Introduction
The novel Snow written by Orhan Pamuk is widely recognized by many critics as a landmark work in modern Turkish literature because it gives the audience in-depth insights in the life of this country and its problems. Overall, it describes the struggles of a person, who attempts to find his place in the community, torn apart by modernity and past, East and West, religious fanaticism, and secularism. Very often the conflict between these extremes verges on absurdity and poses a threat to the lives of people, who do not wish to be involved in it.
The author brilliantly shows that such atmosphere suppresses individuality as he or she is utterly unable to make decisions independently. The main character, Ka (Throughout the text, the author refers to the protagonist as Ka) (Kerim Alakusoglu) is virtually forced to choose between different ideologies, which can be even alien to him. He is unwilling to do it and this is one of the reasons why he perishes. The paper aims to analyze the themes explored by Orhan Pamuk in this novel and discuss how his ideas can be related to the works of other Turkish writers and the place of this work in modern Turkish literature.
Themes Explored in the Novel
The Conflict Between Cultural Heritage and Modernity
At the very beginning of this book, Orhan Pamuk introduces the readers into the controversial world of modern Turkish community. The protagonist goes to a small town Kars, which is located at the eastern border of the country. For a short time, Kars is isolated from the rest of the world due to the blizzard.
The writer deliberately chooses to organize plot in this way in order to emphasize an idea that this town is a miniature copy of Turkish society. Ka needs to investigate the case of mass suicide committed by local women because they had not been allowed to wear headscarves. The thing is that headscarf is regarded as “a symbol of political Islam” and the reforms of Kemal Ataturk prohibited wearing this article of clothes (Pamuk, 14).
Headscarf is an inseparable part of Turkish culture and it is rather unlikely this symbol will ever be taken away. Naturally, Orhan Pamuk does not approve these restrictions, imposed by the government. Nonetheless, at the same time, he condemns bigotry among people, who try to cling to this religious tradition.
For example, one of the secondary characters, Hande suggests suicide to another girl (Pamuk, 113). Ka is both amazed and horrified by such people. It should be pointed out that he was exiled from Turkey for twelve years and such fanaticism frightens him even more. This is one of those examples demonstrating the contradictory nature of modern Turkey.
In this case, the term “modernity” cannot be regarded as rejection of one’s tradition, values, and principles. More probably, it means the ability to accept new ideas, from which a person and society can benefit. The cruel irony of the situation is that secular revolution tried to erase the past of this nation.
The role of Islam as the mainstream religion of this nation was downgraded (Berman, 112). All the more, those people who wished to retain their cultural heritage were labeled as backward. We may remember the scene when one of the officials says “Don’t be afraid, these people are modern” (Pamuk, 275). In his view, everyone who does not accept the reforms, carried out by Kemal Ataturk is outdated.
In his book, Orhan Pamuk derides such doctrine. Apart from that, we may say the author attempts to cope with a very challenging task: he must avoid partiality and prejudice while presenting the key facts but at the same time he has to express his views in an allegorical way and the town of Kars is an allegory of modern Turkey.
The Clash of Secularism and Islamic Tradition
We need to discuss the novel from political perspective in order to get better understanding of Pamuks ideas. It should be taken into account that after the fall of Ottoman Empire, the control over the country passed from Islamic clergy to the republican government, and since early thirties, these opposing sides have been striving to seize power.
Unfortunately, this feud also divided the population of the country and caused hostility and even armed conflicts (Coury, 343). While describing the conflict between the Islamists and the supporters of the government, Orhan Pamuk wants to be objective in his treatment of facts. Yet, he shows that the so-called “democratic” government only proclaims liberalism to be its major priority but in reality, it remains totalitarian and militaristic.
One of the most notorious examples is the arrest and beating of suspect (Muhtar, one of Kas acquaintances was beaten by the policemen) accused of attempted murder of the minister (Pamuk, 72). In addition to that, while portraying one of Islamic rivals, Blue (His real name is not revealed), the author characterizes him as a very courageous and brave person. Due to this fact, several critics claim that the author sympathizes with representatives of Islamism (Hitchens, 188).
Certainly, Blues heroism in his struggle against the military is rather strong evidence that supports this claim. But later the writer undermines this idea by showing that despite his noble intentions Blue is a zealot who will stick at nothing in order to reach his goals.
The Relations Between Eastern and Western Cultures
Again, we have to emphasize an idea that Orhan Pamuk views Turkey as the country in which European and Asian cultural traditions have to co-exist with one another. In actually, the country is often defined as “the bridge between East and West” (Hitchens, 188). The key problem is that such co-existence is not always peaceful.
In his book, the author illustrates the idea that in the relations between two cultures vary depending on the geographic region. For instance, in highly urbanized areas such as Istanbul, women who do not cover their faces are very common. Such behavior is not considered as something outrageous (Pamuk, 20). In sharp contrast, in urban areas uncovered female face is simply unacceptable.
