Community Reviews

Rating(4 / 5.0, 99 votes)
5 stars
33(33%)
4 stars
33(33%)
3 stars
33(33%)
2 stars
0(0%)
1 stars
0(0%)
99 reviews
April 16,2025
... Show More
It's not often you find books that start with the speech of an already dead character. It's actually pretty damn rare to find dead bodies speaking at all, wouldn't you agree? Well, Pamuk apparently didn't get the memo. Because that is exactly how his wonderful work, "My Name is Red", starts.

The body of "Elegant" Effendi is rotting in a well, somewhere in Istanbul. During life, he was a miniaturist, an artistry that is usually found in Ottoman books, and his talent was known as one of the best of his days, hence the nick-name "Elegant". His carcass, decaying in its crumpled position on the bottom of that well, tells the reader that he has been murdered, and demands that his killer be found. He dreams of the tortures that the one who ended his life will suffer. A four-days old mort dreams of vengeance...

The next thing you notice in the book is that every chapter is constructed around a single, individual character. This means that the reader's perspective resembles that of a God, looking through different sets of eyes at the same image. This over-seeing that you are burdened with in the beginning becomes a kind of judging position, as you, as a passive by-stander, are integrated in the story. You slowly become the one who is looking for the murderer. You have three that might be killer-fabric: Olive, Butterfly and and Stork. At one point, one of them deceives himself through his unique painting style. Also, the human characters are not the only ones who speak through the chapters; Death itself talks about how she roams the streets of Istanbul, a tree drawn by a miniaturist tells the story of his creation, a coin of their time talks about its journey through many pockets etc. Through the "lifeless" characters of this work, you understand not only the art of miniaturists (with the help of the tree drawing), but the whole world itself, the setting in which you are bound to live for as long as you read Pamuk's writing.

I think there are three major lines in this book: the quest to find Elegant Effendi's murderer, the love story between Black and Shekure and the creation of a book that Black was commissioned to do.

Black is a miniaturist and a binder, who just returned to Istanbul after 12 years as a free worker in different realms of our world. He is, at the moment of the story, 36 years old, but is also presented as a young 24 year old man who fell in love with the then 12-year-old Shekure, daughter of Black's uncle, Enishte Efendi. Even after 12 years spent away, even if her face might have faded from his mind, Black understands that the love of his life is her and that he is capable of doing anything to have Shekure next to him. Nothing is an impediment in his quest: even the fact that she is already married seems to be just a minor problem on their way. He sets out to win her, and is in the process taken under the wing of her father, Enishte Efendi, who tells him that he has to work on an ample book of pictures celebrating the magnificent world that they live in, but in the "Frank" style, which is what they would call European figurative painting.

This is where the story of the book intertwines with the story of the two characters' love, because if he wants Shekure, Black must finish the book.

Because of the Islam religion, figurative art is considered a blasphemy, as, and I quote: "Islam allows to portray a picture as Allah sees it to be". In the setting of this book, which is Istanbul of 1591, a year before the 1000th anniversary of the Hegire (Mohammed's exile from Mecca to Medina), Ottoman culture seems to have been changed by this individual approach to art. They are not permitted to create things as they see them, but rather as they should ideally and hypotethically be seen by their God, Allah. This European style that Black and others have to work in is a blasphemous act, therefore it was done in the utmost secrecy, always in fear that they should be discovered. It is this particular action that shows how culture can be changed by introducing a new viewpoint in art - this time, in painting.

Speaking of painting: this whole book is probably one of the most competent explanations of how art, and especially miniaturist painting here, evolved. It talks about how it is the most important possible work, as it lasts through centuries and shows people what their history looked like. It talks about the miniaturist's blessing and curse, becoming blind towards the end of his life, when he can paint more beautifully than ever, because he sees through the eyes of his mind, of his soul. A detail therefore, becomes the image and the image becomes the detail, as they are so intertwined that you can't separate them. And still, with all the mighty human painters, time is this art's master. A lot of detail work has been put into this book, and the magnitude of the descriptions is rarely to be found in writing, these days. Like Mo Yan, Pamuk deserves his 2006 Nobel Prize; his unique style is a light seam through the cloth of life, culture, humanity, heart, mind and soul of Creation, and he writes beautifully about what he thinks is important.

And there are so many moments in this book that are pure joy for the attentive reader! It sometimes touches on how love might be a curse, a rope around the lover's neck, obliging him to thread lightly on silky footsteps around this dangerous animal of a feeling, and it sometimes talks about love as if it is the noblest of the feelings and the only paradise that man can aspire at. "My Name is Red" touches on problems of marriage and sexual frustration and the dehumanization of the sexual act, how it can be just a mindless, void moment, rather than an union between two beings who love each other. It debates religion, spirituality, cultural identity, death, infinity and so many more other themes that most of the writers are not capable of even integrating in their work, let alone attempt to explain them.

