ReadLiterature.Com
Memed - Part IV
Posted by Steven on 13/3/2006, 9:32:42
Lale: In roughly what span of years would you say the events of the novel take place? In what I've read so far, I haven't noticed any mention of events or technology that would help place it.
@
Posted by Lale on 13/3/2006, 12:07:16
: Lale: In roughly what span of years would you say the
: events of the novel take place? In what I've read so
: far, I haven't noticed any mention of events or technology that would help place it.
I was under the impression that the story was taking place in the early 30s. (Still the early years of the Republic and a few years after the "hat" reform, which was in 1926.) However, I just searched the internet and I was surprised to find out that the story was in fact taking place in years leading to 1950 when Ismet (Pasha) Inönü's government was defeated by Demokratik Parti which reversed the Turkish ezan reform and everything started to deviate from Ataturk's principles.
In a later chapter a reference to Ismet Inönü (Atatürk's right-hand man, first Prime Minister and, after Ataturk's death, second president) is made ("I'll write to Ankara, I'll write to Ismet Pasha") which means his party was still in power, which means the date was before 1950.
Lale
@
Correction - Time frame 1930s - Posted by Lale on 18/3/2006, 9:22:27
: I was under the impression that the story was taking
: place in the early 30s. (Still the early years of the
: Republic and a few years after the "hat" reform, which was in 1926.)
My instincts were on the right track. The book indeed takes place in the early 30s. While Atatürk is still alive. He died in 1938.
My husband is reading the sequel. In the sequel one of the characters we meet in the first book makes a reference to Ataturk.
Lale
@
Posted by Steven on 20/3/2006, 12:57:06
Yes, the 1930s makes much more sense. I was really surprised when the police were transporting the two prisoners from one town to another on foot. Surely they at least would have had cars by the 1950s. Even in the 1930s this seems a bit unusual. The only mention of a car in the book that I noticed was that the soles of Memed's shoes were made from used car tires. I used to have a pair like that.
@
Posted by Lale on 20/3/2006, 13:04:38
: Yes, the 1930s makes much more sense.
Most definitely. I always thought that it was 30s but I was misled by some comments on the net. Since the book is "written" in early 50s, some people must have thought that it was also taking place at that time.
: I was really surprised when the police were transporting the two
: prisoners from one town to another on foot. Surely
: they at least would have had cars by the 1950s. Even
: in the 1930s this seems a bit unusual.
It is normal in 30s. It is a remote and poor area, so I thought that was plausible.
: the soles of Memed's shoes were made from used car tires. I used to have a pair like that.
No. Really? You couldn't have. But little Frank in "Angela's Ashes" has a pair of those (designed by his father), he hates them so much, he prefers to go barefoot.
Lale
@
Posted by Steven on 22/3/2006, 13:19:26
: the soles of Memed's shoes were made from used car tires. I used to have a pair like that.
:
: No. Really? You couldn't have.
Yes, they were sandals I bought in Mexico about 25 years ago to wear on the beach.
@
Posted by Steven on 22/3/2006, 13:05:47
I finished Memed over the weekend. The last few chapters moved along very quickly for me. The weather cooperated as well - we got 13 inches of rain in two days, so there wasn't much to do but read.
It was a very interesting book, and I look forward to discussing it. I certainly don't mind extending the discussion to overlap the reading of the next book.
Steven
@
Posted by Lale on 22/3/2006, 22:21:11
I finished it and then I read the beginning of the sequel. (I will talk about the sequel when we start discussing the book.)
Lale
@
Book cover of a German rendition: Memed, Mein Falke
And Return of Memed il Falco, in Italian:
@
Nomads and Turkomans - Posted by Steven on 15/3/2006, 9:41:13
Lale, would this...
http://www.allaboutturkey.com/nomad.htm
be a description of the nomads like Kerimoghlu and his people?
I'm also confused by the use of the word "Turkomans" in Chapter 16. From what I can find on the web, the word is used in a broad sense to mean all Turkish-speaking peoples, which would include both Memed's people and the Ottomans.
