View Single Post
Old 08-18-2014, 03:38 PM   #17
sun surfer
languorous autodidact ✦
sun surfer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sun surfer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sun surfer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sun surfer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sun surfer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sun surfer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sun surfer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sun surfer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sun surfer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sun surfer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.sun surfer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
sun surfer's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,235
Karma: 44667380
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: smiling with the rising sun
Device: onyx boox poke 2 colour, kindle voyage
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 View Post
...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."

Last edited by sun surfer; 08-18-2014 at 03:43 PM.
sun surfer is offline   Reply With Quote