Good grief, what a mess of a book. I really tried but I couldn't finish it. I was interested in it because I'd read about a dozen books on WWI and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. I wasn't looking for a history book but a story. The author wrote pages and pages of the history of the time, some of it not completely accurate - such as suggesting the Kurds were responsible for the Armenian genocide. The rest of it was a history lecture I didn't need and that didn't move the story along. It also seemed he was in love with his own prose and his writing was driven more by his vanity than his story. I have a better than average vocabulary but was left stumped by obscure words that weren't defined by the online dictionary. And he used a huge number of words native to Turkish culture and country without defining them. He might have made them up for all I know! Overall a huge disappointment.

Ναι, ναι ναι το τελειωσα. Χειροκροτήστε με. Πραγματικά μετά το πιο άκυρο αναγνωστικό μου καλοκαίρι που για λόγους δουλειάς το διάβασμα πήγε πίσω το να ολοκληρώσω πλέον καποιο βιβλίο και πόσο μάλλον δύσκολο και ογκώδες καταγράφεται ως κοσμοϊστορικό γεγονός.
Αρα ένας εξτρα πόντος στο Λουι ντε Μπερνιέρ
«Για τα πουλιά που έχουν φτερά, τίποτε δεν αλλάζει. Πετάνε όπου θέλουν και δεν ξέρουν απόσύνορα και οι τσακωμοί τους δεν κρατάνε. Εμείς όμως είμαστε δεμένοι στη γη, όσο και αν σκαρφαλώνουμε ψηλότερα, όσο και αν πασχίζουμε να φτερουγίσουμε με τα χέρια μας. Δε μπορούμε να πετάξουμε και είμαστε καταδικασμένοι να κάνουμε πράγματα που δε μας ταιριάζουν. Δεν έχουμε φτερά και αναγκαζόμαστε να πάρουμε μέρος σε πράξεις βίας και αγριότητας που δεν τις θελήσαμε. Και ύστερα, απ’ όλα αυτά, τα χρόνια περνούν, τα βουνά ισοπεδώνονται, οι κοιλάδες ψηλώνουν, τα ποτάμια στερεύουν και οι ξέρες βυθίζονται στη θάλασσα »
Ένα βιβλίο σκληρό και συνάμα ειλικρινές, ένα μήνυμα απέναντι σε κάθε ειδους φανατισμό. Δεν συνίσταται για τους «Ελληνάρες» αναγνώστες.

Спокойный мудрый голос, которого так не хватало последние годы, - я очень рад, что вернулся к нему, давно собирался наконец прочесть. Кроме того, сейчас самое время, потому что мы оказались в той географической точке, где завязывался и развязывался один из важных исторических и социальных узлов 20 века - греко-турецкий и, шире, балканский и средиземноморский. А важную его часть - обмен населения между Анатолией и Македонией, о котором идет речь в романе, - еще осмыслять и осмыслять, потому что актуальность таких геополитических решений не избыла себя и посейчас, через 100 лет. Поскольку это роман о людях, преданных даже не столько своей страной, сколько самой историей. О таких людях, как мы. Ну и о том, конечно, что любая организованная религия - зло.

...вот это важное наблюдение, например:
One day in Turkey they will call it “The Demographic Catastrophe,” because it is the Christians who know how to get everything done. Turks are soldiers and peasants and landowners, but Christians are merchants and craftsmen. Their loss will delay economic recovery for decades.
In Greece they call it “The Asia Minor Catastrophe.” Those who leave will forever feel that they have been arbitrarily thrown out of paradise. One and a half million of them arrive in Greece, causing the utmost difficulty for a government trying to accommodate and incorporate them. They bring with them their education, their sophistication, their talents, their nostalgia, and a music that will turn out to be rembetika. They also bring with them their absolute destitution and sense of injustice, and this will contribute perhaps more than anything else to the rise of communism in Greece, which will in turn lead to the Greek civil war.

