“Unacknowledged Legislators” Redux: Orhan Pamuk Gets Nobel and Avoids Jail

Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk has won the 2006 Nobel Prize for Literature. Some of you may remember that last year there was a dust-up when Harold Pinter, the British playrwright, won the Prize although many considered it to be Pamuk’s year. (We debated the politics of the issue here on Opinio Juris.) Pinter had made recent headlines for his vocal opposition not only of U.S. foreign policy but also of most things American. Pamuk had also made headlines, but for his taking on his own government by speaking truth to power about the genocide of Armenians and Kurds by Turkish authorities. This was like touching a politcal third rail, as Turkey was in the midst of talks concerning its possible future accession to the EU. So Pamuk didn’t get the Prize in 2005, but he did get charges filed for the crimes of embarrassing the Turkish state and the Turkish Army.

But this is a new year and the charges have been dropped and Pamuk has received a Nobel. Not everyone in Turkey is happy about Pamuk’s prize, however. Here’s what some had to say:

“The prize came as no surprise, we were expecting it,” said Kemal Kerincsiz, a nationalist lawyer who helped bring charges against Pamuk. “This prize was not given because of Pamuk’s books, it was given because of his words, because of his Armenian genocide claims … It was given because he belittled our national values, for his recognition of the genocide.”

“Believe me, the next prize will be given to Elif Shafak,” Kerincsiz said, referring to another Turkish novelist prosecuted, and acquitted, on the same charges as Pamuk. “As a Turkish citizen I am ashamed.”

Prominent Turkish poet Ozdemir Ince agreed.

“If you ask serious literature people, they would place Pamuk at the end of the list,” Ince said. “Turkish literature did not win the Nobel prize, Orhan Pamuk did.”

“Tomorrow, the (international) newspaper headlines will be Orhan Pamuk who accepts the ‘Armenian genocide’ won the Nobel Prize,” he said.

I think this is sour grapes. Pamuk is an amazing writer who’s work is reminiscent in certain ways of Garcia-Marquez’s magical realism or Borges’ fabulism. Following up on our discussion from last year, I don’t like the idea of the Literature Prize being awarded for politcal reasons, but I am not surprised that literature is a political lightening rod. Pinter may have gotten the nod last year over Pamuk because of his anti-Americanism but, as most agreed, Pinter’s body of work is in the realm of a Nobel. I dislike the idea that Pinter may have gotten the award that year because of his politics but I recognize he is a great, and probably Nobel-worthy, writer.

As for Pamuk: a clearly deserving writer has won the Prize. Good for him. I don’t think for a minute he won becuase of his comments on the genocide.

Moreover, as I mentioned last year, I’m a bit uncomfortable with writers being called the “unacknowledged legislators” of our time. I do think that our greatest writers, far from being comfortable, cuddly, affirmations, tend to be voices in the wilderness. Or pains in the ass. They don’t legislate for us, but rather shine a spotlight on things we would rather forget.

If you want to try out some of Pamuk’s writing, I would actually suggest beginning not with one of his novels, but with his memoir, Istanbul. Given the many cultural misunderstandings in today’s world, letting a master writer tell you about his city and his country seems like a pretty good place to start.