In the narrow sense, Turkomans (or Türkmen) refers to a group living in Central Asia and northern Iraq, but not in Turkey. However the reminiscences of Big Ismail in Chapter 16 make it sound like the Turkomans are a group in southern Turkey that is distinct from the Ottomans.
My assumption is that Memed's people are ethnic Turks just like the Ottomans, but from different tribes that were conquered by the Ottomans. Is this correct?
Steven
@
Posted by Lale on 15/3/2006, 20:09:39
: http://www.allaboutturkey.com/nomad.htm
:
: be a description of the nomads like Kerimoghlu and his people?
Yes, exactly. They are Yörüks.
: I'm also confused by the use of the word "Turkomans" in Chapter 16.
Yes, it is indeed very very confusing. I don't know all about it myself either. I know that Turkmens are a seperate people, like Kurds.
: In the narrow sense, Turkomans (or Turkmen) refers to
: a group living in Central Asia and northern Iraq, but not in Turkey.
Location might vary. We definitely have Turkmens in Turkey today. There is a famous song about their beautiful daughters. So, Central Asia, Northern Iraq plus Turkey plus other places. (They are the people of today's Turkmenistan.)
: However the reminiscences of Big Ismail in Chapter 16 make it sound like the Turkomans are a
: group in southern Turkey that is distinct from the Ottomans.
Yes, Turkmens are a distinct people. So are Kurds. But who are Ottomans is the real question (originally from Seljuk Turks). Or what is Turkish, who is Turkish?
It was all very mixed up and there were quite a few races, religions ... It is hard to define Turkish.
I know I am Turkish and I know I am not Turkmen and I am not Kurd (Yasar Kemal is Kurdish) but beyond that I don't know much.
Some lucky Turkish people know who they are (with more certainty) because their grandparents have told them what they have learned from their grandparents. In my case, there wasn't much root-searching or story telling in our family. So, all I know that my mother's mother was Cherkez (or Circassian, see below.)
I think anyone who did not belong to any major group such as Turkmen, Kurd, Armenian etc. was supposed to be Turkish.
The Ottoman Empire was quite mixed. Ottomans came from Seljuk Turks who came from Central Asia. But with all the conquering and invading and expanding ...
Then, when the Ottoman Empire became "the sick man of Europe", and when Italy, France, England, Russia and Greece started to invade and "partager" the sick man's land, Ataturk organized the people to fight the war of Indepence. When they won, he founded the Republic and he said "How happy he who says 'I am Turkish'". This meant that whoever said she was Turkish, was Turkish. Everyone became Turkish.
Today, with the glory of the victory fading, people started to think about their origins. But, I don't know how far back we can go, because before Ataturk, there were no last names. How and where are you going to search? And if you come from a family who isn't interested in its own history (like mine), then you have to make more research than a Ph. D. student to find out who you really are.
There is a suggestion amongst some Turkish people these days: Instead of saying "we are Turkish" maybe we should say "we are Turkiyeli" (coming from Turkey). It might be a solution.
So, I guess the short answer to your question would be "I don't really know".
Lale
@
Circassia
CIRCASSIA [Circassia] , historic region, encompassing roughly the area between the Black Sea, the Kuban River, and the Caucasus, now largely the Krasnodar Territory of SE European Russia. The Circassians are a Muslim people, whose Russian name is Cherkess and whose native name is Adygey. They are now officially classified as three peoples: the Kabarda, in the Kabardino-Balkar Republic; the Circassians or Cherkess, in the Karachay-Cherkess Republic; and the Adygey, in the Adygey Republic. The term Circassian has sometimes been incorrectly applied to all the mountain peoples of the N Caucasus. Known in antiquity, they inhabited the western side of the Caucasus and the Crimea and were known to the Greeks as the Zyukhoy. They were Christianized in the 6th cent. AD but adopted Islam in the 17th cent. after coming under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. In 1829 the Ottoman Turks were forced to cede Circassia to Russia. At this time the Circassians occupied almost the entire area between the main Caucasian range, the Kuban River, and the Black Sea. In the many Russo-Turkish wars in the first half of the 19th cent., the Circassians bitterly fought the Russians. After the Russian conquest of the area, about 400,000 Circassians migrated to Turkey (1861-64). Circassian women were reputed to be great beauties, and many were sold into slavery in Turkey. There are today large Circassian groups in Turkey, Syria, and Jordan.
