May / Nobel Winners Reading: My Name is Red by Orhan Pamuk

Well, like I said, the first hundred pages had me hooked. The story was moving at a good place, the narrative style had me captivated. And the writing is beautiful. But as I went along, things seemed to have stalled. It seemed like any sort of plot progression took the place of philosophical meandering and/or long and drawn out descriptions of art. At one point I think the descriptions of paintings went on for four or five pages.

Don't get me wrong, the descriptions were beautifully written--the whole book was--but I couldn't have cared less, honestly. Those first chapters had me reading because I wanted to find out what happened next, but by the end, I was slogging my way through it as if the book were a chore, and honestly. Skimming a lot of the sections that seemed plotless.

It's not that I think it's a bad book--I can very easily see how it could be seen as a masterpiece. Plus, I'm sure there's heaps of symbolism and allegory that an analytic reading would reveal, not to mention a knowledge of Turkish culture. That being said, I didn't enjoy it.

Apart from the drawn on descriptory section, I find an even bigger reason I didn't like the book--I didn't give one rat's *** about any of the characters. It seemed either I disliked them or didn't have any feelings for them one way or another. Black could've died at the end nd my emotional reaction would've been "meh." Plus, Shekure was a loathsome, mysigonistically portray character (the writing of her character gave me the distinct impression that the author really has no business writing women, unless he was going for the selfish, vain, naive, and all around unpleasant approach to writing Shekure), not to mention her incredibly obnoxious kids (seriously, I was rooting for the author to kill them off). Black was a lovestruck idiot, a shallow man who made it clear that he only loved Shekure for her looks, and the rest of the principal characters were creepy pederasts.

So, yeah, that's why I didn't like it. 5/10.

I actually agree with most of what you're saying. My favorite characters were the Gold Coin and Satan! I would have preferred several more chapters devoted to them rather than to the dubious miniaturists. But at the same time I also liked the way Shekure, her two boys and the other characters were portrayed with all their shortcomings, doubts, and flaws. They were more interesting that way, I think, although not necessarily endearing. Black sure did not come out as a dashing, dark and handsome knight in shining armor!

I also felt that the descriptions of the works of art and the stories of kings and concubines, wars and warriors became tedious and repetitive after a while. If I had known where to skip certain chapters I could have done so and still not have missed much on main thread of the story itself.

I have to admit personally I enjoyed the descriptions of art, and the philosophies and theories relating to art. Though Art History was one of my favorite classes so maybe that is part of why. I do have a deep interest in art and look books which center around art. But I loved the chapters of Master Osman and hearing his own theories relating to art, and his analogies, and I liked the chapters dealing with the miniaturists. Also loved the chapters depicting the illustrations themselves. I loved I Am Red and also thought that I Am A Horse was great.

I really liked the way in which it seemed the author was toying with the idea of art imitating life and life imitating art, and how the lines between art and reality were blurred. Particularly when it came to the chapters with the illustrations in which it seemed as if the illustration seemed to be both an illustration as well as representing the spirit or essence of the actual thing of which it was an illustration of. And than there was the ongoing debate about depicting something from real life within art. So it seamed there was a lot of blurring of lines of what really is real.

I also enjoyed the murder mystery aspect of the book, for me where it seemed to drag a bit, is when it came to the story of Shekure and Black, as honestly I did not really much care, nor have much interest in their romance, and the chapters which dealt with them were the slowest for me to get through. Though one of my favorite human characters was Esther. I found her quite entertaining and I liked see her perspective on things.

So I just finished the book. I became distracted with other books along the way - such is how it goes.

I agree with DM in that the musings on art were the highlights of this book. I love the language and the philosophy of art and imitation.

As far as the plot goes - I found that it went downhill after [SPOILER ALERT] Enishte's death. Things started to become dull and monotonous, with the exception of the parts dealing with aesthetic philosophy.

I found that by the end I liked Shekure's character. Sometimes you pitied her, and sometimes you hated her, but she was the most dynamic out of the characters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

So I just finished the book. I became distracted with other books along the way - such is how it goes.

I agree with DM in that the musings on art were the highlights of this book. I love the language and the philosophy of art and imitation.

As far as the plot goes - I found that it went downhill after [SPOILER ALERT] Enishte's death. Things started to become dull and monotonous, with the exception of the parts dealing with aesthetic philosophy.

I found that by the end I liked Shekure's character. Sometimes you pitied her, and sometimes you hated her, but she was the most dynamic out of the characters.

---

Though I am thoroughly enjoying the book, and I cannot say there is a point in which I have come to dislike it, or like it less, I agree that it does seem as if it slows down a bit, and drags in parts, after the point of the murder.

In regards to Shekure, I myself found that after his marriage to her, I started to like Black more than I previously did, because I sympathized with him for being married to her. It seemed to be a case of careful what you wish for.

Frankly I think it would have served her right if both Hasan and Black became fed up with her and left her to herself.

I haven't finished the book but does Shekure remind you of Becky Sharp of Vanity Fair in some ways?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I haven't finished the book but does Shekure remind you of Becky Sharp of Vanity Fair in some ways?

---

I think that Becky Sharp was a bit more strong willed, and less wishy-washy. Shekure does not seem to know what she truly wants, while Becky had a clearly defined goal she was willing to do anything to achieve. Shekure is scheming and deceptive, manipulative, but still comes across as weak, or tries to use weakness in her ploys. Becky was much more mercenary and determined.

I agree with your points but we have to keep in mind the different societies they were living in as well.

