11/08/2012

A Novel Idea: The Museum of Innocence


This article was written for Yabangee.com
“The Museum of Innocence is a love story about carrying the memory of love – love, I think, being the symbol of innocence itself.”

So Esra hanım surmised, as I enquired about how she found the latest best-selling novel, The Museum of Innocence, by Orhan Pamuk.

As I sat in the curator’s office, in the museum created by the author to embody his work, the monotonous hum of an electric fan provided blissful solace in the sultry heat that is August in Istanbul. “I don’t want to answer too many questions about the novel itself though,” she said. After all, these questions are best left to Pamuk.

Like most Turkish writers of note, Orhan Pamuk cuts quite a controversial figure. His views on Turkish politics, society and history, whether uttered by himself or alluded through one of the rich characters of his fictional works, have won him many enemies. Still, anyone who has read his previous works, such as the celebrated Snow or My Name is Red, will know that whatever the debate surrounding the man, his attention to the art of prose and the exploration of the human condition demands the respect that ultimately defines him as an internationally-acclaimed Nobel laureate. The Museum of Innocence is his latest work, and looks to earn him even greater acclaim.

However, the novel alone is not what has grabbed the media’s attention this time around. For, simultaneously, the Museum of Innocence is not just a novel, but an actual museum with the dual purpose of being a physical embodiment of the story, whilst preserving the not-to-distant past in which it is set.

The building is tucked away amongst the many dusty antique shops characteristic of the Çukurcuma area, slithering down through a maze of alleyways from Istiklal Caddesi to the Bosphorus. The building itself would be just another unsuspecting fin-du-siecle home, typical of central Beyoğlu, were it not for its boarded-up windows and thick lacquer of burgundy red, encompassing it as intensely as the beating sun.

Upon entering, you are struck by two clues as to the themes that inspired its creation – and you are stepping on the first one already. A giant black and white spiral spins out below your feet on the floor. Looking above from its centre, you can see banisters leading through every floor, right up to the bedroom of the book’s infatuated protagonist, Kemal.

For a book set in 1970s Istanbul, it is a interesting contrast already. For the faded colour of the walls, and browning nostalgic ornamentation leading up to the main displays, the spiral seems out of place. Having only waded knee-deep into the novel so-far, it was not too much of a spoiler to find out what this symbolised.

Kemal is more than in love. In fact, most would say he needs help. He is consumed by an obsession to savour the memory of the girl Füsan, the love of his life, and so he charges his friend, Orhan Pamuk, with the task of collecting, classifying and eternalising the story of his love in one place. This is so that the entire experience can evade the vulgar conception of time itself, and he can view every moment he experienced with Füsun as one blissful whole. The articles and objects viewed from his bedroom are thus suspended within a spiral, defying the abruptness of the typical this-happened-then-that-happened Aristotelian concept of memory.

Perhaps the more instantly striking representation of his obsession is displayed immediately next to the spiral, where 4213 stubbed-out, lipstick tinged cigarettes, which Füsun smokes in the novel (count them, if you like) are displayed like an eccentric Victorian’s butterfly collection, in a great wall display. Beneath each, a date is stamped, or an accompanying message signed to remind Kemal, and jolt the reader’s memory, of the time it was smoked. Each note is of course, written “In my own hand-writing, as requested by Kemal,” Pamuk notes on a sign next to the magnificent piece.

Visitors to the museum, from all over the world, can be seen walking from cabinet to cabinet, reading the novel as they admire the objects within. Aged packets of state monopoly cigarettes, original Yeşil Çam movie posters, wooden children’s toys, post-cards and black and white video clips of Istanbul, are all displayed together in a seamless sewing together of fiction and reality from a by-gone age. Perhaps, a more innocent age.

Pamuk’s motive however, has not been to provide an illustration to the book. The museum in its entirety serves as an art work to accompany the book, this is true, but at the same time it serves to preserve in posterity a period of a city ever expanding, growing and gutting out the old in favour of the new. “We are very unfaithful to our past” Esra hanım posits bluntly, “We don’t keep things. Istanbul, for example, has no city museum. This museum makes you relate to objects you wouldn’t relate to. What’s been lived, what’s being forgotten”.

