Tweet
Zaman, Turkey
Oct 28 2006
An Open Letter to Orhan Pamuk
MEHMED NIYAZI
10.28.2006 Saturday - ISTANBUL 14:57
Dear Mr. Pamuk:
As you know, no other novelist's writing style has been discussed as
much as yours.
Some tend to portray you as the author of best-selling novels that
are not widely read. Some argue it is only when your books are
published that you create a commotion. Some describe your command of
the Turkish language as weak, your linguistic style as stuttering and
your novel technique as poor. And some regard you as a top novelist.
As you know quite well, a novel as a work of art has its own limits;
however, these limits are not based on units; they focus on
subjectivity because they entail beauty, pleasure and harmony.
Otherwise, we cannot explain why a man with great interest in the
arts and culture like Cengiz Aytmatov, who boasts such works as `The
White Ship,' `Jamilya,' and `The Day Lasts More than a Hundred
Years,' has not won a Nobel Prize. However, no matter what they say,
it is really pleasing to see you win the Nobel Prize as a citizen of
the Turkish Republic.
Apart from the debates about what distinguishes Nobel Prize winners
from the rest of us, your being awarded this very important prize
will keep you in the spotlight for at least a year. You will
gradually be relegated to the list of Nobel laureates because someone
else will be awarded the prize next year. But nowadays, your
utterances will have wide-ranging repercussions. Those recently
included on this list, which excludes the names of several literary
giants such as Leo Tolstoy, Anton Chekhov, Andre Malroux and Marcel
Proust, have no significance today. Hence, their words have lost
their impact. We sincerely wish that your name and works are never
forgotten.
We have no right to expect the boldness of Fedor Dostoyevsky from you
or any other novelist. Dostoyevsky was a pious Orthodox of pure
Russian origin. The young man fainted from excitement during his
nationalistic speech upon the death of Aleksandr Pushkin, which shook
the whole Russian nation. He was never afraid to speak his mind
because he believed he could resist international rejection and
condemnation with his outspoken nationalistic writings. As an
ordinary citizen, I do not expect you to defend our nation since
great nations have always had great enemies. I am well aware of the
fact that it is not easy to stand up against them, but expressing the
truth is the first prerequisite for being an intellectual.
You certainly know that our historians, journalists and others really
do not say anything when talking about the so-called `Armenian
genocide.' I don't know the circumstances under which you spoke on
this issue; but it is clearly obvious that you did not do the
necessary research. Of course, human beings are not flawless or
faultless. We all make mistakes. Stubbornly insisting on making
mistakes is tantamount to bigotry, whereas admitting a mistake and
regretting it represents wisdom. Bigotry definitely does not befit an
intellectual and world-renowned author. In fact, such an author does
not have the right to insist on bigotry.
Even if you make a superficial review, you will see that the Armenian
Diaspora did not even dare to launch an initiative during the British
Empire to make the so-called genocide allegations recognized because
there were millions of Muslims living in that country. Instead, they
opted for recognition of their allegations in the United States.
President Woodrow Wilson sent the U.S. chief of staff, along with a
crowded delegation, to our country to investigate the claims. The
delegation comprised mostly of sociologists, psychologists,
anthropologists and historians began its inquiry with Armenians who
migrated to Paris from Turkey.
When they asked an Armenian how the genocide was committed, they
received this response: `It was awful, I was slaughtered twice.' They
sensed the populist dimension of the issue and then conducted an
investigation at Turkish sites where the genocide was allegedly
committed. After completing the entire investigation process, the
chief of staff submitted his famous report indicating no evidence of
genocide. When the Armenians, unsatisfied with this report, put
pressure for further investigation, Rear Admiral Marc L. Bristol was
ordered to substantiate the genocide. However, he also conceded that
no genocide was committed on Turkish territory. Istanbul was occupied
and those suspected of committing genocide were arrested. Ziya Gokalp
and those who shared the same fate were exiled to Malta. War crime
tribunals were set up in Istanbul and Malta to try the suspects. All
of them were acquitted. Sait Halim Pasha, the prime minister of the
time, who was notified of the tribunals while he was in Italy,
applied to the League of Nations and the International Court of
Justice in The Hague for a trial in an effort to clarify and conclude
the matter. Both replied that there was no need for a trial. It is
stated in the book, on which the Armenians base their allegations,
that we committed this heinous crime under instructions from the
Germans. In the mid-1920s, the British government notified the German
government that this was merely war propaganda. If you conduct basic
research on this matter, you will discover these facts, and most
probably many more. And if you so desire, I can send all of them to
you by e-mail.
Mr. Pamuk, your style as a novelist has come under intense
discussion, but you are an enlightened person anyway. An enlightened
person is someone who understands his responsibilities. These
responsibilities start from his family, then the society to which he
belongs and the human race at large. You are expressing this as a
fact, but this does not put you in a position to criticize the
promotion of Turkish nationalism because you should definitely
recognize the Turks as part of the human race. After all, past
unanimity among Christian countries in making all these decisions to
accuse Turkey must have relieved you of your doubts that a nation was
facing a Crusader mindset. It is time to speak up if you are also
upset by this mindset.