Another recommendation made by my History teacher, yet another one I thank him for. Cheers!
April 16,2025
... Show More
تحديث: إضافة القراءة بالعربي من عام 2007 و لا أدري لم وضعت قراءة بالانكليزية أصلا، ربما لأني كنت أظنه موقع بالانكليزية
---

أمممممم...0
لا أدري ما أقوله عن هذه الرواية التي حاز صاحبها جائزة نوبل لهذا العام و التي بلغت شهرته الآفاق بسببها و التي ترجمت لـ 24 لغة...0
هي قصة جريمة حدثت في الزمن العثماني و بين أوساط النقاشين (أي المصورين الذين كانوا يزينون الكتب برسوماتهم). و من خلال القصة ينقلنا باموق بإسهاب و معرفة و عناية إلى أجواء النقش الإسلامي و تاريخه و مواضيعه و الألوان و الرسومات و التصاوير و الحكايات المعروفة التي رُسمت كخسرو و شيرين، و ليلى و المجنون، و مقامات الحريري و أمجاد السلاطين عبر القرون...0
و لا عجب أن هذه الرواية التي قرأتُها في يومين و البالغ عدد صفحاتها 605 قد استغرقته عشر سنوات من التأليف و البحث و تتبع المخطوطات لغناها بالمعلومات و التفاصيل...0
لكني لا زلت لا أدري ما أقول عنها...0
فمن ناحية أسرني أسلوب باموق الغريب في السرد، و فهمت تماما ما الذي عنوه بقولهم أنه يعلم الغرب الرواية حيث أن الرواية تُروى من قبل أشياء و أشخاص كثر من بينها قطعة النقد و الشيطان و الشجرة بل حتى اللون الأحمر تحدث عن نفسه، و كان يبدأ كل فصل بقوله أنا شجرة أو أنا القاتل أو اسمي أحمر...0
بالفعل طريقة مختلفة و غريبة و مدهشة... ناهيك عن الأجواء العجائبية التي دارت فيها الرواية؛ حياة النقاشين زمن الدولة العثمانية و التي لم أعش مثلها قبلاً...0
بالفعل شي غريب و مختلف تماما...0
مختلف بكل ما تعنيه الكلمة من معنى...0

لكن من ناحية أخرى، تحديدا في أعمق و أبعد و أغمض نقطة في الشعور أحسست بروايته و قد وخزتني كمخرز و أنا في غفلة من أمري بحيث لم أنتبه إلا و قد ترك نكتته في قلبي...0

هل قصد أورهان أن يخز القارئ بروايته أم لم يقصد لا أدري _و إن كنت أرجح أنه تعمد ذلك_، لكني لا أجد تشبيها يناسبها أكثر من كونها كذاك المخرز الدقيق الحاد الغريب المذكور في الرواية... المخرز "الجميل" الذي يذهب ضياء العيون بطريقة أشبه "بالتصوف"؟!!0

طريقته في الحديث أشبه بما كان يراه المستشرقون في الشرق حيث التوحش و الشذوذ و المؤمرات و الرغبات الطافحة هي مصدر سحره و جماله و غرائبيته... لكنه لا يذكر ذلك لمجرد المتعة و التسلية كما كان يفعل المستشرقون بل لأن له فلسفته الخاصة:0

الجمع و الاتحاد _الذي يصر عليه في كل ركن من أركان روايته_ بين سمو الجمال و الحب و الروح من جهة و القبح و القذارة و الشذوذ و التوحش من ناحية أخرى هو ما أزعجني بشدة... يظهرهما و كأنهما متلازمان ضرورة، و كأن هذه هي طبيعة الأشياء، بل يكاد يقنعك و يزين لك و كأنهما شيء واحد...0

انتقاؤه لكلمات كالجمال و العشق و السعادة و القيم و الحياة و الموت الخ... بهمز و لمز ساخرين و بعناية ماكرة و خبيثة يقرنها مع أضدادها لتجعل القارئ يشمئز منها و يشتهيها بآن واحد...0
يزين القبح لتشتهيه؟!! كطباخ صيني ماهر، يعرف كيف يعد طبقا شهيا مما تعافه النفس السوية...0
لذلك قلت عنها أنها كذاك المخرز، لأنها تفقد المرء رؤياه لطبيعة الأشياء كما هي بعد مدة، و تعمي البصر و بهدوء و ببطء _كذاك المخرز تماما_...0

هذا كله بعيدا عن الحديث عن ذاك الأحمر المطلق كلي الوجود مصدر و منتهى الحياة؟؟؟!!!0
و سخريته المبطنة من خزعبلات المؤمنين!!!0

