The Naive and the Sentimental Novelist: Understand What Happens
When We Write and Read Novels by Orhan Pamuk
Reviewed by Leo Robson
*- 11 March 2011
Excerpts: "Dichotomies aspire to put everything in the red corner
or the blue one, and though this may enable discussion, it rarely accords with
reality...It was the German poet Schiller who spoke of "naive" and "sentimental"
poetry, and Pamuk, who prefers "reflective" to "sentimental", wants the division
to vibrate through his six lectures on the writing and reading of novels... At
the beginning of one paragraph, Pamuk writes: "Allow me to generalise." ...it
could have been the name of the book...About halfway through the book, Pamuk
says that his belief that novels are "visual" fictions is "one of my strongest
opinions". This helps to clarify the book's formula of confidently delivered
nonsense - Pamuk is emulating Vladimir Nabokov, especially the Nabokov of
Strong Opinions. Pamuk is fond of the word "life", which Nabokov said "does
not exist without a possessive epithet", and admires Thomas Mann, for whom
Nabokov had contempt. Otherwise, this is Nabokov redux: "ideas" are bunk,
politics are to be avoided, the point of reading and writing novels is to
commune with the lush and lovely visible world. Pamuk's habit of generalising
his own situation is present in Nabokov's leap from "I think in images" to the
claim that other people must also do the same because they "don't move their
lips when they think". And his passion for exotic simplicities and purported
yokings is contracted from the Nabokov who claimed that a good reader should
possess "the passion of science and the patience of poetry." Nabokov's ideas
constitute one (extreme) model of reading, but many writers treat them as holy
writ. At a talk to high-school students in Oklahoma recently, Ian McEwan
commanded: "When you sit down with a great work of literature, don't be
intimidated by it...."...he advised concentrating on images, details and
word-choice. ..McEwan was addressing a young audience who wouldn't have known
better; but Pamuk, delivering the Norton Lectures at Harvard, was addressing
what Frank Kermode once called "one of the best audiences in the world" - "the
gifted young" and "their learned elders". They would have known
better...[In]this book Pamuk is addressing a non-academic readership...It would
be a shame if they believed what he says."
........................................................................................................................................................................................
* Leo Robson is the New Statesman's lead fiction reviewer
newstatesman.com/writers/leo_robson