being brown

The Gaze

The Gaze

I picked up The Gaze after listening to a speech by the author on TED talks. I usually give a   book 50-100 pages to draw me in. And the first couple of chapters were bleak. I didn’t quite understand what was happening and where the plot was headed, mostly because I was busy deciphering a rather confusing narrative. But instead of putting me off, it challenged me to stay on as if to say, ‘see if you can make sense of me’. And I was equal to the task. I decided to let go of the plot- one of the reasons I was getting bogged down was because I was trying to tie it up with the back cover blurb- so I let go of what I had read there. And I just focused on deciphering the narrative. Which was the best thing I could have done. Shafak has a delicious narrative style that sometimes makes you want to re-read sentences/ phrases and sometimes read them aloud (making everybody around you think you are slightly cuckoo). She effortlessly goes back and forth in time and space and has us surrounded not only by people who are stared at but also the quintessential voyeurs i.e. all the rest of us, both men and women.

And it is in this circumstance, when the reader is surrounded by all these fantastic –cum-terrible-cum-wonderful creatures and voyeurs, that she introduces the Dictionary of Gazes. And who better to obsess over it than B-C, the dwarf. The words that go into the Dictionary of Gazes now appear intermittently throughout the novel.

So, in short, I loved reading this novel. And here’s why. The narrator of the story is nameless. This is a brilliant way of telling you that this character is a ‘nobody’. When you name something, you give it that much more importance. In this case, the idea communicated that the character had a really low self-esteem not least because she was obese. The only other place that I have come across the use of the nameless narrator is Ghosh’ s The Shadow Lines.

There are a couple of chapters that go to 18th century Siberia and 17th century France. Shafak is describing the origins of two spectacles that form part of an exhibition of spectacles in 19th century Turkey. Before delving into these background stories she introduces a caveat in the previous chapter suggesting that the reader can skip the following chapter completely if she so wished. I didn’t. Personally, I loved both chapters because it gave a background to something I wasn’t quite comprehending. But more importantly, both of them was talking about some violation that had taken place that had led to the creation of these spectacles. But I also think that her suggestion was interesting. Towards the end she says there are many ways of telling a story and repeats the stories without the key violation. There is no spectacle that is created, rendering both stories useless. One is left wondering if the reader could really have left out those two chapters in her reading. I will never know.

Finally, her language is full of imagery. I also found some ( not too much) similarities with ‘magical realism’. Both of these made the reading so much more engaging. Sometimes imagery is easy to get but this kind of imagery was challenging, and so there was a continuous dialogue with the reader. Her language was also whimsical at times. This was one of the things that took time getting used to. But in the end, it was also one of the things that made the reading challenging and interesting.

A final caveat- this is a translation from the Turkish original. I am not sure how much of the ‘challenging’ aspects of the language of the book comes from it being Turkish and how much from it being an inefficient translation ( if it is). Perhaps someone who knows both languages can tell. But I do wonder how much was lost in translation.

Advertisements

4 responses

  1. Maya Sharma Sriram

    Loved the review, chum. It changed the way I look at books.

    January 26, 2012 at 6:25 am

  2. sumanyav

    I am glad you liked it, Aunty. And coming from you, the second statement means a lot.

    January 26, 2012 at 11:14 am

  3. Two thoughts…

    On the translation – my Turkish is terrible, but my husband always talks about the translations of Orhan Pamuk’s books (especially My Name Is Red) and says that while the English translations do capture some of what he does – it pales in comparison to the language play in the Turkish versions…so??? I don’t know if Dr. Safak uses the same translator – but this could be part of the problem you note.

    On magical realism – you might be interested in checking out Marjorie Agosin’s Secret Weavers – I adore adore adore this genre and of course, as you may well have guessed, this plays into the way that I weave in my shadow puppets into my own blog.

    I am now heading over to meet Pandy Chuckleworth to see if magical realism is anywhere to be found – either way – can’t wait to see.

    Liz

    February 11, 2012 at 11:37 am

  4. sumanyav

    Oh when I read My Name is Red, I did feel like I was missing out on something in the translation. I suspect, Turkish is a lot like Urdu and Hindi with a lot of use of Imagery etc. So i wouldn’t be surprised. Just shows you how many more languages we should learn! Oh and i love magical realism too! though I have read only Marquez from that genre. Will be sure to try Agosin.

    February 12, 2012 at 8:47 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s