seems that the country, in terms of borders, laws and government, is there and has been for not quite a century. The word I would use is nation. This of course comes from the term nation-state—and I use state and country interchangeably here. The nation is the people and culture; the state or country is the legal, territorial and governmental. Turkey is a state that grew out of a multinational, predominantly Islamic empire. They are struggling to deal with that past in terms of the fragmentation and the tension between the vision put forward by their modern founder Ataturk and Islamist tendencies that hold a different vision of the future. Ataturk wanted the modern Turkey, which arose from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, to be a modern western country—nation-state. That means that it needs to be secular in many ways. The Islamists of course want something different.
I think the tension between the two is displayed quite well in chapter 5: the transcript from the assassination tape. The secularist insists that he is not doing anything negative or bad to the religious people and sees him self as fighting for freedom and human rights. The Islamist sees the secularist as an atheist who is forcing his godlessness on people of true faith—and as a result forcing them to kill and commit suicide. What is great is that these two characters talk AT each other in this chapter and not really to each other. They do listen but not really to understand just to find ‘sound bites’ to throw back at the other to try and prove their point. It is not a dialogue, nor is it an argument. Why I find it so great is that I think it shows the tone of much thought and dialogue between the ‘West’ and the Muslim world today. Much more can be said about this but I think it is a topic that will come up again later….
I find two things about the book weak or shallow at this point—though I hope they get worked-out later.
First, the way the story is being told. I am not sure what the benefit of the Third person narration is. Why is it Ka’s friend that tells the story to us and not Ka himself? There seems to be something awkward in that though I can’t put my finger on it. (It reminds me of the way Heart Of Darkness is narrated, the opening scene and all.) However, if the story ends up in a way that necessitates that—like if Ka gets killed—then it will be more understandable.
Second, Ka’s character seems very weak. (And I mean that both in the sense that he seems like a weak person and that the characterization Pamuk has done seems to be lacking in something.) This is another reason why I think it would be good to have the story told in the first person, because it would give more depth to the main character. The most interesting thing about him for me so far is the silence that he lives in. How this relates to him having lived in exile and to his writing are both things I hope get exposed more and more as the story goes on. And both of those things seem like they would be more central if Ka were telling the story. Then again, maybe that is exactly why Ka is not telling the story: Pamuk wants to focus not on the character but on the situation in Kars, in Turkey in general.
How Ka ends up in exile also seems weak and ends up adding to the weakness of his character. He was “tried for a hastily printed political article he had not even written [and] fled to Germany.” Not that I don’t buy that something like that could happen but it just seems to easy for this story. I know the main character ought to be neutral so that the tension in Kars can be better illuminated, in a more neutral way, but Ka seems to be a bit much. Couldn’t he have left for another reason and not as a political exile who is not even political? It just seems forced to me, too much fate and no will.
Then again as I write this it seems that Ka may need to be weak and a relative failure. (Twisted and turned by fate and not even acknowledging his own will.) This might be exactly what draws him to Kars. (And I can’t quite buy that he goes there just for the woman.) He is a failure and is drawn to a failing place that is filled with people like himself. Maybe Pamuk is trying to say that most Turks are failures because Turkey has not found its identity yet and so no one can be a successful Turk. If Turkey has not found itself then how can a Turk be a success? They would not know what to do, be or how to be… This could be promising.
And credit to AJ for picking a great place to make us stop reading. We end the week with suspense, waiting to meet the infamous Blue.
Other Highlights:
The Society of Animal Enthusiasts is the cockfighting club
Muhtar’s talk of his conversion and religion with out really a mention of God. This is curious and I want to watch it. Also Ka’s thoughts of a westerner with a individual faith in contrast to the necessarily communal faith of the Islamist.
Ka: “The thing that Saved me was not learning German. My body rejected the language, so I was able to preserve my purity and my soul.” This is funny and thought provoking at the same time.
The first thing that I want to mention is the general subject of this book as I see it, and as it is summed up in the review quoted on the cover (at least of my version): “[Pamuk is] narrating his country into being.”—Margaret Atwood NYTBR
Though, I am not sure that country is the right word for Atwood to use. It seems that the country, in terms of borders, laws and government, is there and has been for not quite a century. The word I would use is nation. This of course comes from the term nation-state—and I use state and country interchangeably here. The nation is the people and culture; the state or country is the legal, territorial and governmental. Turkey is a state that grew out of a multinational, predominantly Islamic empire. They are struggling to deal with that past in terms of the fragmentation and the tension between the vision put forward by their modern founder Ataturk and Islamist tendencies that hold a different vision of the future. Ataturk wanted the modern Turkey, which arose from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, to be a modern western country—nation-state. That means that it needs to be secular in many ways. The Islamists of course want something different.
I think the tension between the two is displayed quite well in chapter 5: the transcript from the assassination tape. The secularist insists that he is not doing anything negative or bad to the religious people and sees him self as fighting for freedom and human rights. The Islamist sees the secularist as an atheist who is forcing his godlessness on people of true faith—and as a result forcing them to kill and commit suicide. What is great is that these two characters talk AT each other in this chapter and not really to each other. They do listen but not really to understand just to find ‘sound bites’ to throw back at the other to try and prove their point. It is not a dialogue, nor is it an argument. Why I find it so great is that I think it shows the tone of much thought and dialogue between the ‘West’ and the Muslim world today. Much more can be said about this but I think it is a topic that will come up again later….
I find two things about the book weak or shallow at this point—though I hope they get worked-out later.
First, the way the story is being told. I am not sure what the benefit of the Third person narration is. Why is it Ka’s friend that tells the story to us and not Ka himself? There seems to be something awkward in that though I can’t put my finger on it. (It reminds me of the way Heart Of Darkness is narrated, the opening scene and all.) However, if the story ends up in a way that necessitates that—like if Ka gets killed—then it will be more understandable.
Second, Ka’s character seems very weak. (And I mean that both in the sense that he seems like a weak person and that the characterization Pamuk has done seems to be lacking in something.) This is another reason why I think it would be good to have the story told in the first person, because it would give more depth to the main character. The most interesting thing about him for me so far is the silence that he lives in. How this relates to him having lived in exile and to his writing are both things I hope get exposed more and more as the story goes on. And both of those things seem like they would be more central if Ka were telling the story. Then again, maybe that is exactly why Ka is not telling the story: Pamuk wants to focus not on the character but on the situation in Kars, in Turkey in general.
How Ka ends up in exile also seems weak and ends up adding to the weakness of his character. He was “tried for a hastily printed political article he had not even written [and] fled to Germany.” Not that I don’t buy that something like that could happen but it just seems to easy for this story. I know the main character ought to be neutral so that the tension in Kars can be better illuminated, in a more neutral way, but Ka seems to be a bit much. Couldn’t he have left for another reason and not as a political exile who is not even political? It just seems forced to me, too much fate and no will.
Then again as I write this it seems that Ka may need to be weak and a relative failure. (Twisted and turned by fate and not even acknowledging his own will.) This might be exactly what draws him to Kars. (And I can’t quite buy that he goes there just for the woman.) He is a failure and is drawn to a failing place that is filled with people like himself. Maybe Pamuk is trying to say that most Turks are failures because Turkey has not found its identity yet and so no one can be a successful Turk. If Turkey has not found itself then how can a Turk be a success? They would not know what to do, be or how to be… This could be promising.
And credit to AJ for picking a great place to make us stop reading. We end the week with suspense, waiting to meet the infamous Blue.
Other Highlights:
The Society of Animal Enthusiasts is the cockfighting club
Muhtar’s talk of his conversion and religion with out really a mention of God. This is curious and I want to watch it. Also Ka’s thoughts of a westerner with a individual faith in contrast to the necessarily communal faith of the Islamist.
Ka: “The thing that Saved me was not learning German. My body rejected the language, so I was able to preserve my purity and my soul.” This is funny and thought provoking at the same time.
posted by Zophorian at 10:23 PM
1 Comments:
Zo,
I enjoyed your comments. I agree that the narrator is very idiosyncratic, especially the way he plays with time. The storytelling seems fatalistic too. In Pamuk's novel, My Name is Red, every character (even inanimate objects and artistic renderings) alternates telling the story from a first person point of view. I like that, at least, our narrator is distinctly subjective.
Weakness=impotence? Ha! Ka is extraordinarily weak; the way he reacted to the murder is proof enough. I am sure--as the novel progresses, unravels, or obscures--he will develop or we will learn about his inability to act. I like that you said he was drawn to Kars; instead of choosing to travel thither. He suffers from akrasia, no doubt.
I hear Pamuk is teaching a class at Columbia this coming year with my old thesis advisor, Andreas. Cool, huh?
Post a Comment
<< Home