I think it is very interesting from *gasp* feminist point of view that women in 16th century Istanbul were able to have a power to determine their own fate -as well as others around them. I think during the Ottoman history, there has been cases where the wives and mothers of the Sultans had taken the matters into their own hands without being obvious about it.

Considering the kind of Islamic society they must be living in, I find this (and Shekure's determination to control her own fate) very interesting.

That's another reason why I like Shekure. She has no power - she is completely reliant on her father and than on Black to protect her and her children, but she doesn't let them think that. She is so determined to control everything around her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

That's another reason why I like Shekure. She has no power - she is completely reliant on her father and than on Black to protect her and her children, but she doesn't let them think that. She is so determined to control everything around her.

---

Maybe my opinion will change when I finish the book but at this point, I cannot say I have ever truly felt that she was in fact attempting to control her own fate, I saw her really as just being vain, and indecisive, with a grass is greener on the other side outlook.

I think she enjoys being admired, and having her suitors fight over her, and she is unwilling to completely let go of either one of them. If she is with Black, than she imagines she is in love with Hasan, if she is with Hasan than she imagines she is in love with Black.

And maybe playing hard to get, even after she had already married, and withholding sex , is a way in which she insures they will continue to desire her.

I'm late joining this discussion but I did vote so I felt honour-bound to read this book.

I got the impression that this book is like a slideshow where various pictures are shone onto a screen whilst a narrative voice interprets the pictures for us. Even if that doesn't apply to all the chapters it helps me if I imagine it that way.

I must admit I was a little bewildered before that point of view came to me, especially by the chapter from the perspective of the dog. Whoever heard of a dog - even a literary dog - who was almost exclusively interested in human politics (using the word in its broadest sense)? I was wondering why the author was not even trying to be remotely realistic or meet the reader halfway in the willing suspension of disbelief.

I find the book veers between brilliance and incomprehensibility, I'm not one of the art-inspired readers but I can appreciate a thoroughly thought-out artistic outlook on life if the artist genuinely, convincingly believes in it , but I'm not quite finished yet so the jury is out on that one.

Please bear in mind I am not Turkish, have never visited Turkey nor am likely to in the near future, so I don't know to what extent that might invalidate any opinions I have :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neilgee

I must admit I was a little bewildered before that point of view came to me, especially by the chapter from the perspective of the dog. Whoever heard of a dog - even a literary dog - who was almost exclusively interested in human politics (using the word in its broadest sense)? I was wondering why the author was not even trying to be remotely realistic or meet the reader halfway in the willing suspension of disbelief.

---

When it comes to chapters like I am the Dog, which at first seem to be rather surreal and fantastic, it is reveled later on in the story that these chapters are actually being narrated by the Storyteller in the coffee house, and so it is not in fact an actual dog, or an illustration of a dog who is speaking, but it is a person telling us a story of his personal perspective on the illustration of the dog, of which I belief is in fact said to be hanging in the coffee house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

When it comes to chapters like I am the Dog, which at first seem to be rather surreal and fantastic, it is reveled later on in the story that these chapters are actually being narrated by the Storyteller in the coffee house, and so it is not in fact an actual dog, or an illustration of a dog who is speaking, but it is a person telling us a story of his personal perspective on the illustration of the dog, of which I belief is in fact said to be hanging in the coffee house.

---

Thanx Dark Muse I havn't quite got that far yet, no wonder the book is bewildering in parts, but I'll keep plugging away. :)

*****Possible Spoiler*****



At the end of the book is Shekure implying that Orhan was the narrator of the whole story?

Quote:

---

Above all don't be taken in by Orhan if he's drawn Black more absentminded than he is, made our lives harder than they were, Sheket worse and me prettier and harsher than I am. For the sake of a delightful and convincing story, there isn't a lie Orhan whodunit deign to tell.

---

I took this to be Orhan the author as opposed to Orhan the boy. There are several metafictional flourishes throughout the book, and the reader is constantly being addressed, mainly by Shekure, Black, and the non-human narrators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

I took this to be Orhan the author as opposed to Orhan the boy. There are several metafictional flourishes throughout the book, and the reader is constantly being addressed, mainly by Shekure, Black, and the non-human narrators.

---

I did not consider that, hmm though I wonder than does Orhan the boy in fact represent Orhan the author? Is that his pressence within the book?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neilgee

Please bear in mind I am not Turkish, have never visited Turkey nor am likely to in the near future, so I don't know to what extent that might invalidate any opinions I have :)

---

I don't think a knowledge of Turkish culture is necessary to follow the story but a little understanding of the historical developments taking place during the time of the story might be useful.

The Islamic artists seem to have struggled coming to terms with the option of creating art reflecting the world as it is seen and interpreted by them. They were happy to recreate the stories (fictional accounts) but the factual so making a portrait of someone living became a point of struggle for them. So much so that, there was violence against those who were willing to leave traditional methods behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I don't think a knowledge of Turkish culture is necessary to follow the story but a little understanding of the historical developments taking place during the time of the story might be useful.

The Islamic artists seem to have struggled coming to terms with the option of creating art reflecting the world as it is seen and interpreted by them. They were happy to recreate the stories (fictional accounts) but the factual so making a portrait of someone living became a point of struggle for them. So much so that, there was violence against those who were willing to leave traditional methods behind.

---

Thankyou, i have come up against that factor being used in discussions (not this one, thankfully) as making one reader's opinions of more merit than another's...so without claiming any in-depth contact with the subject the historical argument you point to seems to be still prevalent in many aspects of Islamic culture.

As the novel goes on I have to say that to my surprise the artistic debates become more interesting.