But consider this folks: Many authors have won the Nobel Prize for stirring the conscience of their nation and the world with their writing the way Martin Luther King, Jr. did with his preaching. In fact, these are invariably people who have done more to promote understanding of and respect for the lessons of history, redeeming social values, the struggle for freedom and the pursuit of happpiness, and the intrinsic value of literature as an art form than any politician or, God forbid, celebrity ever could.
Perhaps some of you recall this article, here, in which I heralded the bravery of another Turkish writer, Elif Shafak, who:
…dared to air Turkey’s dirty laundry, including exposing its misogynistic treatment of women and genocidal pogroms against the Armenians.
But it is now my distinct honor and privilege to herald the accomplishment of Shafak’s compatriot, Orhan Pamuk, as the winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Literature. According to the Swedish Academy, he was awarded this year’s prize because:
In the quest for the melancholic soul of his native city, (Pamuk) has discovered new symbols for the clash and interlacing of cultures.
Ironically, as if to imbue it with even greater meaning, at the very time the Academy was announcing this Nobel Prize, the French Parliament was announcing the passage of a new law which would make it as much a crime to deny that the Turks perpetrated genocide against the Armenians as it is to deny that the Germans perpetrated Holocaust against the Jews.
Moreover, it was probably not lost on the Swedes or the French that both Shafak and Pamuk were criminally prosecuted by Turkish authorities for being fearless advocates for freedom of speech in their homeland – by writing about the Armenian genocide. Of course, no one was surprised when the Muslim fundamentalists who called for their prosecution incited riots in the streets yesterday upon learning of Pamuk’s award and the new French law.
(For reasons only Turkish nationalists can understand, admitting the historical fact that Turks massacred Armenians to genocidal proportions during and after World War I remains not only a cardinal sin but also a crime in Turkey.)
But the good news is that Pamuk’s Nobel Prize represents the uncompromising demand the European Union will place on Turkey to recognize and respect universal human rights, including freedom of speech, as a necessary precondition for the membership in the EU it covets.
So, here’s to Orhan Pamuk – literary genius and civil libertarian!
NOTE: Apropos civil liberties, a couple weeks ago, the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress passed a law which makes it illegal for U.S. banks and credit cards companies to facilitate transactions between online gambling operators and their predominantly American customers.
I’ve written a fair amount about this subject as it pertains to the small Caribbean country of Antigua, where online gambling was a thriving industry. So click here for my final word on how this new law will affect Antigua.
Orhan Pamuk, Nobel Prize in Literature
kunefge says
In my opinion the coincidence of the French legislation and the Pamuk winning Nobel was only unfortunate. Because it overshadows his artistic skill and literary achievements. Now with every Pamuk news his political statement is mentioned and most of the people who didn’t read any of his works think that this award is given to him for political reasons. I think this is unfair to Pamuk, because he wishes to be remembered mostly for his works of art.
(One thing: I didn’t get the “inciting riots of Muslim fundamentalists” part. There were just some protests, not anything as riots, also they were not done by any fundamentalists, you should check your source.)
ALH ipinions says
Kunefge
I appreciate your opinion. However, if you think the Nobel committee awarded Pamuk this prize based solely on “his artistic skill and literary achievements”, I’m afraid you’re naïve.
After all, the committee cited his daring exposition of the “symbols for the clash and interlacing of cultures” as his signature achievement. And no where is this clash and intelacing of cultures more pronounced than in Turkey’s struggle to exorcise Islamic dogma, which prohibits free speech for example, from its governing laws – as a precondition to joining the EU. And no Turk has assumed the burden of this (political) struggle – literally and metaphorically – more than Pamuk.
Of course, the riots that erupted in Turkey after the French law making it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide was passed were widely reported. I readily concede, however, that what the BBC or Le Monde decribes as riots, you may consider “just some protests”….
kunefge says
“symbols for the clash and interlacing of cultures” that is, the East and the West issue has been the underlying theme of Turkish literature for 150 years. Pamuk has used this theme adeptly in his works.
In my opinion there are people who have assumed this burden more than Orhan Pamuk, only Pamuk is the most popular one around the world. To claim that he is literally the one to take the most burden would be unfair to other intellectuals who have fought for freedom of speech like Aziz Nesin, Naz?m Hikmet, Ahmet Altan, U?ur Mumcu etc. etc.. Also, Pamuk is not as active in politics as the previous Nobel laureates are (i.e. Harold Pinter or Elfriede Jalinek). In fact he is considered to be one of the least politically involved writers in Turkish literature and the praise to his works is mostly associated to his side of staying out of political debates in his works.
One more thing: It is not the Islamic dogma that prohibits the freedom of speech in Turkey, it is the ultra-nationalists. Ironically in Turkey, Islamists are the ones that also struggle for democracy and freedom of speech because the “extreme secularists” backed by the intervenionist sect in the army butt in with the lifestyles of Islamists (e.g the headscarf issue). Many Islamist writers have been tried under the notorious article 301. My point is that Turkey’s problems are different than that of other Muslim populated countries.
ALH ipinions says
It occurs to me that you are well-informed about Turkey’s literati and politics. Therefore, I welcome and appreciate your insights.
Nonetheless, I defer to the Nobel committee’s wisdom in choosing Pamuk above all of the other worthy Turkish intellectuals you cite. Because I am convinced that their understanding of the myriad factors in Turkey that redounded to his favor is as good, if not better, than yours or mine. Indeed, your reference to the committee’s enlightened choice of the political gadfly Harold Pinter and the social critic Elfriede Jelinek proves the point.
However, I accept your contention that the cog in the wheel of Turkey’s progress are Ultra-nationalists, not radical Islamists. Although I am sure you can appreciate that – from the jaundiced eye of a western libertarian – this seems a difference without much distinction.