We started our first and only piece of fiction this week. I'm not exactly sure how we're supposed to analyze this story because of that. Everything else we've read so far has been non-fiction and we were judging the value of the disclosed information as well as making educated guesses about the autobiographer. That won't work here. At least, I don't think it will.
So, what then is left to analyze? The story and the author's presentation.
I like that the story is told in 3rd person. What is a little disconcerting, at least at first, is the realization there is an active narrator telling the story to the reader. The fact the author felt it was necessary to use a narrator makes me wonder why. Is he reliable? That's the first question. If he is, then does that mean the main character (MC) is unable to tell his own story? Is this a form of foreshadowing?
Those questions won't be answered for awhile yet, so I guess we should look instead at what our main character is up to and why. His motivation for returning to his hometown has two different faces: the public and the private. He says he's there as a journalist, looking to write stories on the head scarf girls who are committing suicide and the upcoming election. However, he's really there in hopes of convincing Ipek to marry him.
What starts out as a simple story becomes more of a cultural journey or exploration. Matters of religion and politics become a central focus when the MC begins his interviews of the girls' families. The noose tightens when he happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. After he witnesses the execution of a teacher who upheld the secular laws prohibiting the girls into the school if they refused to remove their head scarfs, the MC is drawn into a situation he never could have anticipated.
I'm only 80 some pages in and there's a lot of book left, but I expect things are about to get much worse for the MC. In truth, I'm anticipating he may not survive the story, which is why the narrator is necessary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Pamuk is a GREAT writer! I assume it's even better in Turkish, but I find myself always thoroughly enjoying the English versions. Another good book of his is My Name is Red.
We talked about the fiction issue in class. Continuities with travel literature: secular character (who has lived in Europe for 12 years) encountering Turkish "others"; clash of West with East within Turkey itself; the way Ka develops and is "saved" by his interactions with others. I told them that *Snow* differs from Pamuk's earlier fiction in that it is overtly political and possibly autobiographical. The narrator's name, we will learn, is Orhan. Also Pamuk travelled back and forth to Kars during the four years he was working on the novel and even shot quite a bit of film there and, of course, interviewed and got to know many of the people. He has confessed in interviews that much of what happens to Ka, happened to him. Anyway, I just thought I'd provide a bit of information so you'd see more reasons for ending a class of nonfictional travel writing with a fictional travel account.
Post a Comment