"Beautiful" is an accurate word to describe this book that hardly does it justice. As a lover of history, anthropology, good storytelling, and especially Turkish culture, this book satisfied me and then some. It is an exceptional portrayal of the struggles that everyday people underwent during the strange time between the end of the Ottoman Empire and the dawn of Atatürk's republic, when superficial lines were drawn up between people who had lived for centuries comfortably next to and around each other. People often forget about the human nature of historical events and the deep cultural ties that these people make and live with, and I thought that de Bernières did an amazing job of portraying this all while remaining faithful to the time period, the culture, and the characters. Not to mention that the language is poetic and enchanting, from start to finish. I know I had teary eyes quite a few times and even delayed the last few chapters as long as possible, just to make the book last a bit longer.

I have an unusual relationship with de Benieres' novels. I loved the lyrical Captain Correlli's Mandolin (the film is a disaster, with Nicholas Cage giving possibly the worst performance in cinematic history), but the novel itself has it all: humour, tragedy, love, war, relationships and history. I enjoyed the wit and colour of The War of Don Emmanuel's Nether Parts. But after three reading swings at The Partisan's Daughter, I eventually struck out on what could only be defined as overly twee masturbation.

Birds Without Wings, despite the hype, is an awful novel. And I'll give some reasons:
1. The setting is a fallacy. Both Greek and Turkish historians acknowledge that the area he has set it in was Greek speaking rather than Turkish (coastal Lycia). He should have set it in Cappadocia if he wanted Turkish speaking Greeks. I know children and grandchildren descended from the region. I also love Ottoman and Turkish history. There's also a strong presence in Australia from both communities. This wouldn't have been so bad, but de Benieres claims to have 'researched' the area. Well he didn't research it at all.
2. It is so earnest in its sentimentality that it reeks. Rather than let the story and characters speak to readers, it beseeches us to get sentimental. The more natural evocation that worked so well in Captain Correlli is absent here.
3. The vignettes never truly build, and we end up with just a series of overly earnest sketches. It ends up being a choppy mess.
4. The language is too twee for the feel of the novel. It's awkward and desperate.

Anyway, that's my opinion, and I think you should ignore subjectivity here, because this is a disastrous tome of a novel, from a writer who can do so much better.

I really enyojed reading this book. It is full of detailed descriptions of Turkish village before and during World War I so I felt like I was there. The book includes a vivid and detailed description of the horrors of life in the trenches during World War I. Louis as a great storyteller and he perfectly described his characters and mentality of that time. I'm only a little disappointed with the love story of Philotei because after reading the first chapter, I had the impression that the focus of the book will be on her and her love story instead it was on the political situation, Rustem Bey and war horors. The end was a tragic for most characters but yet realistic because life is cruel in the times of war. We have to learn from the mistakes of history and we also must learn a lesson about coexistence. It was all in all interesting book, rich in details.

Beautifully written and historically accurate. Give it some time.

في إحدى قرى الجنوب الغربي لتركيا، وتحديداً قرية "إسكي بهتشه" -وهي من وحي خيال المؤلف- حيث سيتخذ منها الكاتب مسرحاً لروايته التاريخية هذه. وربما السبب في ذلك هو عدم الوقوع في فخ سرد أحداث قد لا تكون حقيقية بالنسبة لمكان بعينه، وأيضاً ليمنح نفسه فرصة الإبحار بمخيلته في أرض لم يعرف عن أهلها الكثير، سوى الحكايات التي سمعها من الناس أثناء بحثه لكتابة روايته تلك. قد يبدو من حديثي أني متحفز نحو الكاتب والرواية، ولكن دعني أوضّح لك في نقاط بسيطة ما وصلت إليه من قرائتي تلك.