This book strives to explain these discrepancies, and according to the author one of the underlying causes lies in the dimension of economy. Rural regions of Turkey like the town of Kars have not benefited from secular reforms. Urbanization and democratization did not improve conditions of living in such regions. Orhan Pamuk says that in the overwhelming majority local inhabitants live beyond the line of poverty (Pamuk, 16).
In turn, poverty paves the ground for violence, hostility, and intolerance towards people, who may differ in terms of their income level, religion, political affiliation and so forth. Of course, this book is not intended to promote westernization of Turkey. Its message is that it is utterly impossible to promote liberal and democratic values without enhancing financial wellbeing of the citizens.
Currently, this country represents a curious amalgam of Eastern and Western cultural traditions. But the tensions between cultures, ethnic groups, and religions can be reconciled or at least alleviated only if economic life rises to a higher standard. Otherwise, the reconciliation of these philosophies is hardly possible and Turkey will not become the bridge between them.
Ideological Struggles and Individuality
Naturally, the above-mentioned themes are of great importance in this novel, yet it seems that Orhan Pamuk is more intent on studying the behavior of a person in the society, which is torn asunder by various ideologies: liberalism, Islamism, secularism, and so forth.
As it has been mentioned before, Ka returns from Germany and he has been accustomed to a different lifestyle. Therefore, he has to accommodate himself to the environment which is a part of his own identity. So, from the outset, he acts as a mere observer. Most likely, he is disinclined to take sides with any of opposing sides.
But, people who surround him do not give him any chance to be neutral and impartial. Practically, every person whom Ka encounters belongs to a certain religious and political group. Most importantly, they can accept Ka into their inner circle only if he shares their views.
Any disagreement may be taken a sign of (the belief that control over the country should belong to the government but not to the church) disrespect or even enmity. Overtly, the representatives of Islamism and secularism tolerate one another but this is just a mere façade. Many political scientists believe that this is one of the most dangerous trends in modern Turkish society because it can trigger violent conflicts (Heyking, 80).
Orhan Pamuk demonstrates in hypothetically risks of such dependence on ideology, which he depicts the conversation between Ka and one of the local boys. The protagonist is being asked a question whether he believes in God or not. Ka is very frank in his response and says that he does not know (Pamuk, 80). The protagonist is immediately labeled as an atheist.
The doubt itself is not permissible from the point of view of an individual who is driven by some ideology. The boy, who virtually interrogates him, advances the following argument: “If a person knows and loves God, he never doubts God’s existence” (Pamuk, 81). So, an individual is not allowed to occupy an intermediate position. This is the greatest difficulty which Ka had to encounter.
To crown it all, he does not have firm principles or moral code. He slightly resembles a rolling-stone which obeys every blow of the wind. This is one of the reasons why he gets involved into a staged military coup. He appears to be indifferent of the fact that Muhtar has been beaten in the police station (Pamuk, 72). Moreover, he does not express any concern about the fate of his alleged friend Blue.
On the whole, it is rather difficult to explain why he behaves in this manner. We can only hypothesize that Kas indifference is a natural reaction to the ideologies imposed on him by other people.
Perhaps, this analogy is very far-fetched, but it is possible to draw parallels between Ka and another literary character, Meursault (The major character of the novel The Stranger by Albert Camus), who cannot find a niche for himself. Both of them cannot develop their identities and do not a have any sense of belonging to the community. Furthermore, they give preference to observing rather than acting.
Overall, it is quite possible to argue that Orhan Pamuks book eloquently illustrates the dangers of ideological fanaticism and bigotry because they can turn a human being in a puppet, devoid of moral judgment. This is why Snow is considered as one of the most prominent works in contemporary Turkish literature.
The Novel Snow As a Part of Contemporary Turkish Literature
It is quite difficult to decide on the status of this book in contemporary Turkish literature. On the one hand, it has some features, typical for Turkish authors, but this work also includes the elements which are not very inherent in the literary tradition of this country. In order to substantiate this point, we should pay careful attention to such criteria as the most recurring motifs or themes which the writers discuss and the ways in which they convey their ideas to the audience.
Motifs
Like Orhan Pamuk, many Turkish writers focus on the interactions between Eastern and Western cultural traditions in Turkey and in the world, in general. We may mention such classical poets like Adonis who compared East “to a child” and West “to an unerring master” (Adonis as cited in Halman & Wagner, 52).
Of course, such analogy may seem offensive nowadays, but at the beginning and in the middle of the twentieth century, this belief was quite popular in artistic and scholarly circles. It seems that Orhan Pamuk takes a different stance towards this question. In his opinion, Eastern and Western cultures may be different from one another, but it does not mean that they are not equal or that they are inconsistent with one another. We may also that that as a representative of Turkish literature the author intends to reconcile these two extremes.
However, Orhan Pamuk introduces the themes, which have been unprecedented for the writers of this country. He urges the readers to look at religion from a different angle. In particular, deep and enduring faith in God is an inseparable component for this nation; the very possibility of doubt is unacceptable (Andrews & Robinson, 89).
