Internalizing Orhan Pamuk
by Etyen Mahcupyan

Societies which are unable to get out of their communal mentality have always had trouble grasping the concept of the individual, created by modernity, because being an individual requires, above all, looking at oneself from out of one’s community.


This is already the very definition of the intellectual and this difference also points out why the “enlightened” in Turkey fail to become intellectuals. As for communities, they only create “enlightened.” These are people who think they know what is true and assume a mission of promoting the progress of society toward these right goals. While doing so, they also pursue a goal of making the values of their community dominate the demands of others. Such people would not be awarded a Nobel Prize, for instance. All those who have been awarded Nobel Prizes so far are people who succeeded in developing a critical viewpoint toward their lands and created a new localism out of this criticism. Therefore, it is not surprising that Orhan Pamuk is perceived as a stranger because of the communal perception in Turkey. In fact, Pamuk is even on the margins of the secular circles in Turkey, not to mention the conservative ones. However, for this very reason, his critical view toward every point about himself made him real and enabled him to raise a localism with a universal meaning to an intellectual level. In his book Istanbul: Memories and the City, the author deals with his childhood, family and the cultural structure around him. He describes the background of Istanbul in such a way that he alienates and marginalizes while localizing himself by making it a part of the world he is talking about.

This novelist was awarded a Nobel Prize in literature for his ability to handle his novels with this deep point of view. Those who say Pamuk was awarded this prize for political reasons probably think his books were translated into so many foreign languages and became best-sellers as a result of lobbying activities. A parvenu culture of keeping books on shelves instead of reading them is widespread in our society but such a custom almost never existed in Western societies. For over a decade Pamuk has been regarded as a “pioneering” writer, in Western literary circles, reflecting the futuristic novel on the present day. Hadn’t he dealt with political issues that much, perhaps Pamuk would have already been awarded this prize because Pamuk’s real strength lies in his distance from his objects and the courage to declare this openly, as well as his ability to unite his high intelligence, power of observation and expression within a literary tradition. Pamuk also pushes the limits of the novel while doing so. The remarks of those who criticize him show the abysmally low number of people who possess the same intelligence and courage in our society and how hard it is for a man of letters to look at himself and things from out of his community.

Being a universal man of letters does not only imply an ability to write well. Even intelligence and courage are not enough. Synthesizing this in a way to address people’s minds and hearts also requires honor. As for honor, it does not mean an official discourse charged with preserving the national outlook as some people consider it to be. It requires dealing with the society and history in a conscientious way. Those claiming that Pamuk was awarded the Nobel Prize because he had said a million Armenians were killed in this country are apparently trying to say that this statement should not be made by a “good” man of letters because a person with a conscience cannot say the opposite. There may be various views on why these events took place but rejecting the existence of the event just reveals one’s fear in confessing his or her lack of ideas.

Pamuk is not that kind of a man. He is an honest person who combines his extraordinary talent with intelligence, courage and conscience. It is certainly difficult for communities to “internalize” such people.


October 20, 2006