يبدأ الفصل الأول من الرواية على لسان "إسكندر الفواخرجي" وهو يستعيد الذكريات حول قريته وكم كانت الحياة جميلة ورائعة رغم قلة الموارد، ولكن كان هناك أُلفة بين المسلمين والمسيحيين من أهل البلدة. وهذه النقطة تحديداً سيتحدث عنها الكاتب فيما بعد وهو يحكي عن التهجير وتبادل السكان الأتراك واليونانيين الذي صاحب "معاهدة لوزان". وأيضاً يحكي لنا إسكندر عن حكاية "إبراهيم المجنون" وحبه لـ "فيلوثي" والتي سنعرف حكايتها بالتفصيل على لسانها أيضاً فيما بعد، فالكاتب هنا جعل من روايته رواية متعددة الأصوات بدلاً من سردها على لسان راوي واحد. ربما يكون قد نجح إلى حدِ ما في سرد الحكايا من وجهة نظر أصحابها، ولكنه لم يستطع أن يوظّف أسلوب الراوي العليم -الذي استخدمه- بصورة جيدة كما سيتضح لنا مع توالي الفصول.

على الرغم من كثرة الشخصيات التي ذكرها الكاتب في روايته واستخدامه عدة رواة، لكن يمكنني بسهولة تحديد خطين متوازيين تسير فيهما الرواية. الأول وهو قرية "إسكي بهتشه وسكانها"، والخط الثاني هو "قصة صعود مصطفى علي رضا أفندي" الذي سيُصبح فيما بعد "مصطفى كمال أتاتورك" ديكتاتور تركيا الأول. وكما ذكرت مسبقاً فالكاتب هنا يُريد أن يوضح الحالة التي كانت عليها تركيا والتي اصبحت عليها فيما بعد بعد توالي الأحداث وظهور "أتاتورك"، لا أعلم إذا كنت محقاً في ظني هذا أن للكاتب ميول خاصة لإظهار السلام والتآلف بين الناس وهم "عثمانليون" وحالة التنافر والاستنكار التي أصبحوا عليها فيما بعد وهم "أتراك".

وبالنظر إلى بناء الرواية، فأراها "مفككة" حيث يمكن تقسيم الرواية إلى ثلاثة أجزاء أو بالأحرى إلى ثلاثة روايات دون التأثير على أي منها. دعني أوضح لك وجهة نظري بطريقة سهلة، في الثلث الأول من الرواية يحكي لنا عن سكان القرية وربما سنقرأ الجزء الأكثر متعة في الرواية كلها، وهي قصة "رستم بك" والتي ستعيد إلى خاطرنا "ليالي ألف ليلة وليلة" والتشابه بينهما من حيث الحبكة وأسلوب السرد. وفي الثلث الثاني من الرواية نجد الكاتب يحكي فيها عن "حملة جاليبولي" وما صاحبها من وصف للمعارك وحالة الجند والصور التي وصفها الكاتب للمعارك، والتي تذكرني بشكل كبير برواية الألماني "إريك ريمارك" والتي كانت تدور أحداثها أيضاً في زمن الحرب العالمية الأولى بإختلاف الجبهة التي تدور في رحاها الحرب. ��لمميز في هذا الجزء هو وصف الكاتب لمشهد الخراب الذي حلّ بالقرية بسبب أخذ كل الرجال الذي باستطاعتهم الإمساك بالسلاح، ليتركوا البلدة خاوية لا فيها من يزرع الأرض أو يقيم شئون الناس. وهو المشهد تحديداً الذي استطاع "شولوخوف" أن يحفره بذاكرتي بروايته الأسطورية تلك. وفي النهاية، سيتبقى لنا الثلث الأخير الذي يوضح فيه ما آلت إليه الأمور بعد كل تلك الأحداث الدموية التي صاحبت الحرب والإتفاقيات التي وُقعت وشرّدت الكثير من أوطانهم بسبب الدِين أو العِرق.

