Showing posts with label Orhan Pamuk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Orhan Pamuk. Show all posts

Friday, October 16, 2015

Orhan Pamuk / A love for Istanbul


BABELIA – INTERVIEW 

Orhan Pamuk: A love for Istanbul




The Nobel-winning Turkish author’s new novel imbues everyday stories with an epic touch


One of the author’s illustrations that accompanies his latest novel. © Orhan Pamuk
Orhan Pamuk (Istanbul, 1952) has written another monumental novel, A Strangeness in My Mind, which comes after The Museum of Innocence, published in 2009. With intelligent and moving meticulousness, the Turkish Nobel Prize-winner tells of 40 years in the life of a humble Istanbul street vendor. It’s a book about happiness (or the lack of it), and about time. While reading it, it’s impossible not to feel that its protagonist, Mevlut, embodies the very Istanbul he describes, and, in fact, when one travels to Istanbul and listens to its racket and rejoicing, it seems obvious that Pamuk has made any and all of these characters stand up in his fiction on these old streets. We talk in the house Pamuk lives in, in Bujukada, the beautiful island his parents would take him to from the day he was born. He still spends his summers there, writing in a peace that’s only disturbed by “the soft passing of time,” marked by the shadows the sun throws over his bare balcony. Before we talked he offered us watermelon and apricots. He looks happy, as if he’s fallen in love, and not only with literature.
Question. You say in this book that we have to believe in the novel when we are reading it. Why is it so important to believe in what you are reading?
Answer. Because literature, whether it is fantastic or realistic, works with what Samuel Taylor Coleridge called suspension of disbelief. If you’re a cynical person, if you are not a sincere believer in the strength of literature, then you should avoid reading books. In the end there is a very old-fashioned side to reading novels in our age – blogs, internet, so much information and so much humanity. Why read novels? Because we believe in the power of literature. We’re not cynical or sarcastic or suspicious about it. Literature works with intentionally well-meaning readers. You say I’m going to give 10 hours to this Istanbul street vendor’s life. Then you’re not sarcastic any more. You’re with the characters and you take the writer’s work for granted. You should not take it for granted and not question it, at least at the beginning.

Monday, April 20, 2015

Günter Grass / The man who broke the silence

Günter Grass: 

the man who broke the silence

Truth-teller, controversialist, affectionate friend – above all, ingenious and inspirational novelist … Orhan Pamuk, John Irving and other writers salute Günter Grass, who died this week


Neal Ascherson, Rachel Seiffert, Ian Buruma, David Kynaston, Orhan Pamuk,Adam Thirlwell, Philip Hensher, Simon Winder, Lawrence Norfolk and Daniel Kehlman

Saturday 18 April 2015 09.36 BST

Günter Grass in 1989
Photo by Udo Hesse
Poster by T.A.

Neal Ascherson
Don’t mourn for Günter Grass! Eat and drink for him, pork belly and black lentils and golden Westphalian beer. And then remember somebody else who can never die, and who seems now to stand for so much of Grass’s lust for real, bad-smelling, defiant life.
I mean his character Tulla Pokriefke, first met in Cat and Mouse and last seen in Crabwalk, his final novel. She starts as a scabby, dirty-minded teenager in wartime Danzig, who gets conscripted as a tram conductor. She ends up as an insufferable old matriarch in East Germany, suspect to everyone for speaking her mind, for blubbing over Stalin’s death and yet loudly defending the Nazi “Strength Through Joy” cruises for working-class families. Somebody in Crabwalk says: “That’s always been Tulla’s way. She says things other people don’t wish to hear. Of course she sometimes exaggerates just a bit.”