Indeed, for most young Turkish readers, who make up half the visitors, stepping into the museum is like landing on another planet, only gleaned through the telescope of classic Turkish cinema. But to older Turkish visitors, it serves as a sentimental reminder of the past. Those who grew up in the 1970s will fondly remember aspects of the novel brought to life in the museum – the bingo tombola, the chocolate liquors served at parties.

Fusun's cigarettes, from the Museum of Innocence. (Nikos Vatopoulos)
“There are many antique shops around here,” I began, before being cut-off by the curator, predicting exactly where my line of enquiry was leading to. “Everybody knows him,” she beamed, with a smile which purposefully and gracefully undermined my overblown image of the writer as an entity apart from the city which has provided a back-drop to so many of his works. The media hype is probably somewhat to blame for my imagining Orhan Pamuk as some elusive polemic figure, appearing out of nowhere to perform book-signings, publish classics and charm Guardian interviewers.

Actually, Pamuk bought the building which would later house the Museum of Innocence in the mid-90s on a whim, after admiring the atmosphere of the area he passed while taking his daughter to school. Simultaneously, he had the idea of writing a novel based on objects, and began collecting small items, like old lottery tickets, ornamenting the house of Kemal and Füsun’s love affair with them in every chapter.

The pieces on display came into being in three stages – first, from the author’s own vast collection of items he worked from to inspire features in his novel. Secondly, a ‘creative team’ set about trawling the city for items created from his imagination, and the third set was created by hand. This is somewhat a betrayal of the secondary function of the museum as a ‘time capsule’ you might think – however, I guarantee that the cigarette display would have none of the same impact if accompanied by the stale stench of four thousand genuine cigarette stubs.

The Museum of Innocence is a physical piece of art, embedded in the reality of a time, illustrated through objects that carry a meaning in fiction: Even without having read anything of Pamuk, the concept in itself is an impressive feat of the imagination, like no other museum in the world. The intensity to which the line is blurred has lead Pamuk to face many questions from readers, curious as to just how close the writer’s own experience is to his main character.

“I am not Kemal,” Pamuk states over and over in interviews. However with a playful glint in his eye, he explains that “this is the contradiction that lies deeply in the heart of the novel; if I say ‘this is fiction’, or, ‘this is imaginary’, then I don’t want you to believe it”.

04/08/2012

Delving into the Past: The Young Turks


This Article was written for Istanbul expat site Yabangee.com
They are the questions that come up time and again regarding Turkey’s foray into the First World War: What would have happened had it not ended in defeat? What if it had not given birth to a modern state? And indeed, the most elusive: What if it had never happened at all?

In fact, these kind of questions are the object of such fascination that they provided the theme for the 2008 hit comedy Ottoman Republic.

Not wishing to rock the boat on official historiography, the film presents the differences between reality and ‘what could have been’ as inevitably dystopic: A hereditary sultanate, weak and powerless against American gunship diplomacy and European economic machinations, made all the more worse somehow by the presence of silly hats.

The film has plenty of ironies, and says more about the paranoias of modern Turkey then it does about taking a serious look into the crystal ball, ending with a clip of Atatürk to assuage the audience’s horror at the alternate reality.

However popular history likes to put it, in attempting to answer these questions, one must delve a little further back than Atatürk. Indeed, where would an Atatürk have been found if not for the vacuum left by the fall of the pashas three, Celal, Enver and Talat – leaders of the movement known to the world as the Young Turks?

The Stirrings of Revolution

The city of Thessalonica, in present-day Greece, was very much the centre of intellectual debate about the future of the waning Ottoman Empire. The multicultural hub was the home of military academies where the lower cadres of the Ottoman state discussed and debated an increasing influx of European ideas about nationalism and the power of a unified state.

Here, a number of young Turkish intellectuals met in secret as part of the reformist group The Committee of Union and Progress. Events came to a head in March 1908, when the Young Turks, backed by Thessalonian troops of the 3rd Army, marched into Istanbul and forced the emperor to accept the re-convention of parliament, and the declaration of a radically liberal constitution which posited the equality of all imperial citizens as well as enshrining other rights, such as universal suffrage and state education – this, years before Atatürk’s reforms.