...еще занимательный фактоид, который как-то слился у меня из памяти: в бессчастной греко-турецкой войне, приведшей к обмену населения, русские (т.е. совки) поддерживали Ататюрка (оружием - в обмен на его невмешательство в распространение советского влияния на Грузию), а вовсе и не греков. Потому любовь греков к россии выглядит еще загадочнее, конечно.

...ну а современная история городка, где мы сейчас живем, начинается за последней страницей романа, из которого постепенно исчезают и больше не возвращаются все, - и это, конечно, совсем другая книга. Греция в этой - скорее фигура умочания, место за полями карты, где водятся драконы.

Но вообще-то де Берньер - один из лучших британских прозаиков, совершенно любимый навсегда, пусть и евроскептик (зато филэллин). И этот его роман - чистейшее наслаждение.

كتاب رائع بل قطعة فنية بديعة
في هذه الرواية الجميلة يأخذنا الكاتب في رحلة طويلة عبر الزمن لنرى كيف أسهمت أوهام القومية العفنة و أهواء القادة السياسيين و جموحهم و تأخر الاصلاحات في الدولة العثمانية ، كيف شارك كل هذا في تهاوي جدران الامبراطورية العثمانية، و في القضاء على فسيفساء التعايش بين ابناء الملل و الاعراق المختلفة، و كيف أودى ذلك بحياة الالاف، و أتعس الالاف الاخرين من الذين لم يفقدوا حياتهم و لكنهم فقدوا أحبتهم أو ارضهم، أو تحطمت قلوبهم و أحلامهم أو انسانيتهم من ما لاقوه من أهوال و قسوة الحروب المتلاحقة.
نتتبع الشباب الذين قذفت بهم الحرب في أتونها و كيف خرجوا منها أشباه بشر، محطمي الارواح او مشوشي العقول.
و نرى كيف اقتلع الناس من ديارهم لتحقيق اوهام التجانس الديني او العرقي و كيف أدى ذلك الى تعاسة هؤلاء البشر حتى نهاية أعمارهم.
و نرى من حلموا لليالي طويلة باحلام القومية و هم يتجرعوا مرارة نتائج الحروب القومية.

و نشاهد أيضاً خبايا نفوسنا البشرية التي يكمن فيها الخير الى جوار الشر و كيف يمكن ان يختبأ الشر وراء الجمال و كيف يمكن ان يحولنا الانتقام الى مسوخ بشرية قد ترتكب من الفظائع مالم تفكر به مسبقاً.

كتاب بديع يستحق القراءة و ترجمة جميلة تستحق الشكر و التقدير و اختيار جميل من مدارات للنشر كما عودونا دائماً.

Like his trilogy, I found this a bit of an exhausting read. There is always so much going on - such mayhem, horrific atrocities committed against so many in the name of war or religion, and a vast array of characters it's often difficult to keep it all straight while reading, but I loved it all the same. The women in this one were particularly both memorable and heartbreaking - Leyla Hamin, Philothei, Tamara - oy! - and Karatavuk the soldier and eventual letter writer was a excellent and thoughtful presence in tying it all together in the end. Wonderful. And now I'm taking a break from the amazing Mr. de Bernieres and reading something fluffy or two before taking on Captain Correlli. :-)

English brief overview, на български е по-долу:
Is the freedom of speech a proper and sufficient justification for manipulation, post truth (my grandparents called this recent phenomenon in a different way) and invented history background and history lessons that never existed in the reality? Good question thanks to the creative approach to some events surrounding the final fall of the Ottoman Empire in this book. Exotic plots are always sexy. But not always truthful.

Key points from the historical context stated in rich details in the book:
1. There was no such a thing as Armenian genocide
What there was, was a just some unfortunate lack of organisational skills demonstrated by the poor, goody, naive and warm hearted Ottoman government. And the low level of the communication networks in less populated or desert areas. All the inquiries about the number of the killed Armenians is an awful lack of good taste and nice manners. Don’t be be misled by the numbers, good friends!
Were there any perpetrators? Of course - the Armenians themselves! They were in a cunning conspiracy with the evil Russians against their glorious Ottomans brothers.

