The
novel, like other art forms, is an open-ended artistic output which can be
interpreted in varied ways. A month ago, I read Stephen King’s ‘Stephen King on
Writing’ which placed plot at the center of the novel as the main goal that
authors pursue. Last week I finished Orhan Pamuk’s The Naïve and the
Sentimental Novelist where Pamuk has discussed the novel as a more esoteric
form of art (he is, in fact, against it being considered as a craft which is
why he loathes creative writing workshops where the novel is considered as a
craft) where the writer pursues arcane goals like finding the center of the
novel, using descriptions of locations, situations etc as a conduit to convey
various aspects of the main character’s personality, situation, mood and so on.
The
Naïve and Sentimental Novelist is a compilation of lectures delivered by Orhan Pamuk
at Cambridge on various aspects of the novel inspired by EM Forster’s Aspects
of the Novel to which he acknowledges his debt. The book has generous
autobiographical dollops about Pamuk’s coming of age as a reader (of mainly
literary novels) and small bites of how the novel came about as a form of
storytelling woven into the general narrative.
Pamuk
substantiates his arguments by discussing novels - War and Peace, Moby Dick,
Anna Karenina and many more - that have shaped him as a writer. In Anna
Karenina there is a scene where Anna is trying to read a novel in a train
compartment while returning home, but she is not able to concentrate on the
novel thanks to a handsome army officer she met at a party who has kept her
mentally occupied. While she tries to unsuccessfully read the novel, Tolstoy
describes the view outside the window.
Pamuk
observes that the view outside the train conveys the somewhat melancholic mood of
Anna. This is one of the reasons why Pamuk says Anna Karenina is one of the
greatest novels of all times: where everything is an extension of the
protagonist’s personality (or state of mind). Being a visual writer, Tolstoy
handled the situation this way. But Stendhal, for example, would have used the
time, when the character is reading, to describe the compartment. It wouldn’t
have mattered much to Fyodor Dostoyevsky as he wasn’t a visual writer like
Tolstoy. And so on.
Compared
to nineteenth century Russian greats, there are fewer mentions of writers from
the West except a few like Daniel Defoe and Dickens for obvious reasons but also Virginia
Wolf, Henry James etc. E.M Forster recurs several times but not for his novels but his book The Aspects of the Novel.
Pamuk
informs that the novel was born in Europe and was later adopted by writers in
eastern societies, but doesn’t say how and when the adoption happened and which
countries where the first ones to adopt. But you can’t fault him for that
because that’s not what the book is about.
According
to Pamuk, there are two kinds of novelists – naïve and sentimental. Naïve are
those who write without any plan, spontaneously, while sentimental are
reflective writers concerned about the structure of the novel. Similarly, naïve
readers are the ones who read without considering the larger message of a novel
and the reverse applies to sentimental readers. Pamuk says people who received
his lecture often asked Pamuk whether he is a naïve or sentimental novelist and he said he said, “I am both.”