LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 19, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Truthdigger of the Week: Sen. Angus King

Letter From Birmingham Jail

Chilling: Arctic Tundra ‘Will Turn to Forest’

'The Daily Show': Stewart Slams Hypocrites Cheney and Rumsfeld

'Left, Right & Center': The White House Scandal Trifecta

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
Chilling: Arctic Tundra ‘Will Turn to Forest’

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Act of Congress
Daily Rituals
The Girls of Atomic City

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar
Mural

Mural

By Mahmoud Darwish
$13.57

more items

 
Arts and Culture

Gazing Into the ‘Secret Center’ of the Novel

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 28, 2011

By Cherilyn Parsons

To see long excerpts from “The Naive and the Sentimental Novelist” at Google Books, click here.

 

“The Naive and the Sentimental Novelist” by Orhan Pamuk is a love letter to the literary novel. It can expand your awareness and joy of reading. For novelists, it’s a treasure trove.

A lot of literary criticism reads like an autopsy report, dissecting the “text.” In examining the novel, this little book is more like exploring what animates the body. It traces the circulatory system of the novel, delves into the sensory fields that make up character, and lingers on the invisible but pervasive miracle that is a novel’s consciousness—its “secret center,” Pamuk puts it.

I get impatient with novel theories or critics who have never seriously attempted the massive, painstaking task of writing one. Pamuk knows what he’s talking about. He has authored eight novels (six translated from Turkish to English). He’s also an essayist, an activist for freedom of expression and the winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2006. In his inspiring Nobel speech he describes what it’s like to write a novel by invoking a Turkish saying: “to dig a well with a needle.”

A difficult job, in other words. But all around the world, published and unpublished novelists are digging away. Pamuk says that wherever the novel form has taken root, it has become the dominant way of storytelling. He doesn’t discuss new technology, but even 140-character limits can’t contain the novelistic urge. Novels now are told via cellphones and Twitter, not merely paper or screen. They can even lack words entirely: witness some graphic novels.

What is this strange urge to sit alone in a room (as it’s mostly done) and write word after word, often struggling for the right one, when everyone else is the beach? But wait: Why are those people at the beach staring for hours on end at a page (or screen), relaxing by intently tracking details in a story that isn’t even true?

 

book cover

 

The Naive and the Sentimental Novelist

 

By Orhan Pamuk

  

Harvard University Press, 208 pages

 

Buy the book

What do novels do to us? Why do we read them, and how can we read them better? What makes a novel work across cultures, formats and centuries?

The odd title of Pamuk’s book is inspired by German philosopher/playwright Friedrich Schiller’s famous essay “On Naive and Sentimental Poetry.” Pamuk uses Schiller’s ideas as a starting point for discussion about both readers and writers. For readers, “naive” refers to how we forget ourselves in a story; “we feel that the fictional world we encounter and enjoy is more real than the real world itself.”  But the modern reader knows the story is only a dream. Thus we’re sentimentalisch, the German term describing a person who has grown from naiveté into awareness and reflection.

For writers, the naive is the Romantic ideal of spontaneous creativity—whether dictated by God, a muse, drugs (Coleridge’s claim of inspiration in writing “Kubla Khan”), alcohol and the rush of the road (Kerouac), or sheer genius. The sentimentalisch writer, on the other hand, “is unsure whether his words will encompass reality” and is “exceedingly aware of the poem he writes, the methods and techniques he uses, and the artifice involved in his endeavor.” This writer is “modern,” Pamuk says. Or postmodern, I would add. Metafiction is its embodiment.

These two ideas become the book’s themes. Pamuk spins a theory of the novel that involves the search for meaning, the interplay of truth and lie, the essential optimism in the act of reading and writing—and the pleasure we take in the experience of all these things. Good readers and writers are both “naive” and “reflective” (as Pamuk renames sentimental) at the same time.

“The Naive and the Sentimental Novelist” is short; you can finish it in one sitting. It’s more enjoyable over time, though. It repeats itself a lot. The six chapters were originally delivered as the 2009 Norton Lectures at Harvard, so they necessarily circle back on themselves. Here I’ll give glimpses into some key ideas, then share my own compendium of the book’s tips for novelists.

 

1   2   3   NEXT PAGE >>>

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Morrissey Dubs Royal Family ‘Benefit Scroungers’

Next item: Bigelow Pushing Forward With ‘Kill Bin Laden’



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By etoile, May 13, 2011 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Many years ago I sat in a room with assembled others and Allen Ginsberg who
voiced a concept, which to me at the time, being quite young, was a truly
revelatory statement. He said that “Life should be lived creatively.” I’ve never
forgotten these words of wisdom. Creativity eschews habit and automatic thinking
and reflexive re-action,  it’s a gestation and birthing process, which to paraphrase
Bob Dylan:

“Those not being born are dying.”