2. The Ottoman Empire - cradle of tolerance
Well, this is correct in some aspects. Islam recognises People of the Book (Jews, Christians) and theoretically they just needed to pay special religious tax to the Muslim rulers.
Practically it was more complicated, bloody complicated! Especially during 18th and 19th centuries. In the 18th century the Ottoman state was in a process of multidimensional decay - Istanbul and the Sultan were no longer able to control the provinces, the army was in process of never ending reorganisation from the old feudal rules towards…it took more than 50 years for any direction to become visible. In the meantime the glorious Turkish bandits (ex-soldiers with unpaid salaries) plundered, killed and the smartest and most resilient gained political influence. Who were the victims? Well, guess what! Not the Turks. Count to three and try to guess the correct answer.
19th century, the French Revolution and Paris from 1848 brought new realities for the Ottoman Empire. Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians remembered with some surprise that they…well, they are 1/not Turks 2/they had own states once and now want them back. Inconceivable! Poor Ottoman Empire, what is to be done!
Well, if I quote de Bernieres from this book, following atrocity happened: ”In 1876, Bulgarian Christians massacred an unknown number of peasants of Turkish origin.”
Good. Well, it is not good. Such beasts, aren’t they? Savages! Who, you will ask?
The British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, quoted by Januarius MacGahan, American journalist on the Balkans in 1876, will reply gladly:
https://attackingthedevil.co.uk/relat...
”Mr. Disraeli was right when he wittily remarked that the Turks usually terminated their connection with people who fell into their hands in a more expeditious manner than by imprisoning them. And so they do. Mr. Disraeli was right”.
The quote from the book (one of very long list indeed) is correct - if the reader replaces “Bulgarian Christians” with “Turks” and “peasants of Turkish origin” with “Bulgarians”. The year remains 1876.
William Gladstone also had an opinion on the matter, but why should I repeat it, when it is the same as Disraeli?
History books? Dear reader, this one is not one of them. It is not even a historical fiction. It even not a fiction. It is a bias.

All this said, I do not deny the tolerance between Muslims and Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Not at all! It existed in many places! Just…well, just not in the form of victimisation presented in all the statements about the historical context and background in the book. Reality and delusion often share the same basis, you know. Just the presentation is very different…

3. Women characters - stupidity as factory settings
I hate, hate, hate to discuss heroines in novels. I just expect them to be believable. Evil, ignorant, superstitious, adulterers - we live sometimes in the worst of all possible worlds. The imperfection is the rule. But guess what? In this book the adulteress 1/accepts her fate to be stoned to death as well deserved 2/ the good, tolerant villagers find it perfectly acceptable to make her a whore (and request her services many times, only the men, of course) and 3/when the poor, angelic husband visits her (in the brothel) and shed some nostalgic tears she…would like very much to bed him (but she was sick, what a wasted opportunity for reunion) and called him melancholically “my lion”. Have I mentioned that this righteous man ordered and attended the public stoning?
Don’t get me wrong. The ignorance is one of the major forces that have shaped (and continue shaping) our world. It is called “morals”. De Bernieres’s message in the long retelling of this episode is to accept it as wise and eternal. Well, in some countries they do it. Look at Saudi Arabia and Iran. Some male readers there will be really profoundly moved.

Each work of fiction is responsibility to shed a light. To shed knowledge and to enrich our naturally or deliberately narrow perception of the world. It is a noble and sometimes even profitable task. With hint of old fashioned and scorned honour, The alternative - our whole 20th century is a good lesson learned (or not learned) about the different outcomes of this alternative. I am deeply saddened that exactly this alternative has been chosen as narrative here. And the actual facts, the pain, the blood in the pages are just delusional smoke instead of a harsh lesson.

De Bernieres forced me to write my first review in English. It is inevitable, as he does not speak any foreign language - I mean the languages of his fiction characters, he cannot even imagine what is it to be them, any of them.