في النهاية، لا أود أن أقول خاب أملي مع الرواية، حيث كنت أنتظر منها المزيد حول أتاتورك وتلك الفترة التي صاحبت انهيار الدولة العثمانية، ولكن سأكتفي بالقول أني خرجت بعدة نقاط أفادتني بالبحث عنها. وهذه من مزايا الرواية التاريخية، فليس من الضروري أن يكون كل شيء فيها حقيقي وموثق، ولكن بالضرورة ستفتح لك أبواباً للبحث والقراءة.

شاركتني في قراءة الرواية الأستاذة فاطمة محمدي، واستمتعت بالحديث معها حول الرواية وتبادل الآراء حول كل ما جاء فيها.

A really beautifully written book set in Turkey against the backdrop of the first world war. Not a lot of happiness but grew to love all the characters and their stories.

Well I would like to put three and a half stars for this book.

This book is about the last years of the Ottoman Empire and the author simultaneously contrasts the happenings of the international political world with that of a small cast-away village where Greek Christians and Turkish Muslims lived side by side.

Being from Greece, you are 'taught' that the Ottoman Empire was an evil and repressive empire and hence why Greeks hate Turks and visa versa. What de Bernieres succeeds in doing is not belittle any nations' sentiments or tribulations, but rather demonstrate, how after years boundaries are much harder to find. In the village in the book, everyone speaks Turkish, and the religions mix with Muslims asking their Christian friends to place ex-votos on the icon of the Virgin Mary and likewise Christians praying in the Muslim fashion. Many people did not see themselves as Greek or Turk but rather Ottoman, until the wars of independence. When the two nations 'traded' over their 'citizens' many did not feel like they belonged to their new found nations.

I only have two reproaches to this book. One is that for authenticity he uses many Turkish and Greek phrases, but with no translation or glossary. The Greek I could read, but not the Turkish.

Second the two characters of Ibrham and Philothei I found a bit bland, empty and boring. I didn't care much for them and preferred hearing about other more colourful characters, although this might have been the aim.

Tbh it took me a long time to get into this book. I was advised to read it as I was going for a tour to Türkiye
I read it electronically and i wished that it included a map so that geographically I could have followed the story
It was very fortunate that I was visiting Gallipoli just as I was reading about the fighting there in WW1. It was an emotional time seeing the trenches that remain there today. The story regales the many difficulties of war for not only the ANZACs but for also the Turks. There were many descriptions of how the 2 sides got along. There was a mutual respect. This was portrayed when a ceasefire was arranged in the trenches so that the decaying bodies could be returned to their appropriate camp. There were also some comical aspects of fighting in the trenches

My thought initially - birds without wings referred to the pottery birds that were used by the 2 boys - Karatavuk and Mehmetcik. This was revisited towards the end of the book when the 2 meet up again with their pottery birds

However , the epilogue suggests birds with wings fly anywhere without being hindered by borders.
In contrast birds without wings often struggle and are always confined to earth

An insightful read!

Since I only got to page 181 and then DNF, I will not rate this.

The writing is exceptional and in that high count, lyrical to fine drawn and ethnic specific characterizations well done- long word count copy style. The style that many other readers find most masterful and nearly poetic in flows. But that in this context of story and characters have left me nearly numb.

The place and the people seem so petty, mean-spirited and tied up in multiple traditional minutia of every ilk (religion being only 1 of the categories of crux judgments)- that as quirky and interconnected as these individuals/ families seem? The pace and the content is not for me. Plodding along is fast compared to the speed of my interest levels within the various scenarios. The manner and methods of characterization seem quite well done. Regardless, both my enjoyment factors or historical interest just can't keep up to the effort required. My fault- and this is not the first time I have come to cross patches with this author for quite similar reasons.

Most readers will give this high marks for the writing skill and the complexity of the culture and military wars that proceeded for all these "neighbors" as it digs quite deep for the context of telling. But it's just not a preferred style for me to read, nor is the subject matter intriguing to me in the situations posited.