@
Posted by Brian on 9/4/2006, 22:12:59
I read the original Turkish version of "Mehmet My Hawk" many years ago. [ . . . ]
[ . . . ] I also revisited the book this time in English translation, which gave me an opportunity to reflect upon it with a new perspective.
Here is the summary of my impressions. I have a hard time appreciating "Mehmet My Hawk," because I cannot relate to anyone in the book. I am from Western Turkey from an upper-middle class family. With the exception of spending some time in the capital Ankara, I have never been outside the westernmost parts of Turkey. When I go back to visit I still stick to the same areas. I have never met or spoken to anyone who is like Mehmet or the other characters in the book, and I have never seen villages like the ones described in the book. Every day, I read books about places I have never visited or time periods I have never lived in without any problems, so I do not know why it should be an issue with "Mehmet My Hawk" but it is.
Also Yasar Kemal is a left-leaning writer (I am not), and he seems to revel in the suffering of the oppressed peasants and the injustices inflicted upon them. After a while I get bored reading the same plot line over and over. Because I do not agree with the writer politically, it makes it difficult for me to read the book. I end up forcing myself, and the events seem artificial and exaggerated. My reaction is not reserved only to Turkish authors. Recently I started reading "No One Writes to the Colonel" by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, which is a nice collection of short stories. I made it through the first story, which is very well written, but could not read one more story about the suffering South American peasants. (I am curious if anyone else shares my recently developed intolerance to depressing stories about the suffering poor.)
[ . . . ]
"Memed" is about the poor peasants who get oppressed by feudal landlords. There is a love story that gets interrupted violently (again by the big-bad-wolf the feudal landlord), which is bound to make you cry. There is much suffering, suspense, and plot reversals. In the end, the underdog hero overcomes the obstacles and revenges his sufferings or he dies a noble death as a martyr for the cause. I will not tell which but it really does not make much difference. It would be a good book with either ending. Or even with an obscure inconclusive ending. If I were the author, I would kill the underdog hero and leave the reader angry about the injustice. I think it is more dramatic and more effective that way. You can read the book to see if Kemal kills the hero, lets him avenge the sufferings of his loved ones, or he ends the book inconclusively.
@
Posted by Steven on 10/4/2006, 10:14:18
Thank you, Brian, for sharing your thoughts on Kemal and Pamuk. Not being as sensitive to the Turkish political issues, I am less inclined to compare the two. To me they are from different generations, writing about different subjects in different styles. Kemal, especially, could just as easily have been writing about Russian, Chinese or Colombian peasants. I enjoyed reading both authors, but would be more inclined to read further in Pamuk's work simply because Kemal's novels, as you noted, are more repetitious of theme.
Coming from a rural background and having been exposed to poverty, if not personally impoverished, I can relate more closely to Memed and his community. I was raised on stories of Jesse James, who is probably the closest figure in American folklore to ince Memed. My father proudly claimed that my grandfather (who died before I was born) had once met Jesse and witnessed a demonstration of his prowess with a pistol. (For those not familiar with the legend, Jesse James was an ex-Confederate soldier who, after the American Civil War, turned outlaw to rob from the rich Yankee bankers to support the poor Southern farmers. In reality, there was much more robbing than there was supporting.) I suppose every culture has among its folk heroes a Memed, a Jesse James, or a Robin Hood.
The American authors with whom I would compare Kemal are Hemingway (for style and plot) and Steinbeck (for theme). I wonder if he was exposed to their work?
