As I am listening to an interview
Charlie Rose had with Orhan Pamuk back in 2007, I now understand why
this writer has such appeal for me: he was a visual artist before he
became a novelist. Duh, as if I didn't already know that, having
stayed up all night the other night to finish reading The Museum of
Innocence. Here is a world curated in words that describe, and so
evoke beyond description, worlds unto themselves that are independent
of the narrative, or the apparent story that moves from page one to
to the end of the book.
Of course, I barley finish writing this
sentence (while listening to the interview) that I hear Pamuk declare
that for him literature is “seeing the world through words.” Not
with words, but through words, which for me is an important
distinction. The words are not the structure or line in the work, but
the brush and the color layered on to reveal a likeness of something
that is beyond words.
Pamuk talks about the craft of the
novel, rather than the art of it, as something wonderfully creative
and engaging, not to mention pleasurable. Charlie Rose baits him with
tales of writers who find the act of writing agonizing. Pamuk
responds with skepticism and offers an analogy for the pain of
writing as one of boys whose toy trucks sometimes get stuck in a
hairy carpet. He then talks about the novel he is working on, one in
which, he says, he feels more at leisure to see through words rather
than feel driven to impose an artistic structure. I wonder if this
book is The Museum of Innocence. It would make sense if it were.
Digging around the web some more, while
listening the interview wind down, I find Pamuk's site and peruse the
pictures. The last photo in the gallery show Pamuk seated in an
armchair and surrounded by a collection of objects, the most
prominent of them a red tricycle and a clock (at least for me), both
emblematic of The Museum of Innocence.