Quote:
Originally Posted by sun surfer
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.
(...)
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."
|
Yes, I agree with this book having many layers. It is presented as a historic novel, but this isn't all what it is. On one level it could be, but then......Constantinople was called Istanbul from 1923 on, so that doesn't fit.
That is also why I remarked that I perhaps confused matters by posting 17th century music and also the context I gave in my previous post.
It is confusion inside confusion. One never knows what's what in this book and who's who.