أتعبني هذ الباموق بفلسفته... أتعبني في مجاهدتي لنفسي حتى أبقي على رؤيتي للقبح قبحا في روايته دون أن تغرر بي كلماته الساحرة... أتعبني ذكاؤه و مكره... أتعبتني سخريته العبثية من كل شيء...0
أتعبتني شيطانيته... 0

حين اشتهيت أن أطلع على بعض الرسوم التي ذكرها لأرى كيف تبدو، و أخذت أبحث عن بعض من هذا الفن في صفحات الانترنت، اكتشفت أني لن أستطيع أن أستمتع بعد اليوم دون أن يكدر صفوي و يزعجني تخيلي للبيئة و الظروف "القبيحة" التي رُسمت فيها... و الفضل لأورهان أفندي ... و حتى لا أظلم أورهان كثيرا فدعوني أعترف بأنه لطالما كانت هذه النقوش _و لا زالت_ تبعث في جسدي القشعريرة و الرعب و خصوصا تلك التي تحمل ملامح وجوه صينية، و لا أدري لماذا؟؟!!0



بأية حال؛ على المرء أن يظل متنبها بأن هذا (المخرز "الجميل" الذي يذهب ضياء العيون بطريقة أشبه "بالتصوف") هو في الحقيقة و الواقع و بعيدا عن العبارات المنمقة الساحرة عبارة عن مخرز حاد مخيف يستخدم لإعماء العين بطريقة متوحشة سادية، بحيث يفقد المرء بصره على إثرها... 0
هل يمكنكم تصور كم هذا الفعل قبيح؟ و كم الحديث عنه أقبح؟ فماذا يمكن أن يقال عن تزيينه و محاولة تلميعه بعبارات ماكرة تجعل القارئ يستمتع بقبحه إن لم نقل يشتهيه، لا أحسبه إلا أنه أقبح من القبح ذاته...0

و هكذا هي هذه الرواية...0

باختصار رأيي في الرواية أنها مختلفة و شيطانية...0
و متعبة، لدرجة أني تنفست الصعداء حين انتهت

يقولون أن باموق بارع. هو بارع حقاً و لكن... كشيطان...0

ملاحظة قبل أخيرة: الترجمة رائعة و سلمت يداك يا عبد القادر على هذا الاتقان.0

ملاحظة أخيرة: أتسآل يا دار المدى هل قرأ مصمم الغلاف الرواية؟


--
القراءة السابقة

Despite the fact that the style is captivating, Orhan's philosophy is intense malice. He knows how beatifies the ugliness, makes you desire the abnormality and repulsiveness. A kind of black comedy... a grotesque
From now on I will be scared each time I look to such oriental miniature
I just don't know what to say... I sighed deeply when I finished it
They say Orhan is talented... Yes indeed, but talented as a devil
April 16,2025
... Show More
Unfortunately, I found this book to be a tedious slog. Just because a book wins a prestigious prize (in this case, the Nobel), doesn't make it worth reading. I couldn't bring myself to care about any of the characters (most of whom were deceitful, manipulative, childish, petty, cruel, and ruled by emotions like jealousy), nor about the story. The only character that came to life for me at all was Esther, the Jewish clothing peddler and matchmaker. The exhaustive inventories had me rolling my eyes with boredom. I couldn't wait to be done with this novel. The whole narrative seemed to have sprung from a very aloof worldview. It just never came alive for me. And the pacing is glacial. The author seems not to care at all how his writing affects his audience. I don't think writers should pander to readers, but I do think they should have some awareness of them. This writer seems to lack that entirely.

However, the reason I didn't give it a lower rating was because, although for me the book failed as a novel, as a history it was quite interesting. It chronicled (in great detail) a time (the Ottoman Empire during the sixteenth century) and place (Central and Western Asia, with a focus on Istanbul) about which I previously knew very little. I learned a lot about this fascinating era, brilliant city, and the philosophy of Islamic art during this time. (The artists were expected to be anonymous members of a workshop who didn't even sign their works or have an individual style). Pamuk vividly depicts both the extravagant glories and barbaric cruelties of this time and place.

Also, some of the writing was quite beautiful. The book has a lapidary style like that of the painted miniatures that are its central subject.

Although  Erdag Goknar’s translation is generally pretty good, it contained a few missteps. He uses the word “lotor” (which is someone who does laundry) to mean (I’m guessing from the context) laundry soap. Also he employs the idiom “step foot” instead of the more commonly used “set foot”.

John Lee's audio reading didn't help matters. Although I've found him an admirable reader of other books, here his narration was a mixed bag. He tends to have a very detached and flat style of reading. He was best here during the passages in which he became more animated.
Leave a Review
You must be logged in to rate and post a review. Register an account to get started.