The naïve and the sentimental novelist...

It is a series of lectures by Orhan Pamuk. I had read his books ‘Istanbul’ and ‘My name is red’, and ever since, loved the way he writes. This book is a personal account of what Pamuk thinks about how the novel is read and what goes through in the mind of the reader. He sometimes gives an academic background and sometimes gives insights about his own experiences while reading or writing a novel. The latter is what interests me more. I am also making a note of the books he seems very impressed with, for future reading.

This on the dedication page, made me smile - To Kiran Desai.

I could relate to a lot things I do as a reader, as I read through the first chapter – “What our minds do when we read novels”

- like I try to guess which part is fiction and which part is real in story based on the author’s own life experiences!

- I also take moral stands sometimes about the characters and at times it actually affects my pace of reading, I realized this influence after reflecting on what I read on the subject! I need to understand the characters for who they are to enjoy the story better. In future I got to remember this!

- at times I keep looking for hidden meaning in anything, even when there may be none!

- I imagine what may happen next while I am reading and sometimes am thrilled if it turns out some other way and sometimes disappointed.

- keep searching for that “core” of the novel .

The second chapter/lecture is called “Mr.Pamuk, did all this really happen to you?”. It deals with how readers sometimes speculate and to an extent believe that some facts about the protagonist of the novel is based on the author itself. Pamuk gives an anecdote from his experience.

The third chapter is called “Literary character, plot, time.  I found really interesting – “People do not actually have as much character as we find portrayed in novels, especially in nineteenth –and –twentieth –century novels.” He being a 57 year old at the time of writing this goes on to say “human character is not nearly as important in shaping our lives as it is made out to be in the novels...”. When I sometimes unconsciously compared myself to a character I was reading about in a novel, it would leave me dissatisfied, I kind of know now the reason!

While describing the role of a plot in a novel, he says that protagonists are not just invented. A novelist’s desire to explore a certain topic shapes the world of the protagonist. The writer tries to see the world through the protagonist and this could leave aspects of the writer in the protagonist as well vice-versa. Very, very interesting thoughts and to me they give a fresh perspective.

Words, picture, objects – in this chapter Pamuk talks about two kinds of writers – visual writers and verbal writers – based on whether the writer triggers the visual imagination of the reader or the textual imagination.

A chapter titled “Museums and Novels” draws parallels between museums and novels. J There are interesting observations on how a reader sometimes uses the novel she is reading to give a certain image.

“The center” deals the core of every novel. The kernel around which the narration evolves. He mentions as a writer, the techniques employed sometimes to make the center less evident while sometimes efforts are made to make it more evident. There are some philosophical thoughts about life and its meaning in the same context, about how the center is what the reader and the writer strive for in a novel and how that gives satisfaction to both.

It is not a book I would read in one shot. I was reading other stuff and would come back to read a chapter and take a break before returning to it.

Pamuk uses metaphors to get across certain aspects of the art of writing a novel– like a scene from Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, which he uses to compare finer aspects on novel writing, while another - classical Chinese landscape painting, he uses to bring out the “bigger-picture” aspects. There are several of these, but these were the ones used across the lectures, so I remember it.

Reading the book, has made me more of a conscious reader. I become aware now, when I am “judging” a character rather than understanding it. When I began reading the book, I thought I was the naïve kind of a reader, but gradually realized that am not solely of any kind, sometimes naïve and sometimes sentimental/reflective reader. I had not imagined a book on such a subject, since it has a more academic tone, to keep me absorbed! Pleasantly surprised indeed! J