Book Review: The Museum of Innocence by Orhan Pamuk (200 hits)
Museum of Innocence
Orhan Pamuk
Finished reading the book today, November 20, 2009.
The characters are not as disconnected from reality as in his previous novels. However the theme of melancholy continues. The reader also gets the feeling of being inside a dream sequence. As to be expected Pamuk's theme of "Huzun" continues in this novel much like the others.
This Orhan Pamuk's masterpiece! This novel is the best out of all the books he has written except, his memoirs, Istanbul. The most easy to understand. The characters connect and make sense something Pamuk has had difficulty in achieving in his previous novels. It does help to have read some of Pamuk's previous novels as he makes reference to them in this book. With each successive novel Pamuk is getting closer to mastering the psychological, dramatic techniques employed by Fyodor Dostoevsky, though in my opinion no one can hold a candle to the true Master. As long as Pamuk does not venture into too many levels or sublevels which was his mistake in previous novels he does well.
Each chapter is a little vignette; well written and well phrased taking the reader deeper into the loneliness, despair and isolation that slowly takes over Kemal Bey's life. There is a beautiful use of language that is natural not stilted or pompous. Pamuk succeeds in transporting the reader into Kemal's mind, body and soul and its subsequent journey.
As long as the novel is in the voice of the protagonist Kemal Bey it retains a retrospect quality. Kemals obsession with Fusun is more like worshipping a Goddess he can never really possess, though he tries. The objects he steals from the Keskin household, objects Fusun has touched imbued with what Kemal feels is an inner life, transference of the soul embodies his adoration of Fusun which quickly becomes a fixation. As with any man who attempts to objectify, possess or place a woman on a pedestal I find the character of Kemal Bey to be very self-centered, oblivious to the feelings or dilemmas of his friends and loved ones. I have no pity for him.
One aspect of the book I did not like was that Pamuk inserts himself into the book much like Hitchcock did in his films. However rather than being unobtrusive Pamuks presence as a narrator who comes to the forefront was for me an interference best left undone. I believe he only becomes a character at the end to tie up loose ends. It is almost like Pamuk was not sure how to end the story. I think Pamuk could have used another literary device to end the book. The ending was expected as loyal Pamuk readers know his stories never really have happy endings.
At the risk of revealing too much of the story I will let those readers interested delve into the world of Kemal and Fusun themselves and come away with their own interpretations.