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Gioconda Belli / An evening with Orhan Pamuk

Gioconda Belli
Gioconda Belli
AN EVENING WITH ORHAN PAMUK


pamuk460
I wish I could have spent an entire evening with Orhan Pamuk! He is magnificent! But I did go to a presentation at the Aratani Theater last night in Los Angeles to hear him talk about his latest novel, The Museum of Innocence. I hate to namedrop but I must say I met Orhan briefly in Venice this summer while I was having coffee with Salman Rushdie. As it tends to happen when one meets a writer one admires, there was not much that I thought of saying after we were introduced, especially because at that point we were all standing and I was about to say good bye to Salman. Last night, while I looked up at the lectern where Pamuk stood reading, I was mad at myself for having allowed such an opportunity to pass, but anyhow, I won’t next time.

   Orhan is a good looking man in a sort of elegant, intellectual way. He was dressed in a well cut suit and I was impressed by the way his soul seems to fit so well into his body. You know how some people’s souls end up in lesser bodies or bodies that do not match the lightness of being of their souls? That is not Pamuk’s case. Even his hands seem to have been designed to accompany his gestures. He began reading fragments from his novel, after a short introduction of its theme: LOVE. Love in its many manifestations. The first of these that he chose to read was pain, and the description he read was quite funny and poignant…nothing sentimental: it was more like a description of acid reflux or heartburn of the stomach. Anyone who has been in love can attest that this is true. Love and the stomach are intricately connected, it seems.
   Pamuk speaks English with a very strong accent. I, who get so self-conscious about my accent, thanks in part to my husband’s unforgiving remarks about my public speaking missteps, realized how little a thick accent matters if what is being said is worth the effort of our concentration. Orhan read for about half an hour, interjecting vivacious or downright funny comments throughout. Then, he took a seat next to the interviewer designated for the evening, a young Iranian professor who teaches at Riverside, and who was very anxious to demonstrate he was no less smart than the writer.
   It was during this period that Pamuk’s personality, wit, and assertiveness engaged and charmed the entire audience. I have rarely seen a writer who seemed as comfortable saying exactly what he thought. One could tell he was not trying to please anybody but simply being himself, which was very refreshing. Irony is a weapon he handles well but it is a kind of irony that is not mean or showoff, but exact, sharp and used in a wise and self-deprecatory way. He kept diffusing the prim Iranian professor’s attempts to bring out his erudition and involve him in an academic type of discussion. He stuck to his clear notion that being a writer does not make one neither a sage, nor a judge of people, but rather a compassionate observer of human nature.
   Without any qualms, he answered questions from the public in a straightforward manner, dismissing the temptation to respond to those that attempted to place him as a political arbiter. He got obviously impatient with the notion that he could separate fact from fiction in his novels or that he could represent the “oppressed” as a statesman would pretend to do.
   It was quite fantastic to watch, a sort of lesson on how to be fearlessly coherent and have the public persona and the verbal manifestation agree with what one writes.






Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Orhan Pamuk / My First Passport


