TURKISH LITERATURE'S SLEEPING BEAUTY: LITERARY CRITICISM

Turkish literary criticism requires broad knowledge and is one of the hardest branches of literature; it has always been on the edge during discussions about what literary criticism is, how it should be done and what it should reveal to both readers and writers.

A literary critic should be the master of their subject, knowing whether a literary work has been written before, how original it is and what its main theme is.

Literary critic Omer Lekesiz, who has been reviewing Turkish work for over 25 years, defined criticism as "one of the most ungrateful branches of literature" during an interview for mass-circulation daily Zaman's supplement "Kitap" (Book).

Lekesiz, who's mostly interested in reviewing short stories, has set up and helped set up many literary magazines such as "Kayitlar" (Records), "Hece Edebiyat" (Syllable Literature) and "Hece Oyku" (Syllable Story). He started his profession by writing a review for the literary magazine "Mavera" in 1982. Besides his literary reviews, Lekesiz was also honored with the Turkish Writers Association 2001 Criticism Award for his literary work entitled "Short Stories in New Turkish Literature" along with the Turkish Writers Association 2002 Electronic Publishing Award for the website he established (www.edebistan.com).

When asked why he wanted to become a literary critic, Lekesiz replied that he wanted to be different to everyone else and that being a critic is a talent that some people are born with. "I've always read books; ever since I was a little kid," he said. "No matter how much I read, I still want to read more. There were hundreds of books I didn't want to criticiz, but it's an instinct. As famous writer Peyami Safa said, 'Reading is a kind of a war.' When your nature is based on the need to explain what goes around you, you naturally become a critic."

Lekesiz went on to say that one of the most important aspects of literary reviewing is to read the writer, not the book. "If a writer is of high literary quality, you can see their skill in the first two paragraphs of their work," he said. "Criticism is based on your own perception of life and on your own knowledge. I take notes while reading books and later I compile them and write a review of the work. I try to reveal the writer's theme, their perception of the world, their quotes from other literary works and their inspiration."

Lekesiz said that approximately 150 anthologies of short stories are published in Turkey every year and that a maximum of 10 of them will become a part of Turkey's literary agenda. "As I've mentioned before, literary review is based on a critic's perception and on their own knowledge," he said. "This is my point of view regarding short stories. Other critics may have other opinions on my genre. It all depends on the person themselves."

Citing writer Fethi Naci as an example, Lekesiz also added that literary criticism is one of the hardest branches of literature. "Naci gave up writing at a time when he was at the peak of his career and he started to write literary reviews," he said. "People should be aware of the fact that literary criticism is not a genre which becomes a great source of income. Naci was aware of this but he still chose to begin reviewing. If you want to become a literary critic, you should accept the fact that you won't make a lot of money."

Lekesiz went on to say that literary critics shouldn't only focus on current works but that they should also consider what was written 20 or 30 years ago. "A good and successful critic should be able to review current works by considering them in terms of things written 20 years ago," he said. "One should be able to combine the past and the present to become a critic and see the differences which have occurred during that time. Some writers feel offended by reviews. One should never forget that a different point of view can enrich one's perspective and perception of life."

Contradiction begins

Despite Lekesiz's consistent attitude towards Turkish literary criticism, in one of his interviews for the literary magazine "Negatif" (Negative), writer Ahmet Altan said that the scene of literary criticism in Turkey lacks credibility and prestige.

According to Altan, Turkish literary critics are an endangered species and some of the most qualified people are no longer interested in reviewing. "The books of famous writers like Orhan Pamuk or Latife Tekin have never been professionally criticized," he said. "There used to be Turkish literary criticism circles consisting of intellectuals. Intellectuals are not interested in literary criticism anymore. Literary criticism is one of the most important genres of literature, but it has started to disappear in Turkey.

"Writers are far more important than critics these days. There is no critic who can change a work's real quality. Turkish literary reviewers used to be far more effective than writers because Turkish readers were also far more concerned about critics than they were about the writers. Literary critics were considered to be the leaders of literary circles. Some critics, however, misused the power they possessed and started to include personal emotion and feelings into their reviews, which was totally immoral in literary terms. Such mischief prevented Turkish literary review circles from updating their knowledge or criticism techniques since they were far too busy dealing with their own, personal concerns."

Altan went on to say that literary criticism is not only important for the reader, but also for the writer. "I think it's very important to read the opinions of a wise critic about your work," he said. "Literature already consists of a combination of different perspectives and different opinions. If a writer doesn't receive high-quality, trustworthy criticism, they may become unable to develop themselves any further within their particular genre. Turkey used to have important literary critics who lead us through the world of literature. Now there is no one who can lead the way."

Despite such extremely opposing ideas about Turkish literary reviews, most writers agree that the reason why it has been so passive is related to the popularity of foreign literature. