A Book Review: The New Life


After reading the opening sentence of the New Life, “I read a book one day and my whole life was changed,” I wondered whether reading The New Life itself was going to change my life.

Since I first read Orhan Pamuk, he hold a greater value to my heart. As I’m addicted to all branches of post-modern writers; he caught me well. First, he is quite philosophical, and when you reading him you feel like the narrator is talking to you, offering very insightful observations about characters and life in general. This is one reason why reading is often more valuable than watching TV or movie: when reading a good book you get direct psychological explanations, and you get to go inside the heads of the characters. Taken as a whole, I found this novel to be profound, but in unusual ways it’s not a direct novel, but rather one that represents, and let’s one feel, disconnections and various glimpses of perceptions.

It wasn’t a smooth novel, either. It even felt choppy on occasion. But the chapters are short, which fits it’s feel and also gives you time to think about the penetrating through its that Pamuk put across. He strikes means as a craftsman if sorts. He switches timelines deftly and effectively – even when I thought he was crazy to do so, when I thought he gave up the climax of the novel towards its middle, he proved me dead wrong. He knew exactly what he was doing because he’s a master of the craft. I also love the way this novel portrays love. It recognises and represents its beauty while at the same time showing psychologically manipulatable it can be.

You can see so many self references in Pamuk”s work. The importance of our decisions, the lack imp of our decisions. The unavoidable importance of life. The unavoidable lack of importance of life. That’s how this novel feels. It had me at the very first paragraph. Needless to say. This is a heady mix. At every stage, there is an elegiac note to happiness as though all these dances have been gone though, as though all love affairs, even Nietzsche can be wrong, carry within them the seeds of their own endings.

What kept my attention is the way of he’s sprinkling political attitudes into the book which I am immensely interested. The new life, like other of his novel was struggling with cultural, political, religious references which are very relevant Turkey”s ongoing debates..



The very first beginnings

This is what I’ve just found between my uni notes. Even for now, it seems very inspiring to me that I feel needed to share..

Here is my first impressions about liberal thinking during long study
hours.. : )

“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains. We are born free by nature but we are in chains in society in some kind. We are loading with many advantages by leaving the nature but gain more than we lose. Is it possible to have a stable society in which men and women can be free? Thomas Hobbes says NO. The world ruled by scarcity and we must compete for resources in order to survive. Locke and rousseau were more optimistic. Locke declared that reason to be the common rule given by God to mankind. Rousseau believed however, we must find some form of association. In this regard, when united all members each of them; obedience to his own will. And will be free as he was before.

It would seem, therefore, that liberation consider as an englober project bringing all human action under the rule of reason. The chain bind us and ought to be broken. In this respect. Reason will teach us how to break them.”

One must immediately realise how Rousseau-Locke-Hobbes try and shapes the core idea of freedom. Taken as a whole, even Rousseau inspired me a lot more than others in the beg of this process, I would say that I am tend to converge my ideas with Hobbes more now.

Time has passed so quick, and things have differed, however, the seeking of the freedom by human still on the top. Great thinkers can make such theories, however, the things got more pessimistic and Hobbes seems more rational in the long run.