————
Bulgarian review:
Въпрос към автора за този негов цитат: ”In 1876, Bulgarian Christians massacred an unknown number of peasants of Turkish origin.” Интересно ми е какъв исторически контекст сте използвали за това свое твърдение и какви официални исторически източници? Изобщо имате ли такива, защото официалната историография, включително англоезичната, доколкото знам, излага точно обратното твърдение. Или (не)волно сте разменили местата на жертви и убийци, “християни” с “османци”/ “турци” в събитията от българското въстание от април 1876 г, широко отразено в тогавашната британска и американска преса (англоезични са, все пак), довело до кланетата на българи от страна на обичната ви османска империя?

Малък пример:
https://attackingthedevil.co.uk/relat...
"Mr. Disraeli was right when he wittily remarked that the Turks usually terminated their connection with people who fell into their hands in a more expeditious manner than by imprisoning them. And so they do. Mr. Disraeli was right. "
Вероятно сте чували все нещичко за своя сънародник Дизраели?

Ако не сте, както изглежда, самите турци имат изследвания по въпроса и отделят доста пасажи да се оправдават, и дори споменават друг ваш явно непознат сънародник от епохата - Гладстон, но едва ли сте чували и за него, очевидно е твърде неизвестен:
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/...
"With the Pomak Ahmed Ağa Barutanli lies the responsibility for the ensuing massacre. Killing and plundering continued for several days. The Muslim perpetrators slew large numbers of Christians, including many women and children. They burnt houses and buildings, in some cases with people inside them."

Не обичате никак историята в качеството и на наука, нали? Тя обаче в някои отношения е сходна точно с балистиката. И чистосърдечно мразите детайлите от нея, които не Ви харесват? Благодаря, въпросите са риторични!

А относно птиците - те понякога са без криле, защото им ги режат с много тъп нож, и после същите тези любители-орнитолози учудено питат: “А защо тази птица не лети? Вижте я колко е неумела и непригодна!”

———
Носталгията е много човешко качество. Лошото е, когато е избирателна, пристрастна и заобикаля и избягва неприятните факти, или направо ги отрича или наглася, за сметка на една желана, но никога несъществувала действителност. Тогава всъщност се заражда пропагандата, която уврежда без оглед на граници и епохи. Особено, когато се повтаря отново и отново. Ако единствено красивата, но удобно сляпа където трябва сантименталност налагаше дневния ред, както е в този роман, човечеството нямаше да е постигнало особен духовен и технически прогрес.

Погледът към Османската империя от нейните последни години (1900 - 1918 г.) тук е съсредоточен върху малкото анадолско градче Ескибахче, в Ликия, в което от векове съжителстват мюсюлмани и християни. Особеното в случая е, че християните също говорят турски. В други ревюта се твърди, че такива случаи са типични за Кападокия, не за Ликия, където се е говорел някакъв вид гръцки. Не се наемам да преценявам, просто не знам, но често - както например в Ливан или Сирия - религията и езикът не са непременно свързани. Така е и с помаците у нас. Такива случаи има доста.

В Ескибахче животът тече непроменен и застинал във времето от незапомнени времена, с добрите и лошите си страни. Добрите са толерантността и връзката със земята, хората си общуват почти свободно независимо от религията, отдадени на простичките си радости. Лошите са свързани с тоталната изолация от останалия свят и царуващото средновековно по жестокостта и обема си невежество. И християни, и мюсюлмани с еднаква праведна наслада хвърлят камъни по прелюбодейка, и тъй като тя оцелява, жените (!) я закарват в местния бордей, където мъжете им (!) щастливо и се нареждат на опашка. Носталгичният тон на автора не секва нито за миг - от читателя почти се очаква да се умили от чистосърдечието на тези толерантни деца на природата. А за прелпбодейката - когато след години праведният и съпруг, поискал тълпата да в убие и гледал през цялото време, иска да спи с нея в бордея, тя само дето не се разплаква от признателност за великидушието му и дори го нарича “лъв мой”. Какъв героичен, героичен герой от старите времена, нали? А камъните са си нормално наказание, какво толкова… Жалко, че не са по него, но мога поне да си помечтая.

