Comments on: Insulting Turkishness

By: canadianobserver

canadianobserver — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:45:13 +0000

I think you need remedial instruction on reading for plot and narrative in expository essays. I am sure they have good adult education where you live. Alternatively, if formal structured education is not your thing perhaps a local bookstore has a less informal reading group you could join.

By: Peter Byrne

Peter Byrne — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:38:34 +0000

We shouldn’t talk about the author apart from his books. That’s what the Unrepentent Marxist did in his celebrity sighting starting this exchange that has now come full circle and can be ended. You might use the time saved to catch up on your reading.

By: canadianobserver

canadianobserver — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:41:50 +0000

Why would we want to talk about the author? Is it not his work that matters?

By: Peter Byrne

Peter Byrne — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 10:02:47 +0000

The address of the nearest bookshop where you could find Pamuk’s books. You could then read them and be in a position to talk about the author.

By: canadianobserver

canadianobserver — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 07:04:55 +0000

As you have it, only his writing matters why would I ask my parrot about Pamuk?

By: Peter Byrne

Peter Byrne — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 07:21:59 +0000

I note from your vocabulary that, despite “phenomena” and “naturalize”, you are a down-to-earth and direct person. So listen. You can teach your parrot to say Orhan Pamuk and Nobel Prize. But you can’t then go to your parrot to learn about Orhan Pamuk.

By: canadianobserver

canadianobserver — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:55:43 +0000

Was the review about why Pamuk was not worth reading or about the context in which the prize was given? Everyone knows the Nobels are given out with a heavy dose of consensus building in mind, no? To be sure your talents as a writer must be good but that is surely not the only criteria. I take it that you think his books are nonetheless worth reading. So just say that and drop the either or bullshit.

Or are you trying to naturalize and thereby de-politicize genius? Talk about simplistic daydreams!

By: Peter Byrne

Peter Byrne — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:47:20 +0000

Thanks. Now I’ve got the gen. The books a man writes to make personal sense out of the world around him are mere epiphenomena. Why wrestle with them? Any tenured revolutionary, who hasn’t read them either, will give you the historical reason why the books can’t be any good: They’re not easy to put to work furthering his particular simplistic daydream.

By: canadianobserver

canadianobserver — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 10:07:08 +0000

To be radical means to get to the root of things. Pamuk and his nobel are not phenomena in themselves they to have a root cause.

By: Peter Byrne

Peter Byrne — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:15:11 +0000

The Unrepentent Marxist’s strength, or weakness, is that he usually points out root causes. But in the case of Orhan Pamuk he remains as superficial as any official wire service. Pamuk is the Turk who was brought to court at home for a couple of sentences uttered to a Swiss journalist. Period. That’s little more than celebrity chat. Serious talk about a writer can only be about his books.