Greg Stewart
The first half of The White Castle by Orhan Pamuk the Venetian expresses his view of the Turkish culture through the eyes of a European. It is clear throughout the first half of the novel that the European view is one of ignorance. It is ironic to see Orhan Pamuk, a Turkish author, talk about Turkish people as if they are ignorant because you would expect him to try and portray his people in the best manner possible. I find his portrayal of the leaders within the Turkish culture: the pashas, viziers, and the Sultan as almost insulting to the culture. But I suppose that he does this on purpose to show how the Europeans viewed the Turks.
I also found the theme of fate to be one that was very interesting. The Venetian clearly is confused about his fate but the book starts off by stating that the events that go down are meant to happen and that there is no way to fight it. I liked that he kept the idea of fate throughout the entire novel. The narrator is constantly trying to figure out if his life is actually his fate. He comes to terms with the fact that his life has changed forever and he slowly starts to realize that it was his fate to become a slave and eventually work with Hoja on the fireworks project and his eventual realizations as he goes through his series of tumultuous encounters with Hoja.
I find it interesting that you mention the theme of fate through Orhan Pamuk's novel. On page 13 of the novel, the Venetian states that "Many men believe that no life is determined in advance, that all stories are essentially a chain of coincidences. And yet, even those who believe this come to the conclusion, when they look back, that events they once took for chance were really inevitable." It seems to me that the presence of the retrospective narrator within the novel, looking back at the past events in his life as he writes about it, believes in fate, while the main narrator within the novel believes that events occur at chance. Throughout the first half of the novel, the narrator refuses to accept the fact that he is a slave to the Hoja. He constantly wishes for freedom and the ability to return home, but so far has failed in fulfilling these desires. The main narrator is incapable of accepting his status as slave and his fate of serving the Hoja. The retrospective narrator, on the other hand, has "reached that moment" (13) where he can accept the fate that altered his life, from the "moment of cowardice" (13) experienced by the captain of the Venetian ship in initially refusing to whip the slaves oaring the ship, to the instance when he lies to the head Turkish pirate about being a doctor. The retrospective narrator believes that all of these moments culminated in an act of fate to produce his present ability to look back and write the novel we are reading. As we continue to read the second half, I am interested in learning how the main narrator within Pamuk's novel transformed into the retrospective narrator who is able to accept the influence fate has had on his life.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of Pamuk illustrating orientalism by having the Venetian narrator express western viewpoints is intruiging and has merit. It makes some sense, as you said, of having a Turkish author write something that seems ignorant of his own culture, to the point of being insulting.
ReplyDeleteRegarding fate, I agree that the narrator sees fate as explaining his situation; in the first chapter he goes as far as to say his entire life was changed because of the ship's captain being reluctant to whip the rowers. I'm not sure if he determines his fate to be that of a slave, but I have a feeling it has something to do with his relationship to Hoja (this is perhaps why they have such similiar appearances and rely on each other for knowledge).