my life (C)

But there’s another thing, and that is the sounds of the world – things that you hear in each city that are different. In western cities the sound of the subway or metro is very particular and it stays in your spirit and whenever you hear it in a film, suddenly all the memories of the city wake up in you. “In Istanbul it’s the “vvvvoooooot” – sirens of the boats, the “chck” from the chimney, waves of the Bosphorus hitting the quays along with the seagulls and old-fashioned little boats – “putu putu putu” kind of thing.” These are the things that immediately, if I close my eyes and you give it to me in another corner of the world, make Istanbul suddenly appear in my mind’s eye. Orhan Pamuk presents the reader the interesting story of the city of Istanbul he knows in a novel form, combining it with his own life story until the age of 22. This story, heads from Pamuk’s first feelings related to ‘his own’ to his mother, his father and his family, and as a source of happiness and sadness, opens out to the streets of Istanbul. As we discover Istanbul’s streets in 1950s, the roads with cobblestones, ruined blasted wooden mansions, the difficulties of the disappearance of an old culture while a new culture rises out of the ashes and shambles of it, we can follow swiftly the evolution of Pamuk’s spiritual world as if we’re reading a detective novel. In this unique piece that searches Istanbul’s black-white melancholy, we find the unity of soul and emotions special to some books which we read time after time. “It is Istanbul’s endless variety that fascinates visitors. The museums, churches, palaces, grand mosques, bazaars and sights of natural beauty seem innumerable. You can see why Istanbul is truly one of the most glorious cities in the world.” And indeed you can see why: the web page is illustrated with dazzling photographs of palaces and beauty-spots, all of them drenched in golden sunshine. None of which, of course, is untrue; the photos have not been faked. But tourist-brochure images seldom convey the atmosphere of a city, and can give little idea of the texture of ordinary life. And if that is the case with cities that are dominated by their tourist industries (Venice or Florence, for example), how much truer it must be of a huge metropolis where tourism barely scratches the surface. “I am speaking”, he writes, “of the old Bosphorus ferries moored to deserted stations in the middle of winter; of the tens of thousands of identical apartment-house entrances, their façades discoloured by dirt, rust, soot and dust; of the broken seesaws in empty parks; of ships’ horns booming through the fog; of the dervish lodges that have crumbled; of the seagulls perched on rusty barges caked with moss and mussels, unflinching under the pelting rain; of the little children in the streets who try to sell the same packet of tissues to every passer-by; of the fruits and vegetables, garbage and plastic bags and wastepaper, empty sacks, boxes and chests strewn across abandoned street markets on a winter evening…”That is just an extract from a listing that meanders across six pages. Each detail on its own is humdrum and unexceptional, but the cumulative effect is one of lyrical intensity, the performance of a set of virtuoso variations on the themes of cold, decay, neglect, disappearance and abandonment. All these details are, he explains, things that give rise to hüzün – an untranslatable word for a collective feeling of melancholy and nostalgia. Hasty or hostile readers (including, no doubt, the men from the Ministry) might prefer a less untranslatable term for Pamuk’s frame of mind: nostalgie de la boue, a perverse wallowing in dirt. And if all he had produced had been a hymn of praise to decrepitude, they might have a point. But this book does much, much more than that. It sets his fascination with the tumbledown world of backstreet Istanbul in two contexts: that of his own discovery of the city as a child, and that of the cultural history of postOttoman Turkey. There was nothing decrepit about Orhan Pamuk’s own childhood home – at least, not in physical terms. His grandfather had made a fortune in business, and although this was gradually frittered away by Orhan’s father and uncles, there was plenty of it to fritter. Orhan was brought up in the “Pamuk Apartments”, a five-storey block built and owned by the family: all the other inhabitants were uncles and cousins, plus an assortment of maids, cooks and caretakers. From this world of wellfurnished rooms – glass-fronted bookcases, grand pianos laden with silver-framed photographs, and so on – little Orhan would venture forth with his mother to the sweet shop, the bread roll-seller, or the toy shop; sometimes a boatman would row them up the Bosphorus, or sometimes they would ride on the tram. Everything fascinated the boy, whose visual sense was stimulated as much by crumbling stone and decaying wooden buildings as by the coloured lightbulbs on the minarets or the chocolates in silver foil. In his teens, while attending an expensive private school, he thought of becoming a painter, and spent long hours walking these streets, studying the play of light and shade and the effect of those sudden glimpses of the Bosphorus through the gaps between the buildings. His schoolfriends, meanwhile (mostly the sons of the nouveaux riches), spent their time driving their fathers’ Mercedes to cafés where they could drink Scotch whisky and listen to American music. Their aping of a foreign world drew him, by contrast, to cherish more strongly those aspects of Istanbul that they were most keen to reject. A similar dynamic, though a subtler one, was at work in his relations with his own family.
