I haven't finished the book but does Shekure remind you of Becky Sharp of Vanity Fair in some ways?
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
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 :)
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 neilgee
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
*****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.
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 Charles Darnay
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgee
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
As the novel goes on I have to say that to my surprise the artistic debates become more interesting.