Report this

By lancemfoster, May 5, 2011 at 11:41 am Link to this comment

I liked what gerard had to say about living our lives as our art. I knew a guy
once while doing an archaeology project out in Washington in the 1980s that
said the same thing.

As far as his mentioning stasis in connection, stasis is a static condition. By
definition, life is always changing…until death. Thus life finds its stasis in
death.

When art is truly achieved, beauty is also achieved (by beauty, I don’t mean
simply aesthetics, because the very ugly can also have beauty…the sheen of the
rainbow in the oil slick on the surface of the Gulf spill is both beautiful AND
ugly). Goya’s work is arguably monstrously ugly, “Chronos Devouring His
Children” for example, yet it is also a high art and also beautiful.

The great thing about living one’s life as one’s art is that it can be taken to the
heights…or the abyss, for beauty can be found in either extreme. Or can it.
Now that’s a real Pandora’s box.

Report this

By cherilyn, May 3, 2011 at 11:12 pm Link to this comment

Gerard, why “forget it”?

Your comments made sense to me, at least until the last three paragraphs (I didn’t
get what you meant by stasis in particular).

Report this

By gerard, May 1, 2011 at 10:44 am Link to this comment

Postscript:  Forget it!

Report this

By gerard, April 30, 2011 at 9:41 pm Link to this comment

Fundamentally, artists are trying to create order out of chaos, to make sense out of nonsanity, to reveal order at the heart of chaos. Their works are judged (consciously or not) by the compexity of the elements they choose to mould and the degree to which they succeed in bringing order out of chaos.

The enjoyment we feel as observer or reader is an indication of our own ability to percieve the elements involved, the way the work is shaped by the artist, and the degree to which we can relate the whole enterprise to our human experience of life.
  We “enjoy” Michelangelo’s paintings not because we believe in God but because he was able to evoke the spirit of the biblical creation as an act of perfection, a beginning that presents the fulfillment of a human creativity which we as individual humans we long to experience, yet, being humans, cannot often achieve. The enjoyment is an inward satisfaction that treats an inward longing. Not everyone is aware of the longing, but consciousness of the longing very likely increases the enjoyment of the art.

A symphony with its various movements, though working with different materials,  conjures up the same sort of satisfaction.  It makes explicit the process, the struggle, the achievement of forming unities among disparate parts that result in an inward satisfaction that speaks to the completion of an inward longing.

A literary work of art functions in a similar fashion toward the same goal—the assemblage of disparate parts into an ultimately satisfying resolution, achievement, resignation that creates in the reader a sense of fulfillment in contrast to the usually-all-too inartistic, chaotic flounderings of the narrative of ordinary daily life.

In effect, art, in process, achieves stasis in beauty while life, in process (in spite of all our struggles) finds stasis only in death.

We have yet to conceive of the idea of our personal lives as works of art. Enmity, greed and murder all move us in the opposite direction, making out of personal and social lives little more than examples of horror and pain—and that, in spite of all efforts to glorify and sanctify human existence.

Without the arts we would have perished long since.

Report this

By etoile, April 29, 2011 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Pamuk’s literary paradigm seems to be a highly structured conception of the
literary form. Indeed the form seems to be the dictator standing guard over the
spontaneity of content. Much of literary creation is a symbiosis of imaginative
serendipity informing structure.  It is an elusive process whereby a writer
struggles to intuit a world and populate it with a humanity that is vibrantly born
of it.

There is much insight and merit in E.M. Forester’s pronunciation that
“characters simply take over novels as they’re being written.” This is not simply
a naïve faith in the momentum of creative writing as a road with signposts up
ahead; it is a key illumination of the process itself. Great writers have labored to
produce valuable works of literary merit, but not in the way Pamuk would have
one believe. Masterpieces are not constructed the way architects design
buildings with calibrations and industrial components.

Report this

By camnai, April 29, 2011 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

‘Goon Squad’ is a song by Elvis Costello on his 1979 album ‘Armed Forces’ (it was
the first song on Side 2).

Report this

By anntares, April 29, 2011 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A note about Moby Dick’s center as obsession. When he was writing the novel,
Melville wrote a letter to a friend that discussed the line between insanity and
creativity. I can’t remember if he used the word obsession or compulsion. Either
one works. He said it is very thin: depends on whether the compulsion/obsession
is in control of you, or you are in control of the compulsion/obsession.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.