Aside from its social theme, Memed, My Hawk is principally about obsession and revenge. Notice how the love affair between Memed and Hatche becomes secondary to his desire to take revenge upon Abdi Agha. Memed learns that he can go on without Hatche, but he cannot live without exacting his vengeance.
Hatche herself is one of many characters in the novel who have the right impulses, but lack the strength or courage to carry on the struggle for justice without the assistance of a person like Memed who is capable of transcending personal and cultural barriers. But Memed is incapable of enjoying the fruits of his efforts – he is like a machine that, once turned on, cannot be turned off. Many revolutionaries are like that - the fight becomes more important to them than what they are fighting for.
@
Posted by Lale on 10/4/2006, 10:47:16
: The American authors with whom I would compare Kemal
: are Hemingway (for style and plot) and Steinbeck (for
: theme). I wonder if he was exposed to their work?
In the introduction, he says:
"The Translation Office published a volume of Chekhov's short stories that greatly impressed me. ... In those days, I also discovered and admired Stendhal's The Red and the Black"
He continues to mention Homer's Iliad, Dostoevsky's The Idiot and Cervantes' Don Quixote.
He finishes his introduction with:
"If I had not discovered modern literature, I would have become a bard, a singer of epic poems. I was on the verge, but then I started elementary school in a village near mine. I went on to read the classics of Russian, French, and British literature, as well as of the East and West, and so it was that I came to have masters such as Stendhal, Chekhov, and Charlie Chaplin."
: Aside from its social theme, Memed, My Hawk is principally about obsession and revenge. Notice how
: the love affair between Memed and Hatche becomes secondary to his desire to take revenge upon Abdi
: Agha. Memed learns that he can go on without Hatche, but he cannot live without exacting his vengeance.
Yes, very well put. And also, when you cannot trust the enforcers of the law, when the police and almost every authority is corrupt and can be bought by roasting a lamb, there doesn't seem to be any other solution than to take the matters in your own hands. Throughout the book, everyone, any major or minor character, suggests murder for every problem. It seems like you just have to go and kill the oppressor because there isn't any other way of getting rid of him. However, I will let Suat speak on this, Memed's attitude towards this system changes in the sequel.
My question is why didn't it occur to the peasants to burn the thistles? If you can burn the thistles and not permanently damage the soil, then why all those years, noone has thought of it. Was Memed the smartest guy in that area?
I asked this question to Suat and he had a very interesting answer; again, I will let him speak for himself.
Lale
@
Posted by Lale on 10/4/2006, 11:09:45
Why were the peasants always so ready to switch sides? They never really could sustain any loyalty. In the sequel, they totally turn against Memed.
What do you guys think? Why did noone think of burning the thistles if it was that easy to get rid of such a major problem and why are the villagers so quick to change sides?
Lale
@
Posted by Steven on 10/4/2006, 11:53:17
: In the meantime, what do you guys think? Why did
: noone think of burning the thistles if it was that
: easy to get rid of such a major problem and why are
: the villagers so quick to change sides?
I was puzzled about the burning of the thistles as well. Abdi Agha might have objected for two reasons: (1) It did damage that the villagers didn't understand or care about, or (2) it was a way of asserting his authority by forcing them to do it the hard way. (There's also possibility (3), that this has nothing to do with farming and thistles and is just symbolic of the "flames of revolution.")
In my youth, farmers in our area routinely burned their fields every year or two to remove grass stubble. This was very risky (we almost lost our house once) and unwise in the long term due to erosion. It also can damage fences and animals. But it is generally beneficial for crops. (We'll come across burning fields again in The Conservationist.)
The changing of sides just seemed to me to be a case of going with the apparent winner out of fear of retribution.
@
Posted by Brian on 11/4/2006, 4:09:18
Why were the peasants always so ready to switch sides?
My guess is their survival instinct. Every man for himself. Often people do not have enough courage to join forces when faced by a strong adversary-- even when they could be much stronger than the adversary if they joined forces.