Yours truly,
Oct 28 2006
An Open Letter to Orhan Pamuk
MEHMED NIYAZI
10.28.2006 Saturday - ISTANBUL 14:57
Dear Mr. Pamuk:
As you know, no other novelist's writing style has been discussed as
much as yours.
Some tend to portray you as the author of best-selling novels that
are not widely read. Some argue it is only when your books are
published that you create a commotion. Some describe your command of
the Turkish language as weak, your linguistic style as stuttering and
your novel technique as poor. And some regard you as a top novelist.
As you know quite well, a novel as a work of art has its own limits;
however, these limits are not based on units; they focus on
subjectivity because they entail beauty, pleasure and harmony.
Otherwise, we cannot explain why a man with great interest in the
arts and culture like Cengiz Aytmatov, who boasts such works as `The
White Ship,' `Jamilya,' and `The Day Lasts More than a Hundred
Years,' has not won a Nobel Prize. However, no matter what they say,
it is really pleasing to see you win the Nobel Prize as a citizen of
the Turkish Republic.
Apart from the debates about what distinguishes Nobel Prize winners
from the rest of us, your being awarded this very important prize
will keep you in the spotlight for at least a year. You will
gradually be relegated to the list of Nobel laureates because someone
else will be awarded the prize next year. But nowadays, your
utterances will have wide-ranging repercussions. Those recently
included on this list, which excludes the names of several literary
giants such as Leo Tolstoy, Anton Chekhov, Andre Malroux and Marcel
Proust, have no significance today. Hence, their words have lost
their impact. We sincerely wish that your name and works are never
forgotten.
We have no right to expect the boldness of Fedor Dostoyevsky from you
or any other novelist. Dostoyevsky was a pious Orthodox of pure
Russian origin. The young man fainted from excitement during his
nationalistic speech upon the death of Aleksandr Pushkin, which shook
the whole Russian nation. He was never afraid to speak his mind
because he believed he could resist international rejection and
condemnation with his outspoken nationalistic writings. As an
ordinary citizen, I do not expect you to defend our nation since
great nations have always had great enemies. I am well aware of the
fact that it is not easy to stand up against them, but expressing the
truth is the first prerequisite for being an intellectual.
You certainly know that our historians, journalists and others really
do not say anything when talking about the so-called `Armenian
genocide.' I don't know the circumstances under which you spoke on
this issue; but it is clearly obvious that you did not do the
necessary research. Of course, human beings are not flawless or
faultless. We all make mistakes. Stubbornly insisting on making
mistakes is tantamount to bigotry, whereas admitting a mistake and
regretting it represents wisdom. Bigotry definitely does not befit an
intellectual and world-renowned author. In fact, such an author does
not have the right to insist on bigotry.
Even if you make a superficial review, you will see that the Armenian
Diaspora did not even dare to launch an initiative during the British
Empire to make the so-called genocide allegations recognized because
there were millions of Muslims living in that country. Instead, they
opted for recognition of their allegations in the United States.
President Woodrow Wilson sent the U.S. chief of staff, along with a
crowded delegation, to our country to investigate the claims. The
delegation comprised mostly of sociologists, psychologists,
anthropologists and historians began its inquiry with Armenians who
migrated to Paris from Turkey.
When they asked an Armenian how the genocide was committed, they
received this response: `It was awful, I was slaughtered twice.' They
sensed the populist dimension of the issue and then conducted an
investigation at Turkish sites where the genocide was allegedly
committed. After completing the entire investigation process, the
chief of staff submitted his famous report indicating no evidence of
genocide. When the Armenians, unsatisfied with this report, put
pressure for further investigation, Rear Admiral Marc L. Bristol was
ordered to substantiate the genocide. However, he also conceded that
no genocide was committed on Turkish territory. Istanbul was occupied
and those suspected of committing genocide were arrested. Ziya Gokalp
and those who shared the same fate were exiled to Malta. War crime
tribunals were set up in Istanbul and Malta to try the suspects. All
of them were acquitted. Sait Halim Pasha, the prime minister of the
time, who was notified of the tribunals while he was in Italy,
applied to the League of Nations and the International Court of
Justice in The Hague for a trial in an effort to clarify and conclude
the matter. Both replied that there was no need for a trial. It is
stated in the book, on which the Armenians base their allegations,
that we committed this heinous crime under instructions from the
Germans. In the mid-1920s, the British government notified the German
government that this was merely war propaganda. If you conduct basic
research on this matter, you will discover these facts, and most
probably many more. And if you so desire, I can send all of them to
you by e-mail.
Mr. Pamuk, your style as a novelist has come under intense
discussion, but you are an enlightened person anyway. An enlightened
person is someone who understands his responsibilities. These
responsibilities start from his family, then the society to which he
belongs and the human race at large. You are expressing this as a
fact, but this does not put you in a position to criticize the
promotion of Turkish nationalism because you should definitely
recognize the Turks as part of the human race. After all, past
unanimity among Christian countries in making all these decisions to
accuse Turkey must have relieved you of your doubts that a nation was
facing a Crusader mindset. It is time to speak up if you are also
upset by this mindset.
Yours truly,