Умиленият поглед към Османската империя се засилва с всяка страница и започва да прелива. Тя е средоточие на толерантност, всички поданици са се омесили с вековете, и е направо противоестествено и оскърбително, че гърци, сърби и българи смеят да не са коленопреклонно признателни за тази висша благодат и имат наглостта да искат собствени мънички държавици. А пък арменците са предатели. Как не ги е срам! Тази ужасна Русия пък върши геноцид срещу беззащитните мюсюлмани и нагло използва арменците срещу клетите им, невинни османски братя, и - следователно и съвсем логично - какво му остава на един истински османец, освен да ги изколи?

Далеч съм от мисълта, че Русия е “добрата”, а Турция е “лошата”. Изобщо, изцяло добри и лоши на световната сцена няма. И двете империи имат много за какво да се каят, както и някои постижения. И двете са включили в границите си куп народи със сила, но пък не винаги са били зверове, културните влияния са безспорни и често са били от полза (ако си оцелял първата вълна на насилието, разбира се). Днес те са неразривна част от наследството ни, и когато миналото се е оттекло, красотата и пластовете могат да се видят и оценят на спокойствие - когато обаче си вече свободен и в собствения си дом. Не може някой просто да дойде да каже на читателя, че той е престъпник да иска свой дом, защото в имперското общежитие ще му е по-идилично.

Едностранчивият поглед, оправдателният тон и пълната пристрастност към империята е повече, отколкото читателското и човешкото ми търпение може да понесе.

Сюжетът е поредица от скици, посветени на различни герои от Ескибахче. Стилът е равномерен и богат, чете се леко. Много съжалявам, че няма да дочета винетките с Мустафа Кемал, който за мен е един от героите на 20 век, макар, естествено, той да си има своите собствени скелети в гардероба. За останалите персонажи обаче не съжалявам - тяхното суеверие е издигнато в добродетел от автора, и е приравнени на толерантност. Женските образи са абсолютно еднотипни - невежи, суеверни, природно ограничени и доста жестоки, без изключение. Как пък не успя да намери поне една нормална жена? Доколкото разбирам, всички герои ще пострадат при кървавите и брутални гръцко-турски взаимни етнически прочиствания след първата световна война. Тъжно, но с начина си на поднасяне на историята, се постига обратния ефект - съдбата им ми е безразлична. Което е най-страшното, което един човек може да каже за друг, добре че това тук е само книга. Което означава единствено некомпетентно и пристрастно свършена писателска работа по действително важни теми и събития.

Отвратена съм и съм дълбоко разочарована!

———
Още малко “прозрения” на автора, които ме възмутиха с манипулативността си:

“Unsurprisingly, but unfortunately for themselves, orthodox Armenians were often seduced by their own religious affiliations into supporting the Russians against their fellow Ottomans, and many joined the Russian armies.”
Сега всеки вече е подготвен, че добрият арменец е мъртвият арменец… Да няма учудени после.

”The deputies in the new parliament, Turks, Greeks, Arabs, Albanians, Jews, Serbs, Armenians, Bulgarians and a Vlach, prove themselves incapable of any ideal higher than ethnic self-interest.”
Интересно в какво свое качество, по дяволите, са били тези гърци, сърби, българи и власи в османски парламент около 1905 г., при условие, че от около 30 години са си имали собствени парламенти и независими държави? Или от държавната столица София сме командировали наши депутати в чужда столица, дали сме ги под наем на османския парламент?

“Cossacks assisted by Bulgarian revolutionaries and peasants seized all the property of Muslims. Cossacks would surround the villages to prevent any escape, disarm the inhabitants and send the Bulgarians in to slaughter them. ”
Тук го оставям без коментар. Безмислено е. За първи път - в книга от 21 век - виждам подобно не просто невежество, не и пристрастност, а нещо толкова дълбоко фундаментално, че даже го има забранено в една от десетте божи заповеди.