I probably would have finished despite this because of that historic aspect of genocide and war so seemingly overlooked since it happened. But there were just too many pages of details about customs and feelings effusions (like that exhumation of her mother's bones section) that just plain turned me off to more effort.

I LOVED this book. It's a story of true friendships which are torn apart by superficial definitions of separateness. It covers the topics of beauty, birth, a parent's love, a brothers love, unrequited lovers, addiction, the reality of death of old age and the brutality of untimely death. This book tells the story of Ataturk and the Armenian forced migration in a balanced and objective yet intimate way. It tells the story of the unity of the Greeks and the Turks before Wilson's nationalism had stained it.

This was a very complex story with many characters developed in short chapters. The characters are mixed as is the time line but I did not find it too difficult to follow.

"Destiny caresses the few, but molests the many, and finally every sheep will hang by its own foot on the butcher's hook, just as every grain of wheat arrives at the millstone, no matter where it grew." p.6

The time period is end of the great European empires, the beginning of WWI, the beginning of the Turkish nation. The life of a simple village is battered by events and persons beyond its control. It was a cataclysmic time in history.

"This was the age when everyone wanted an empire and felt entitled to one, days of innocence perhaps, before the world realized, if it yet has, that empires are pointless and expensive, and their subject peoples rancorous and ungrateful." p.256

The lives of the villagers express the swirl of emotions, ideas and to a lesser extent ethnic and religious feelings. The main villein, I think, is mob psychology; the failure of people to take personal responsibility for their actions but instead to hide behind religion, ethnicity, nation and in the name of these act wrongly.

"The triple contagions of nationalism, utopianism and religious absolutism effervesce together into an acid that corrodes the moral metal of a race, and it shamelessly and even proudly performs deeds that it would deem vile if they were done by any other."

The worst part of the book was the textbook like chapters on the life of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and the gratuitous, negative comments about Lloyd George. Ataturk was a semi-developed character but I did not feel any investment in his life. These chapters felt like little chunks of undigested non-fiction. Lloyd George was just a name dropped without context. There was also some repetition which a good editor could have removed.

The overall effect of the book however was massive to me. Big ideas made concrete through the events in the lives of characters I could identify and care about. I knew nothing about these peoples, their history or their way of life before this reading. I would be interested in reading something similar on the Balkan nations and other nations in the Middle East. My life and education have been terribly Anglo-centered.

I leave you with a sentiment that should find great currency in the world today. Georgio P. Theodorou, a Greek merchant from Turkish Smyrna said, "If I ever get to meet God In Person I shall suggest quite forcefully that He impartially abolish their" [Greek Christian and Turkish Mulsim:] "religions, and then they shall be friends forever." p. 454

Louis de Bernieres won the Commonwealth Writers Prize, Best Book, 1995 for Captain Corellis' Mandolin. I doubt whether Birds without Wings will win any kind of prize or much praise.
This is a sprawling novel set against the background of the collapsing Ottoman empire, the Gallipoli campaign and the ensuing struggle between Greeks and Turks that resulted from World War I.
I was overwhelmed by all of this and underwhelmed by the awful cliched ‘narrator’ style employed by de Bernieres. When I read a novel like this, I want the characters to come alive for me. I want to live and breathe and taste and touch with them. I don’t want to feel as if I’ve fallen into some third rate American mobster movie.
I don’t ever want to read another page of what ‘Veled the fat’ or ‘Iskander the Potter’ did or said. I was hoping for a Harry the Hammer to pop up for light relief. I do understand that de Bernieres is trying to capture the essence of the culture here, but leaving out these tags would have cut the book by a good 100 pages and it needs it. Desperately.
Birds Without Wings tries to be both intimate and sweeping. It reflects de Bernieres's obsession with the impact that the madness of war, nationalism and religious fanaticism has on individuals.
I think this is a noble thing to want to achieve in a book.What a pity that the book was so boring and the characters so flat that I didn’t get what the author so obviously wanted me to.