This must be a strange socio-psychological phenomenon. I even remember reading about instances during the Second World War where a few guards would be in charge of thousands of prisoners on the way to concentration camps or at concentration camps where the prisoners could overtake the guards if they tried (after perhaps a few hundred prisoners died). Why didn't they try to overpower the guards? Is it because no one wanted to be one of the hundred who would die before the guards killed? Or were the prisoners too beaten down spiritually and psychologically to act? Are the oppressed peasants in "Mehmet My Hawk" behaving like the victims in concentration camps?
This starts from childhood. There is always a bully who beats up the other kinds and takes their lunch money. No matter how much bigger and stronger than the rest of the kids he may be, he would not have a prayer of a chance if ten kids got together and jumped on him. They could teach him a lesson if they want to, but it never happens. Instead they choose to kiss the bully's a** and try to ally themselves with him hoping that he will beat up on the other kids instead. This continues on in adult life as well--like the peasants in the book.
I think it is because the survival instinct is so strong that it overpowers logic.
@
Posted by Suat on 14/4/2006, 13:40:00
, being a leftist, no doubt knew about Marx & Engels' thinking on peasants; that as a class they could not be trusted to lead a revolution or even be a part of it.
Peasant question was one of importance for Marxism since its inception: simply put, peasantry is a class of its own and what is to be done with them?
Their conclusion, in short, was that peasantry was too heterogeneous, in fact, it could be divided into at least three parts: big land owners, smallholding peasants and peasant without land (who work for money and to feed themselves). The latter group could be won to proletariat and the first group is clearly at the side of bourgeoisie, but the biggest majority of the peasants, smallholding ones, could sway either way depending on their individualistic interests and current conditions. Due to this dualistic nature of majority of peasants, they could not be deemed trustworthy for the revolutions and they would switch sides at any given opportunity.
This is exactly what happened to Kemal's peasants at the beginning of the second book. Remember how they were all on Memed's side, congratulating him and treating him as their hero; it all changed at the beginning of the second book. Another agha came, the cousin of Abdi agha, who turned out to be even a more merciless oppressor than his predecessor and all the peasants started to blame Memed for their troubles and even said Abdi agha had been so nice, this Memed had killed him for no good reason and so on.
Peasants have been living in the same conditions, in a very slow paste life for so many years (even centuries) that it would be almost impossible for them to produce any original thought. They do as they saw from their parents, ancestors. In order to break this chain, infinite loop, one needs to leave this way of living for some time. That is why I think the peasants did not consider burning the thistles themselves, before Memed told them.
Suat.
@
Posted by Brian on 12/4/2006, 22:15:57
Steven;
You said:
"Memed, My Hawk is principally about obsession and revenge. Notice how the love affair between Memed and Hatche becomes secondary to his desire to take revenge upon Abdi Agha. Memed learns that he can go on without Hatche, but he cannot live without exacting his vengeance."
This is a wonderful observation.
The culture of that region (more Iranian, Kurdish and Arabic than Turkish) puts tremendous emphasis on the need to take revenge. The honor of a family and its men depend on their ability to take revenge for any injustice, disrespect, or dishonor an outsider brings to the family. They are also required to extract severe punishment from the family members who dishonor the family. So the region is rife with blood feuds between families and honor killings within families.
I cannot decide if Mehmet is obsessed with revenge because of an internal driven need or personality trait or because he has no other choice as a result of his upbringing. In other words is it Mehmet who is obsessed with revenge or the society he lives in and the culture he comes from?
@
Overall - Posted by Lale on 13/4/2006, 13:32:55
I did find portions of the book quite tedious and repetitive also, especially the parts that took place on the mountains, the fights and the descriptions at the beginning of every chapter (it was first published as a weekly series in the newspaper Republic (Cumhuriyet)). The quarrels between Sergeant Rejep and Jabbar were very tiresome. When Sergeant Rejep was fatally wounded he just wouldn't die quickly enough.
It is definitely an old-fashioned style, which is to be expected, as is the case with all the serialized Dickens novels. It is a saga, the idea is "the longer the better".
You have to understand that some of their conversations are not that ridiculous in Turkish, in their own vernacular. The translation hasn't captured their peasant talk at all. Initially, I didn't have the Turkish version and I translated some of the words to Turkish in my mind. For instance "amca" for "uncle". Later on my husband brough the original from Turkey and I was surprised to see how local their speech was. The translation gave no hint of that. "Uncle" was not "amca" as it would have been where I grew up, but it was "emmi", a word to be heard only in small villages.
In one case, in the original version, Memed says to Hatche, "Damn you woman!", this is completely missing in the translation. Translator has decided to leave this out. That particular dialogue (when Iraz and Memed are trying to convince Hatche to go down to the village) is one sentence short in the English version. Maybe because the Turkish audience would, and the foreign readers would not, understand that this was not a betrayal of affection on Memed's part but just a frustrated exclaimation a man is allowed to say to his wife in those parts of the world?
During fights, those who get hit say "I am wounded" as they fall down or even as they are dying. In the Turkish version they actually say "ahh yandim" which is just a cry of someone in pain. In English it sounds ridiculous but in Turkish it is natural.
Lale
@
Posted by Suat on 14/4/2006, 12:22:40
I read the two books of ince Memed in four days, while I was in Turkey visiting my ailing father in the hospital.
There is no doubt that Yasar Kemal is a great story teller. He is in fact the one who started this genre (writing about peasants and their daily struggles against nature, governing forces and also against each other), in Turkey.
ince Memet is the first novel of this kind, which is a story of a simple peasant boy who is forced to become an "eskiya" to defend his honor and the ones who are dearest to his heart. The story is told in a very fluent and simple way using the dialect of local peasants, except the repetitive and elaborately descriptive pastoral parts that are describing the beauty of Cukurova and Toros mountains. I would have found these writings beautiful if they weren't repeated at the beginning of each section; after reading a number of sections, I could hardly wait those descriptions of the nature to end to get on with the story. ince Memed is written as daily, newspaper installments, and I believe that it is the reason for those introductory writings in each section.
ince Memed is a captivating story and once you start it you want to finish it without dropping the book once (of course, I am talking about the Turkish original. The one Lale read, which was a rather new translation, would not have given me same pleasure and feelings based on few pages I read). However, is it great literature? Does it compare to the books of one of the greatest story tellers of our time, Gabriel Garcia Marquez? I don't think so. Neither in ince Memed (I & II) nor in any other books I read from Yasar Kemal, I found great literature. {Who am I to criticize great Yasar Kemal, but it is my humble opinion?}
My friend Brian compared Yasar Kemal and Orhan Pamuk. I see only one similarity between the two, which is that they were both supported by strong lobbies to get their names mentioned in Nobel Literary circles as the candidate for Nobel price. Similarity ends there. Yasar Kemal was promoted by those who are close to him, who loved him, Orhan Pamuk is a self-promoter. Yasar Kemal is a real intellectual and is (was) a leftist, where in Turkey, all the leftist intellectuals suffered a lot since the foundation of Republic; they were prosecuted, jailed and forced to live very difficult lives. Orhan Pamuk lives a very comfortable life in Istanbul thanks to his inherited wealth. He just put a farce, to get his name mentioned in media outside Turkey to increase his chances of winning the Nobel literary award. After all, have you seen a Nobel Laureate from the third world country who hasn't been prosecuted by the local governments? He had to have this stint in the court, in his resume, in order to be taken seriously by the Nobel judges and improve his image outside Turkey. This theatrics were so obvious, I don't think anybody who is thinking clearly was fooled by that.
Back to ince Memed, I would give it 2.5 stars and recommend it to Turkish-reading audience, unless a better translation emerges.
Suat.
@
Posted by Ladypurple on 17/4/2006, 9:12:51
I was interested in your comments, Suat. It is unfortunate that the English translation does not get good marks with you. I can see the problem of telling the story without the colloquial flair and language. It takes a lot away from the atmosphere.