“On 2 May 1915, Enver Pasha sent a fatal telegram to Tâlat Bey, the Minister for the Interior, proposing that the only way to deal with an intolerable situation was to remove all Armenians from behind Ottoman lines, and replace them with Muslim refugees from elsewhere. Over the next few months this policy began to be implemented, with many directives coming out of Istanbul that there should be no ill treatment. The plan was to auction the possessions of each family and give them the money when they arrived at their destinations, so that they could start life afresh.”
“the government could not control what actually happened at such great distances in places where there were virtually no systems of communication or of command and control. ”
“escorted them and considered them to be traitors. These troops were often not proper soldiers, since those were at the fronts, but Kurdish irregulars, recruited from wild and ignorant tribesmen ”
Така, ако есе още има неразбрали: диваците, т. е. кюрдите са виновни. Както и независещи от османските власти обстоятелства. Османците? Те са невинни, old chap!

“It is not possible to calculate how many Armenians died on the forced marches. In 1915 the number was thought to be 300,000, a figure which has been progressively increased ever since, thanks to the efforts of angry propagandists. To argue about whether it was 300,000 or 2,000,000 is in a sense irrelevant and distasteful, ”
Относно липсата на вкус - ще си позволя да предложа да бъдем зле възпитани и с очевидна липса на вкус да потърсим фактите с помощта и на цифри, защото логиката, която е безвкусна, е за сметка на това проста: повече жертви водят до наличие на повече умисъл, на по-добра османска организация с цел геноцид. Или на други фактори - дяволът е тъкмо в грозните детайли.

One of my favorite reads of the year (2020). A cast of fascinating characters of different religious/cultural backgrounds who live together in a simple village in southwestern Turkey during the final days of the Ottoman Empire. Their stories themselves are well told and the characters are both real and yet the sort you find in one of those "classic" novels of yesteryear. (Reviews often mention Dickens.) But all of this is threaded into the larger story of history, the wars and ethnic strife, the slow death of the "sick man of Europe," the Ottoman Empire. The conflicts right before and through World War I and in then on to the subsequent war for independence as Greece swept in with hopes of re-establishing their long past empire. Brutality is not in short supply, horrors of war, genocide, and ripping people from their lives to send them to war, deaths, or a new country where they no longer fit in. And throughout the novel the life of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the modern republic. The stories are at times funny, sometimes sad and heartbreaking, and always fascinating. To be fair, I lived in Turkey for a year so many of the cultural and language elements were familiar. The author doesn't always translate or even italicize Turkish terms but context makes them clear enough. Ironically, I found myself looking up a good number of his English words. The writing is excellent and I will seek out his other books. Despite being set in a no-tech backwater sort of village with superstitions and challenges most of us will never face, the novel connects to the larger human elements, themes of fate, death, love, hatred, making it feel so perfectly relevant even to current living and history -- as any great novel should. That says as much about the masterful writing as it does about the human race never really changing. Great great book.

[4+] Birds Without Wings is my favorite kind of historical novel. De Bernieres transported me to the fictional village of Eskibahçe in the last years of the Ottoman Empire. His writing is so vivid that the town residents felt alive to me. I also learned quite about about the historical period and the break up of the Ottoman Empire. I listened to the audio version, wonderfully narrated by John Lee.

554 pages, a couple of breaks in between, shuttling between the audiobook and regular book and few months later, finally finished Birds Without Wings! I feel like I’ve been in a marathon. The first 40 or so chapters were challenging – found it overdescibed with an army of characters and seriously could you say that and describe that a bit more succinctly? There were some flashes of greatness in the writing but they were overshadowed by verbosity. It wasn’t until the 40th or so chapter that I felt the book began to flow more smoothly as it began to focus more on Mustafa Kemal and the war and the writing style graduated to being more to the point of narrating the story rather than description for description sake. The richness of the historical era of that period has always held my interest and the seeming co-existence of Turks, Greeks, Armenians, Jews and others during that period is indicative of how it can be. Mustafa Kemal is a fascinating personality as well as one can see how and where modern Turkey derived its roots. If it hadn’t been for the slug in the first one third of the book, I would have given it a higher rating. It sure would have been a better read if it had been about one-third shorter as well!

