When the question of culture makes up the thematic basis of a book it puts those outside the culture concerned at a disadvantage. The question of an author’s audience also looms up. Is Orhan Pamuk a turkish writer writing for turks or an international writer writing for everyman? The Black Book is at times too exotic to be understood yet somehow it has gone beyond the writer’s own national boundaries making itself be understood on terms that are foreign to it.
Writing, it has been said I think by T. S. Eliot, is it’s own country irrespective of lines on a map. The more accessible parts of for those outside the Turkish culture The Black Book, & even more so for those outside the Eastern culture, are those passages about reading & writing, the author’s relationship with his readership, because those reflections are relevant for all cultures that communicate through a written medium. The discussion of national identities are more fixed in time & place so that those passages are only more relevant to those closest to that time & place represented. It’s a strange work that poses problems for those who wish to understand other cultures. It implies that to understand fully another culture you have to be part of that culture. No matter how understanding a reader might be their reading of foreign book they will always be outside complete comprehension. Pamuk has managed to write about national problems specific to Turkey, his time & place is integral to the story & not simply a backdrop, but with enough universal human interest to make him a candidate for a global Prize.
A difficult balancing act that requires more thinking on how he has managed to apparently do it.
Writing, it has been said I think by T. S. Eliot, is it’s own country irrespective of lines on a map. The more accessible parts of for those outside the Turkish culture The Black Book, & even more so for those outside the Eastern culture, are those passages about reading & writing, the author’s relationship with his readership, because those reflections are relevant for all cultures that communicate through a written medium. The discussion of national identities are more fixed in time & place so that those passages are only more relevant to those closest to that time & place represented. It’s a strange work that poses problems for those who wish to understand other cultures. It implies that to understand fully another culture you have to be part of that culture. No matter how understanding a reader might be their reading of foreign book they will always be outside complete comprehension. Pamuk has managed to write about national problems specific to Turkey, his time & place is integral to the story & not simply a backdrop, but with enough universal human interest to make him a candidate for a global Prize.
A difficult balancing act that requires more thinking on how he has managed to apparently do it.