Orhan Pamuk challenges this idea by creating such character as Ka, who cannot give a definite answer if he is an atheist or not. He tries to show that dogmatism and religion must never be combined because this can deprive a person of his freedom. Despite the fact that, he defines his book as a political novel, this work contains philosophical and religious messages: faith in God must not be achieved by means of coercion or compulsion. It stands to reason that Islamic theologians have become less dogmatic in the course of the twentieth century. Yet, Orhan Pamuk stays in the forefront because he openly challenges religious zealotry that constitutes a serious threat to any community.
It has to be admitted similar thoughts have already been expressed before by Turkish writers. Pamuks ideas are not entirely original or innovative. But he makes them even more convincing by showcasing the absurdity and cruelty of religious and political disputes among various layers of the society. The readers are deliberately forced to look through the eyes of the protagonist, Ka, who is estranged from the rest of the world. This technique enables the author to better render his ideas.
The Use of Expressive Means
In the previous sections, we have partly touched upon the use of expressive means in the novel. One of them, development of the protagonist, has already been discussed. Through Ka, an impassive onlooker of events, Orhan Pamuk describes the events of the plot in the most objective way. It would not be an exaggeration to say that such type of character is not typical of Turkish literary tradition. More likely, he is derived from the existential (the philosophical school, which states that the main motive of all person’s action is the desire to achieve freedom from the society) literature. It seems that such person can live only in the society which has undergone immense changes over a relatively short period of time and Turkey is one of such place.
Yet, his extensive use of symbols, metaphors, and allegories exemplifies the best canons of Turkish prose. There are many of them in the novel; the image of snow is by far the most interesting one. On the one hand, it represents the veil which isolates the town of Kars from the rest of the country.
From social perspective, it is the obstacle, which prevents this people from entering new life. To some degree, it can be understood as the curtain which keeps people blind, especially those ones who are obsessed with their ideologies, either Islamism or secularism. Still, such interpretation does not fully reflect the whole complexity of this metaphor. Ka immensely enjoys looking at snowflakes and says that they “remind of him of God” (Pamuk, 81).
The thing is that each snowflake is entirely unique in terms of its structure and composition; each of them is absolutely inimitable (Pamuk, 258). They can serve as a manifestation of human beings, who are made unique the creator but in the course of their lives, they are forced to follow general rules and lose their inimitable features. The problem is that this idea does not occur to those people, who compel Ka and people like him to choose this or that philosophy or ideology.
Another symbol, which has already been examined in this paper, is headscarf. It also has several layers of meaning: it may represent the cultural heritage of Turkey, its past and present. Nonetheless, it may also denote the futility of fanaticism and radicalism. To a reader, who may not be familiar with Turkish history, it may seem unbelievable a woman can kill herself just because she was not allowed to wear a headscarf.
All in all, the novel Snow can be regarded as the considerable contribution to modern Turkish literature because it gives a panorama of social, religious, and political life in this country. Finally, it brings new elements into the literary tradition of this country, for instance, existential character.
Conclusion
In his book, Orhan Pamuk intends to describe the internal conflicts within Turkish society. He persuasively demonstrates that at the given moment, the country is far from becoming a bridge between European and Asian traditions because it is torn by secularism and religious fanaticism, modernity, and historic past. Orhan Pamuk creates the major character Ka in order to show that such atmosphere within the country produces detrimental effects on the inner world of a person, as he is compelled to accept ideologies, which he may dislike.
This book can be viewed as a new phenomenon in contemporary Turkish literature because it brilliantly introduces the philosophy of existentialism. Yet, at the same time, Snow is rooted into the cultural tradition of this country, as it heavily relies on parables, allegories, and symbolism.
Works Cited
Andrews Walter & Robinson James. Intersections in Turkish literature: essays in honor of James Stewart-Robinson. University of Michigan Press, 2001.
Berman Marshall. “Orhan Pamuk and modernist liberalism”. Dissent 2009, vol. 56, issue 2, pp 112 – 118.
Coury, David. “Torn Country”: Turkey and the West in Orhan Pamuk’s Snow. ” Critique 50.4 (2009): 340-350. Research Library, ProQuest. Web.
Heyking John. “Mysticism in Contemporary Islamic Political Thought: Orhan Pamuk and Abdolkarim Soroush1. ” Humanitas 19.1/2 (2006): 71-96. Research Library, ProQuest. Web.
Hitchens, Christopher. “Mind the gap: Turkey is everyone’s idea of a ‘successful’ modern Muslim state. A new novel will make you think twice. (Book Review).” The Atlantic. 294. 3 (2004): 188(6)
Halman Talat. Rapture and revolution: essays on Turkish literature. Syracuse University Press, 2007.
Köprülü. Mehmet. Leiser Gary & Dankoff Robert. Early mystics in Turkish literature. Early mystics in Turkish literature.
Pamuk Orhan & Freely Maureen (transl). Snow Knopf, 2004.