Stunning!

It is an absolute joy to read this book. It combines two of my most favorite things: art and multi-character narration. Set in the Istanbul of the 1590s, the story delves into the schism that emerged between the East and West, Christianity and Islam, in the context of art.

Up until the Italian Renaissance, art from these two worlds shared many similarities. It was flat, lacking perspective, and adhered to conventions in depicting subject matter and subjects, whether human or animal, which all looked alike. However, a turning point occurred when the Islamic illustrators of manuscripts witnessed the new Italian style. They were both impressed and horrified by the lifelike depictions, which were so realistic that one could recognize the subject on the street.

The fact that the portraits were of average (albeit wealthy) people and the viewpoint was at the same level as the subject directly opposed the Islamic tradition of all illustrations being from a god-like elevated position and depicting god's idealized version of a horse or other subjects rather than a specific example.

This clash of ideas ultimately led to murder. At its core, one could argue that it is a murder mystery, but it is so much more than that. It is a tale of piety, of holding onto traditions, of long-simmering love, of dedication to one's art, and most powerfully, a mother's love for her young sons. Many of the descriptions of Shekure cuddling or lying with them evoke images of the Renaissance pietas.

Despite being a long book, it progresses at a brisk pace. Each chapter is assigned to a different narrator, which is a clever way of using the first person while maintaining an omniscient narrative. Its quirkiness is evident from the first chapter, which is narrated by a dead man (the murder victim). Subsequent chapters are related by a drawing of a dog, a drawing of a tree, and other entities.

This is one of the most original, stimulating, and intelligent books I have read in a long time. It truly deserves 5 stars, but I feel compelled to deduct one because I didn't like what the author did to my favorite character, Black Effendi, at the end.

I have already reviewed the Old Town edition (2009). Here I will give a general description and a small note.

"My Name Is Red" is a story with deranged miniaturists, with passionate loves, with a lot of Levantine exoticism, with gypsies, executioners and buffoons, with Janissaries, imams and viziers, with cadis and kayas, with baggy trousers, turbans and pilaf. And with a serial killer. A rather emotional, timid, inwardly torn serial killer. His series includes two cases. He is a minimalist serial killer :) The definition says that a serial killer truly begins to exist only from three crimes upwards...

I would like to make a small clarification. When they discussed the book, the critics noticed the multitude of narrators. In the first chapter, the deceased himself speaks. In a later chapter, Death itself. In another, a gold coin (a sultan). In another, a color. And so on. Pamuk's storytellers are often inanimate things, speechless creatures, qualities, states, images.

Here is the discourse of a counterfeit coin:

"I am not truly a twenty-two-carat Ottoman sultan, emerging from the foundry at the Column of Constantine. I am a gold coin. I was minted in Venice, from gold with a reduced titre, brought here and smuggled onto the market as an Ottoman gold coin. Thank you for the understanding you have shown me. I was hidden in velvet bags, under pillows, between the soft breasts of women, in various places, and everyone touched me in their sleep to see if I was still there. I was concealed in a boot... etc. etc.”.

P. S. In "The Story of a Gold Coin", the "jovial" Alecsandri has the gold coin argue with a pair of...

My Name is Red is the first book by Orhan Pamuk that I have completely read.

The book is more than just a story; it is also a historical and artistic work spread over 700 pages.

The author describes the paintings and the characterization of the main characters (especially the painters) in great detail.

The climax of the story is definitely the two parts where Master Osman and Kara go to the treasury and Master Osman describes the masterpieces of the Iranian painters.

But overall, I can't say that the book is a masterpiece. It is good, very good, but not a masterpiece.

Why? First, because of the overly mythical stories that are told in each section, and second (and more importantly), the ending of the book is too good, too nice, and too predictable.

Although the author easily made the identity of the murderer predictable at the beginning of the book, I wish the ending of the story was not so good and nice.

However, the moral conclusion that I liked from the book is that religion is not good and has caused the backwardness of all civilizations.

So don't be stubborn and refer to history.