I've finished and I really loved it. It's a complex story that has so many layers of meaning. I really enjoyed the end of the story and I'm left pleasantly pondering over it all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertblues
...The preface of this book puzzles me. This story about finding a forgotten manuscript as a way to authenticate the story, it's historical importance, found in a 'governor’s office (...)at the bottom of a dusty chest stuffed to overflowing with imperial decrees, title deeds, court registers and tax rolls'.(6) Pamuk doesn't need this rather dated cliché, this artificial way to help his story along. This book is fiction, so why would Pamuk use this to give his story credibility? This intrigues me.
|
I have a different interpretation of this (and spoilers follow for anyone who is still reading).
We are left at the end thinking about who actually wrote the manuscript that was found. Similarly, I think Pamuk is playing with us with the preface. Instead of himself finding the manuscript, it is this other person Darvinoglu. Or is it? The book is dedicated to Darvinoglu's sister - or is it Pamuk's?
There is also the epigraph ostensibly from Proust that is a "mistranslation" from someone else.
I think with all of this Pamuk is playing with many layers of possible fictions and realities and specifically with the theme of duality that's central to this book. As there are dual main characters, so there are two people involved with the epigraph and also two authors presenting this book - Pamuk and Darvinoglu. Or is it all the same person?
"It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key."