The Bastard of Istanbul by Elif Shafak
I first read about The Bastard of Istanbul
However, the idea of a Turkish writer touching upon this sensitive subject is another matter entirely which is why I’m glad to see that Myrthe from The Armenian Odar has written and just posted a review of the book. The review is made all the more interesting given that Myrthe is not Armenian as well.
The Armenian genocide is a major theme in the story, but eventually it is one of the ways the bigger theme of dealing with the past is worked out. All of the major characters have something in their past they have to deal with, either by accepting it or denying it or, even before acceptation or denial, by trying to find out what their past actually is.
[…]
It is a beautifully told story with an interesting plot, if somewhat constructed at times. I felt as if the author wanted to represent all the different opinions on the Armenian genocide in the book. There is the staunch Turkish nationalist who is absolutely convinced that there was no genocide and that, on the contrary, the Armenians killed the Turks en masse. There is the Turk who acknowledges that the Turks did horrible things to the Armenians during World War I, but that that was in the past and that the current generation is not responsible for it. There is also the Armenian who thinks that Armenians still living in Turkey are being repressed and who is convinced that they’d be better off emigrating. There is the somewhat skeptical Armenian who thinks that striving for recognition of the genocide is the only thing that still binds the Diaspora and that once recognition by Turkey has been achieved, the Diaspora will fall apart. Finally there is the Armenian who was born and raised in Istanbul, feels Istanbulite first and foremost and doesn’t want to live anywhere else. This urge to represent all those opinions led to superfluous scenes and even characters in my opinion. I ended up quickly reading the superfluous parts and then diving back into the rest of the book.
[…]
I am not sure the book is among my favorite reads of this year, but I did enjoy it very much and am certainly interested in reading more by Elif Shafak.
Anyway, although the book doesn’t sound as good as it could have been perhaps, if I can ever find the time to put my feet up to read, The Bastard of Istanbul
And talking of reviews, there are many as well as articles online:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/19/features/IDSIDE20.php
A Google search pretty much finds everything.
Comment by Onnik — December 26, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
Thanks for the post, Onnik. If you ever want to read the book, let me know. I have an English copy you can borrow. I also happen to have Ali and Nino on my To Be Read-pile (in Dutch, though) and once I’ve read it, I will certainly blog about it. I read Ali and Nino some years ago and at the time I liked the book. I want to reread it, though.
I do feel that The Bastard of Istanbul would have been better if the urge to represent every opinion from both sides would have been a lot less obvious. Anyway, it is still an interesting book to read.
Comment by Myrthe — December 26, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
I read Snow of Pamuk and Bastard of Istanbul by Shafak in succession. I found Pamuk to be pretentious and did not like his language at all (may be it is not his fault but translator’s).
Shafak is simpler of course, but book reads with interest. There are superfluous scenes and characters, but it is easy to forgive them considering the author is not Nobel laureate for literature.
Comment by GT — December 27, 2007 @ 1:09 am
GT, I read Snow as well, and had a lot of trouble finishing it. I found Pamuk’s writing style rather annoying and found it difficult to concentrate on the writing. I’d read a page and at the end of it I’d be wondering what I had actually read and I’d be reading the same page again. I read it in Dutch and I assume you read it in a language other than Dutch. This makes me think it the problem wasn’t in the translations, but in Pamuk’s writing style. I’m generally not afraid at all to tackle ‘difficult’ books, but Snow was a special case, a book that didn’t do much with me at all.
Shafak’s book is much more accessible and I actually quite liked her writing style, her way of describing people and scenes. Shafak’s writing is very much alive with colors, smells, noise.
Comment by Myrthe — December 27, 2007 @ 10:07 am
Myrthe,
for me the most interesting thing in Pamuk’s book was the profound confusion of turkish as persons and as a society. I wonder if it is just Pamuk’s condition or it is really the state of affairs of Turkey. And of course I did not read it in Dutch
Comment by GT — December 28, 2007 @ 2:00 am