My Name is Red

As I finished reading a few chapters of 'My Name is Red' and I began to develop some serious reservations regarding the narrative strategy of the book. Pamuk, in my opinion, has violated the basic rule of 'being' and its representation. Is it philosophically, religiously, ethically, juridically or at any stretch of imagination possible for a single individual to give multiple first person accounts of a phenomena, given that phenomena are really perceived by 'many'. The world exists only because it is perceived by many. By going for multiple first person narratives of a phenomenon/phenomena, Pamuk has monopolized the scenario of interpretation. It amounts to saying that 'I’ am the interpretation(s) with several faces. Every interpretation ends in me or I am able to make sense of all the interpretations of the world.' How stupid. Hereafter there will not be 'History of Systems of thought' but only 'History of Ideas'.

See, for example, the essential similarity between the language of 'the Dog' and the language of 'Esther'. This similarity is made possible at the converging point called author. An author shouldn't be monopolising the scenario of interpretation by arranging, classifying and homogenizing the interpretations with his language. Utmost s/he can do is to make his own interpretation about them.