2.5*

This was such a long book! I was dying to finish and get over this. The subject matter wasn't bad - it's about the last days of the Ottoman empire, focusing on a tiny village along the Aegean coast in southwestern Turkey that was heavily populated with Greeks, while also recounting the story of Mustafa Kemal's rise. But the execution of the story was terrible. The story is told in vignettes - short chapters narrated by different characters. This was a way for the author to present a wide variety of experiences - villager vs. agha, Turkish (Muslim) vs. minority Greek and Armenian (Christian), male vs. female, young vs. old. There are some characters that stay with us throughout the book, others which only appear once or twice to tell their side of the story and that's it. However, some of the characters' stories just went on and on, bordering insignificant territory to fill the pages and have the characters say at least something. I thought this tactic was used to make us spend a lot of time with certain characters and then manipulate us into caring for them. But the characters were mostly one-dimensional and boring, so I wasn't interested. Also, this story is set in a very tumultuous time in history - the Ottoman Empire is falling apart, there's a war between Greece and Turkey, a lot of hate crimes are committed between different ethnic and religious groups. Unfortunately, I thought that the author didn't handle this too well. He goes into graphic detail about how the Greeks tortured the Turkish people and then literally ends the paragraph with a sentence saying that the Turkish people did the same to the Greeks. The scene of the Armenian death march and how Rustem Bey saved the day was simply unbelievable and, in my view, trivialized the suffering and injustice experienced by the Armenian people. There are several reviewers who have pointed out that the village Eskibahce could not have been Turkish-speaking. Many of the villages along the Aegean coast spoke Greek in fact, which the author completely denies in this novel. What a pity. It's a very sensitive subject and the author didn't succeed in giving us a well-written, well-researched story of that time.

I only enjoyed reading this story because it was set in a time and place of which I wanted to learn more about. The village is called Eskibahce and is inspired by the ghost village outside of Fethiye called Kayakoy. War and the forced migration of Muslim and Christian people between Greece and Turkey has resulted in an abandoned village. I have heard that the relationship between these two countries is very complicated but I didn't know that in 1923 they came up with this horrific idea of uprooting and moving people around simply because of their faith. The first few chapters on Mustafa Kemal were fascinating. However, too bad that the later chapters on Mustafa Kemal started to sound like a history book and felt out of place compared to the rest of the novel. I have one question though. At the beginning of the book there's this ceremony where Polyxeni wants to show to the rest of the village that her dead mother was indeed innocent. They dig her grave and look at her bones. If anyone can please tell me what that is about?

Really enjoyed it, although not quite as good as "Mandolin"

This book should come with a warning. It will sadden you beyond measure. Set in a coastal village at the end of the Ottoman empire in what is now Turkey, it follows the fortunes and misfortunes of a large cast of characters. As Christians and Muslims, they have lived together peaceably for generations, and would continue to have done so without the virulent rise of nationalism in the "great world" around them. So the author argues, as the entire village is swept up in the wars and civil wars erupting at the start of the last century, and the lawlessness and ethnic cleansing that accompanied them.

At 550+ pages, it is a long novel, its many stories told in a variety of voices and at a leisurely pace. Richly detailed, it also fills a broad canvas as the specifics of village life alternate with accounts of political movements abroad, following in particular the career and ambitions of the man who became Atatürk, first leader of modern-day Turkey. Readers may contest de Bernière's accounts of historical events - for example, the Armenian genocide - but his overall argument remains consistent, that nationalism has been a scourge that brought misery and suffering to millions and continues to do so. While life for his Ottoman villagers is not without its cruelties and injustices, it was edenic by comparison with the horrors that befall them as the nation-state of Turkey is born - including the agonies of trench warfare, forced marches of whole populations, and unspeakable brutalities suffered by noncombatants caught in the firestorm of military conquest.

Finally, by the end of the novel, the reader is left with an almost unutterable sense of sadness, loss and waste. Its saving grace is surely de Bernière's rapturous use of language, a gift for storytelling, and an attitude toward his characters that envelops them with both a loving and ironic embrace. He gives them what the "great world" has been unable to - a respectful concern for their welfare and a wish that they be remembered and not utterly forgotten. Readers may also find Orhan Pamuk's novel "Snow" illuminating.