Unlike the coarser nouveaux riches, they valued culture and education; but having lost touch with their own Empire past, they could think of no content for that culture except a hand-me-down European one. In this, I think, they were typical of a generation which, even though it benefited in many ways from “Jaruselskis campaign”, was nevertheless culturally and spiritually stultified by it. Europe has its share of melancholy cities: the citizens of Lisbon take each destructive fire as fate’s latest grim joke; Warsaw has been regularly ripped apart by foreign invaders; and it’s hard to be cheerful in Trieste or, indeed, Cardiff. Of course, the past was never as happy as all that, and the present hasn’t always been so bad either, especially if you come from a privileged background. With the help of 20th-century Polish novelists, poets and journalists, I think I do a good job picking at lines of received wisdom. The overall effect of a melancholic city is like being in the melancholy company of a learned, egotistical uncle, who takes you on a slow tour of his photo albums in twilight. This uncle has perfect recall for details, but his memory is almost entirely visual. As we are taken through the sights of ruins, as changes in the light are described to us, the other senses get hungrier. We become pathetically grateful when we are allowed any food, such as when I mention the taste of my aunt’s sweet tea, which she always drank with a piece of hard goat’s cheese in her mouth. As with any writer’s memoir of his early years, the central story here is the making of the writer, the significant events, both internal and external, the movements of sensibility that have sent him on this path. All happy cities resemble one another, to paraphrase what Tolstoy famously observed of families, but each melancholy city is melancholy in its own way. The saudade of Lisbon, the tristeza of Burgos, the mufa of Buenos Aires, the mestizia of Turin, the Traurigkei t of Vienna, the ennui of Alexandria, the ghostliness of Prague, the glumness of Glasgow, the dispiritedness of Boston share only on the surface a common sense of melancholy. According to Orhan Pamuk, the melancholy of Istanbul is huzun. Pamuk begins his inquiry with an image, a kitschy portrait of a child brought back from Europe that was hung in the house of his aunt. “Look! That’s you!” the aunt would say to the 5-year-old boy, pointing at the picture. For Pamuk, the painted child (who resembled him slightly and wore the same cap he sometimes wore) became his double, another Orhan leading a parallel life in another house in the same city, another self whom he would meet in his dreams with shrieks of horror or with whom he’d bravely lock eyes, each boy trying to stare the other down “in eerie merciless silence.” Pamuk suggests, Istanbul is haunted by another Istanbul, a shadowy presence in the shadows. He sees the city in black and white, mirrored in the ancient engravings and old photographs that illustrate the book — a city in which ruined buildings conjure up the ghosts of their former selves and stately monuments insinuate their future collapse. As seen by the poet Yahya Kemal or the historian and encyclopedist Resat Ekrem Kocu, by Gerard de Nerval or Gustave Flaubert, Pamuk’s Istanbul keeps unfolding like a series of Rorschach tests, multiplying its ink-stained ghosts and tempting the reader with potentially infinite interpretations. Pamuk tells the story of the city through the eyes of memory, warning the reader at every step that “these are the words of a fifty-year-old writer who is trying to shape the chaotic thoughts of a long-ago adolescent.” “When we are relating dreams, fairy tales, or past events we could not have witnessed, we use this tense,” Pamuk explains. This is the tense in which his book seems to be written, in a voice on the edge of reality, halfway between what he knows has happened and what he believes imaginatively to be true. This voice, this tone, this tense, is perfectly suited to describing melancholy. Istanbul as shared melancholy, Istanbul as double, Istanbul as black-and-white images of crumbling buildings and phantom minarets, Istanbul as a city of maze-like streets seen from high windows and balconies, Istanbul as an invention of foreigners, Istanbul as a place of first loves and last rites: In the end, all these attempts at definition become Istanbul as self-portrait, Istanbul as Pamuk himself. “Here we come to the heart of the matter,” he says early in the book. Such a city becomes the inhabitant’s in more senses than one. “To Be Unhappy Is to Hate Oneself and One’s City” is the title Pamuk gives the 34th chapter. The reader must therefore deduce that he is not an unhappy man, because Istanbul is a book by a man in love. A city one has lived in long enough shapes itself into one’s own image, acquires the traits of one’s personality, the features of one’s soul. It becomes what Jorge Luis Borges once called “a map of my humiliations and failures” or, as in the case of Pamuk’s Istanbul, a map of a man’s huzun , both of his intimate miseries and betrayals and of his secret victories.