I haven't gotten far enough into the story to get bored with repitition but I take yours and Lale's word for it. The style, though, did remind me of many Russian novels I read about the peasantry there. Your comment about Kemal's Marxist view about peasants is good, exactly what was said, and rightly so, about the Russian peasants. Even these days the majority of them live the same life that they had decades ago...
So far, I quite like Memed and would probably tend to give it more like 3.5 stars, but that might change once I have finished it.
You know my views on Pamuk, so I will leave comments out.
Cheers
Friederike
@
Memed and the Burned Village - Posted by Steven on 21/4/2006, 10:18:42
If we can return to Memed My Hawk for a bit... what do you think about the episode where Memed and his companions accidentally burn the village? Though it was presented in a comical vein, it put Memed in a bad light at first - as though his obsession for revenge was turning him against the very people he was supposedly trying to help. He could have put down his rifle and helped put out the fire, but he didn't.
On the other hand, it worked in the long term to his advantage by enhancing his reputation. It also showed that Memed would let neither this incident nor the death of his friends weaken his resolve.
So is Kemal saying something like "the fire of revolution that burns the thistles may also burn a few villages, but we shouldn't let this necessary sacrifice deter us in the battle against oppression"?
Or is Kemal saying "obsessive hatred, no matter how justified, will only do harm to you and the ones you love"?
Steven
@
Posted by Lale on 21/4/2006, 10:41:28
I don't have an answer one way or the other, but I did think that that whole episode was taken very lightly by Memed and his groupies. The tracer guy, Lame Ali, he even said something like "Don't worry, those houses weren't worth much anyway, they can just build them again." They either made light of it or they didn't fret too much. I thought that was wrong. They didn't even bother to clean their names, they didn't explain that it was a mistake or that they felt sorry. The houses might have been just made out of mud and dried cow dung but still they were the villagers homes and they contained beds and blankets and whatever meager possessions they might have had. It bothered me that the supposed "good guys" (even though they are bandits) didn't feel regret enough and didn't offer any kind of compensation, or even an apology.
Lale
@
What do you think about this book?
Write a review and give your opinion and analysis!
If you would like to join our reading group just come to Talk Literature and introduce yourself.
If this web site has been useful to you and if you would like to contribute to its maintenance then please buy your books through the links provided here. Thank you for helping keep ReadLiterature.Com alive.
Works from Turkish Literature translated by Talat Halman
@
Memed in Spanish:
Memed el Flaco, un muchacho esmirriado y en apariencia débil, abandona su aldea y el campo donde trabaja, harto de las humillaciones y castigos a que le somete su patrón: un agá sin escrúpulos y sediento de poder. Atrás deja a su madre y a la joven a quien ama, pero también un destino impregnado de resignación y de silencio ante las injusticias. Para apaciguar el rencor que lo corroe y para vengar, aunque sea con sangre, los ultrajes que tanto él como sus iguales han recibido, Memed se ve obligado a convertirse en bandolero y refugiarse en el monte.
@
Memed in Portuguese:
Memed é ainda um menino quando se apercebe da tirania e das arbitrariedades a que o seu povo está sujeito. Os anos passam, e à medida que Memed cresce, cresce dentro dele a raiva e a revolta por aqueles que maltratam e subjugam a sua aldeia natal, algures na Turquia. Deixando a mãe e o seu outro grande amor, refugia-se nas montanhas e torna-se no rebelde, no bom bandido, no legendário fora-da-lei que dedica a sua vida a combater a implacável opressão do insaciável Ali Safa Bey. Com a cumplicidade do povo, os actos de rebelião multiplicam-se, a resistência consolida-se, e Memed, tornado entretanto um mito, vai conseguindo vitória sobre vitória. Romance de aventuras, romance realista, epopeia lírica, narrativa que nos traz inevitavelmente à memória ecos das Mil e Uma Noites... Memed, Meu Falcão é, acima de tudo, um belíssimo texto do qual apetece dizer: obrigatório ler!
@ The End @