Why did I pick it up- Because I like Pamuk, Literary crime, books about painting and Istanbul. Even though the book cover touts a prize- there is nothing like winning a prize to make a book mediocre.
And- Pamuk does it again- perhaps only Snow is better. Yeah, I have not read the new one.- for that one- watch this space. Amazing how he manages all those different perspectives in the first person, the murder speaks as himself and as the murderer, even the bits in the painting speak to you and bring alive a distant world from the past without thrusting in on your face and telling you – look ‘history’.
But- Pamuk- what else? He does digress and gives too much detail and my eyes glaze over. Then I have to put the book down and walk away but it is Pamuk after all - he pulls you back before you have gone too far off. All this after 326 pages.
Let’s see what the rest of the book brings
The rest of the book: is about issues bigger than deaths of two men. It is about philosophy, history of art, artistic styles, the grandiose of artists and human failings. When you eventually discover the murderer, you are not sure it even matters. There have been many losses and gains by then. Yes, Justice is done and yet there is nothing heroic about it. The book lingers like a memory that is odour – based- just a whiff and bits of it come back to you.
Final verdict- Pamuk is a demanding writer but the book will stay in many forms with you for a long time.
This is interesting, Maya for I stopped at the glazing over phase. I haven't reached the end of the book and dare i say i won't be, for sometime to come at least.
ReplyDeleteThough i liked the technique the repetition got to me!
it is precisely the detail and the digressions that i loved about this book. I love a narrative that goes there, comes here and goes somewhere else. And, ofcourse, the scholarship is amazing. one of my favourites
ReplyDelete