There is a lot going on in chapters 15 to 21 (yeah, I am behind). I will just hit some highlights; they mostly cling to the theme of religion.

Necip’s landscape is very interesting and it is especially so because of what he thinks it reveals about his deep self. He thinks that if there is a place where God does not exist then God must not exist at all. I think the all or nothing aspect of his reasoning is very intriguing. To say that because something is not everywhere it is not at all is extreme and a logical fallacy. But that Necip would think this way, without seeming to questioning it, says a lot about him and the conception of God that he has and likely shares with his friends. This says worlds about fundamentalism of all types.

If God is not everywhere then he must not be anywhere-- this is a strong statement. And Necip turns this upon himself and uses it to question his own faith. This is wild and very powerful. He says: If I can imagine a place where God does not exist (because that would mean that God does not exist at all) then I must not really believe. This seems a significant point to notice. It seems to me that it is something that we need to be aware of in the real world, that this sort of thinking can exist and motivate action of real people.

The conversation that Ka and Necip have about happiness is great as well. Necip says that, “Only idiots and villains ca be happy in Kars” and that unhappiness gives him strength because he strives to escape from ‘Kars’ somehow and be happy. It seems that unhappiness gives him strength because it draws him to change or make change—and not settle, like an idiot, in Kars or simply take advantage of the situation there like a villain. This is different from Ka who talks about unhappiness protecting him from life. This seems like a twisted sort of Buddhist detachment from life. This detachment is a retreat into unhappiness that seems to protect him from being disappointed. Some where tied up in all of this (on page 138) the narrator points out that what is happening on stage allows everyone to laugh at the misery of the Turk… The tension or even conflict between happiness, unhappiness, faith, secularism, westernization, poverty and other things that pop up is great.

The mention of Coleridge’s Kubla Khan is wonderful.

I am still puzzled (and I have read to Ch 27 now) at what the last paragraph in ch 16 means. We see ‘the last image of my friend of 27 years.’ But Ka is still alive the next day… What is being said there and what happens to Ka?

The ambiguity of how the audience interprets the covered woman on stage when the ‘play’ starts is good. I like that Pamuk points out how the scarf itself has changed meaning since the play was originally written and how that in conjunction with the different perspectives, fears and hopes of the audience members makes it a symbol with varied and shifting meaning and significance.

The fear that the secularists have when the head scarf is removed is presented wonderfully. They want (or wanted that) but have resigned to something less because of fear or realism. They think ‘as long as they don’t start to make Western women wear head scarves—like Iran does—then they will be satisfied’ though they may still speak out against it.

The main job of the cultural director is almost as humorous as the activities of the Animal Enthusiasts. He basically is there to confiscate and report on ‘deviant’ culture, not at all to organize or promote cultural events. (p. 149) I think this says a lot about the ambiguity of what Turkish culture is in light of the diversity in Turkey. What can they promote as culture? Religion is a difficult topic. Secular culture can be seen as a western import in a lot of cases. It seems it is best not to define culture in a positive way.

The fact that people at home long to be in the theater not to see the show but to see the TV crew shows how they are attached to technology and media (or should I say pop) culture. They don’t want to see a show which might have content, meaning or hold a mirror up to them. They want to see the lights and cameras.

I find it ironic that the soldiers that were sent to shoot at the crowd, who are members of the secular army, who (I have been told) are watched as to how often and where they pray, were made to swear with their hands on the Koran. (P. 159)

On page 168 Ka (actually I think it is really Pamuk speaking thru him) says, the “… poets ability to shut-off part of his mind even while the world is in turmoil. If this meant that a poet had no more connection to the present than a ghost did such was the price a poet had to pay for his art.” More is said about Ka and writing else where in the book. Pamuk is saying a lot of interesting stuff about writing. I am excited to read other works of his, like My Name Is Red, that are supposed to look at aesthetics more deeply. I think Pamuk is truly a thinker, that is different from a lot of writers these days… Then again he is a Nobel laureate.

That is enough for now… But I have a lot brewing in me about the next meeting with Blue.