The event was celebrated by many as a sign of better things to come. Even the country’s minority groups were in overwhelming support. According to historian Robert Chambers, “Christian stood shoulder to shoulder with Moslem in a triumphant onslaught for the recovery of liberty and the reinstatement of the Constitution.”

However, as is the nature of political alliances, once the common enemy is removed they rarely last – especially in the city that gave birth to the phrase ‘Byzantine politics.’

The Dictatorial Triumvirate

The Young Turks became increasingly intolerant to opposition, and ideologically compromised. When the Arabs complained about the education reforms only being provided in Turkish, they argued for ‘pan-Ottomanism’, when the minorities complained that their privileges were being eroded, they took an ‘Islamist’ stance. However, a new brand of fire was also being kindled that would have repercussions throughout the coming war and its aftermath – Turkish nationalism.

Many Young Turks revelled in the fantasy of a new, all-powerful world empire combining the Turkic and Islamic worlds. The ‘Turanian’ ideal would become a characteristic of Turkish nationalism for the foreseeable future, and many governments of the Turkish Republic have since aimed for closer economic ties with central Asian countries in order to win votes amongst a nationalist electorate. The post-war influx of neighbouring Turkic and Muslim peoples to Turkey would engender this mentality in advancing assimilation policies for much of the twentieth century.
The imagined empire of Turan


However, the Ottoman Empire’s entry into World War I on the side of the Central Powers would mean dire consequences for the country, not least of all its minorities. The Young Turks decided the best way to get rid of the multiple problems arising from their presence, under the pretext of Armenian side-switching in the East, was to get rid of them completely. The pashas rounded-up Armenian intellectuals and transported the rest of the populace to camps in the East, from which many would never return. Whatever the legal term for this course of action, Atatürk himself would later surmise it simply as “a shameful act.”

These events, and the war’s aftermath, have blighted Turkey’s struggle to come to terms with its past, and have also had a knock-on effect on its diplomatic relations around the world. Last year, France became a dirty word in Turkey as that country’s parliament voted to outlaw denial of the ‘genocide’ perpetrated by the Young Turks.

The Young Turk Legacy

Atatürk’s republican mission had a great resonance with the Young Turks’ earlier ideals. A nationalist unitary state run along Western lines, with a monopoly on the two engines used to change the mentality of the nation: education and the military.

Had the Young Turks not set the agenda, the foundations for the republic would arguably not have been laid. However, the Young Turks themselves were too ambitions from the outset. Their particular brand of egalitarianism would not stand the test of a divided populace. For this reason, perhaps, the nascent Turkish Republic chose, for better or worse, to bypass idealism in the name of progress.

As for their grand geo-political ambitions, they would have to be shelved for good. For if a Turkish state was to survive it would have to be content with its borders.

After the war, all three fled the country. Enver Pasha took on the title of ‘Commander-in-Chief of all the Armies of Islam, Son-in-Law of the Caliph and Representative of the Prophet’ and went charging around Central Asia until he was shot by Russian forces in 1922. Talat was shot by an Armenian survivor of the war in central Berlin, and the trial which followed his assassination marked the beginnings of international moves to define a new legal concept called ‘genocide.’ Cemal was assassinated in Tbilisi around the same time.

Young Turks of Today

The Young Turks certainly carve controversial figures in today’s Turkey. School history textbooks present them as patriots who didn’t quite get it right politically or ideologically, and certainly not militarily. But unlike many aspects of Ottoman history, neither have they been completely divorced from the history of the Republic. This fact alone whispers that, whilst the idea of Atatürk single-handedly building a nation-state from the ground-up cannot be tampered with, Turkey as it is today would not exist without the game-changing dynamism of the Young Turk revolution.

Had they not existed, perhaps the idea of the Ottoman Empire would not have been so disgraced amongst the Turkish political elite, and a new republic would not have been an attractive option. Perhaps the seat of the Ottoman Empire would have clung to a spiritual power similar to that which the Vatican holds today. Perhaps modern Turkey would have embraced Western-style multiculturalism, or perhaps it would have been paralysed by inter-ethnic conflict. Perhaps it would have retained some of its hats.

In a nation where nostalgia for the past is such a powerful force in the politics of the present, these questions are as likely to go away as they are close to being answered.