To understand the world, you must first understand a place like Mississippi. This is my first visit to the Ujjain’s Seminary. It is cheering to look into this crowd and see you students of philosophy in the face of your spiritual Father, who bestowed that great honour of telling something on me, and to recognize quite a few of my friend professor Sebastian, whom I met when he came from Mumbai to attend the conference at Lodz in my country, along with so many of my faces from my life. When I first came in Vienna (abroad in Mars 1992), to walk for the first time through its ever larger and more crowded halls, I did not feel as relaxed as I do today. As a shops, vastness and diversity of the city ought to have pleased me but, having seen how large it was, I was painfully aware how small and insignificant I was as a young priest. I could see how difficult it would be to make my voice heard, to leave a trace, to make sure other people could distinguish me from others. It is not just because we’re made to feel that deeds have a permanence while priests come and go; it reminds us how small we are next to the totality of deeds, human memory, and all the world’s voices. It reminds us that – though we are divided by nationality, history and language – all peoples resemble each other: we share the same sentiments and aspirations. At that time I has had some papers only. But as Pamuk’s opening speech Frankfurt Book Fair 2008 hold on 14th October 2008 marked that: we writers do not write our books thinking about the millions of other books in the world, nor do we write them to confirm our humility or our dreams of brotherhood; we write to go in search of that strange voice inside us, and to make it heard, first for ourselves, and then for others, so that readers, all readers, can hear it. That is why we know that we must look into the depths of our souls, until we arrive at the place of difference. That place owes its otherness to our soul, our body, our home, our family, our street, our city, our language, our history. ‘Don’t take this the wrong way, Mr. Pamuk, your book is beautiful, but unfortunately there is no interest in Turkish culture in our country.’ I felt like some sort of demented intellectual, banging on for years about a subject no one was interested in…We are all aware that the world’s cultural centres are slowly changing, and that the power and pull of the old centres is diminishing. Then Here I will speaking of the rapid growth of the Indian and Chinese economies…The political and cultural developments of the last twenty years have made the story of Poland’s two-century-long struggles between tradition and modernity more interesting to world audiences. These days, I almost never hear people complaining about how no one can find Poland on the map. There are priests here, and since they have come to this city, to Ujjain to let the whole world hear their voices, it follows that we can shake off just a bit of our gloom about no one understanding us. We are in a position to speak openly about our experiences over the past century. The state’s habit of penalizing priests and their vocations is still very much alive. While I was working on this story that I would like to publish soon, I needed to research old Indian films and songs. I might do this easily on Youtube, but now I would not be able do the same. Because Youtube, like many other domestic and international websites, has been blocked for residents of different offices for political reasons. Those in whom the power of the state resides may take satisfaction from all these repressive measures, but we writers, publishers, artists also feel differently, as do all other creators of Polish culture and indeed everyone who takes an interest in it: oppression of this order does not reflect our ideas on the proper promotion of Polish culture. But when Poland’s young writers turn in on themselves to find the inner voices that will turn them into interesting writers, they will no longer need to succumb to dark thoughts like, ‘No one would be interested in a Poland history anyway!’ May this assembly bring hope and happiness to us all…I would like to say here: I am taken as descriptions of an entire nation, even as representations of that nation. Ethics cannot normatively recommend particular values anymore, but can only provide a specific procedure of conflict resolution, and in order for it in turn to be able to satisfy moral claims, this procedure must give expression to the substantive conviction that all human beings have to respect one another as free and equal person. J. Habermas’ a cognitivist interpretation is passing I. Kant’s an abyss of speechlessness with a light of the normative problems. So the possibility of making the validity of norms dependent on a procedure of discursive will formation is tied to the transcendental idea of a discourse free from domination, to a responsibility to act now.
cdn.

Leave a comment