MY FIRST PASSPORT
By Orhan Pamuk
Translated from the Turkish by Maureen Freely

What does it mean to belong to a country?
         In 1959, when I was seven years old, my father went missing under mysterious circumstances; several weeks later, we received word that he was in Paris, living in a cheap hotel in Montparnasse. He was filling up the notebooks that he would later give to me, and from time to time, from the Café Dome, he’d spot Jean-Paul Sartre passing in the street. At first, my grandmother sent him money from Istanbul. My grandfather had made a fortune in railroads. Under my grandmother’s tearful gaze, my father and my uncles hadn’t yet managed to squander their entire inheritance—not all of the apartments had been sold. But, twenty-five years after her husband’s death, my grandmother decided that the money was running out and she stopped subsidizing her bohemian son in Paris.
This was how my father joined the long line of penniless and miserable Turkish intellectuals who had been walking the streets of Paris for a century already. Like my grandfather and my uncles, he was an engineer with a good head for mathematics. When his money was gone, he answered an ad in the newspaper for a job at I.B.M.; once hired, he was dispatched to the company office in Geneva. In those days, computers were still operated with perforated cards, and the general public knew little about them. My father became one of Europe’s first Turkish guest workers. My mother soon joined him, leaving my older brother and me in our grandmother’s plush and crowded home. We were to follow our mother to Geneva after school had closed for the summer, which meant that we needed to get passports.
I remember having to pose for a very long time while the old photographer fiddled, under a black cloth, with a three-legged contraption with bellows. To cast light onto the chemical plate, he had to open the lens for a split second, which he did with an elegant flick of his hand, but, before he did this, he would look at us and say, “Yeeeees,” and it was because I found this photographer truly ridiculous that my first passport picture shows me biting my cheeks. The passport notes that my hair, which had probably been combed for the first time that year in preparation for the photograph, was chestnut brown. I must have flipped through the passport too quickly back then to notice that someone had got my eye color wrong; it was only when I opened it thirty years later that I picked up on the mistake. What this taught me was that, contrary to what I’d believed, a passport is not a document that tells us who we are but a document that shows what other people think of us.
As we flew into Geneva, our new passports in the pockets of our new jackets, my brother and I were overcome with terror. The plane banked as it came in for a landing, and to us this country called Switzerland seemed to be a place where everything, even the clouds, was on a steep incline that stretched to infinity. Then the plane finished its turn and straightened itself out. My brother and I still laugh when we remember our relief on realizing that this new country was, like Istanbul, built on level earth.
The streets in Switzerland were cleaner and emptier than those at home. There was more variety in the shopwindows, and there were more cars. The beggars didn’t beg empty-handed, as in Istanbul; instead, they’d stand under your window playing the accordion. Before we threw money to our local beggar, my mother would wrap it in paper.
Our apartment—a five-minute walk from the bridges over the Rhone River, at the point where it emerged from Lake Geneva—had been rented furnished.This was how I came to associate living in another country with sitting at tables where others had sat before, using glasses and plates that other people had drunk from and dined on, and sleeping in beds that had grown old after years of cradling other sleeping people. Another country was a country that belonged to other people. We had to accept the fact that the things we were using would never belong to us, and that this country, this other land, would never belong to us, either.
My mother, who had studied at a French school in Istanbul, sat us down at the empty dining-room table every morning that summer and tried to teach us French. Only when we were enrolled in a state primary school did we discover that we had learned nothing. My parents hoped that we would learn French simply by listening to the teacher day in and day out, but we didn’t. When recess began, my brother and I would wander among the crowds of playing children until we found each other and could hold hands. This foreign land was an endless garden full of happy children. My brother and I watched that garden with longing, from a distance.
Although my brother couldn’t speak French, he was top in his class at counting backward by threes. The only thing I was good at in this school where I couldn’t understand the language was silence. Just as you might struggle to wake up from a dream in which no one speaks, I fought not to go to school. As it did later, in other cities and other schools, my tendency to turn inward protected me from life’s difficulties, but it also deprived me of life’s riches. One day, my parents took my brother out of school, too. Putting our passports in our hands, they sent us away from Geneva, back to our grandmother in Istanbul.
I never used that passport again. Although it bore the words “Member of the Council of Europe,” it was a reminder of my first failed European adventure, and such was the vehemence of my decision to turn inward that it would be another twenty-four years before I left Turkey again. When I was young, I always gazed with admiration and envy at those who acquired passports and travelled to Europe and beyond, but, despite the opportunities that were presented to me, I remained fearfully certain that it was my lot to sit in a corner in Istanbul and give myself over to the books that I hoped would one day make my name and complete me as a person. In those days, I believed that one could understand Europe best through its greatest books.
In the end, it was my books that prompted me to apply for a second passport. After years spent alone in a room, I had managed to turn myself into an author. Now I was invited to go on tour in Germany, where many Turks had found political asylum; it was thought that those Turks would enjoy hearing me read from my books, which had yet to be translated into German. Although I applied for a passport with happy excitement at the idea of getting to know Turkish readers in Germany, it was during that trip that I came to associate my passport with the sort of “identity crisis” that has afflicted so many others in the years since then—that is, the question of how much we belong to the country of our first passport and how much we belong to the “other countries” that it allows us to enter.

April 16, 2007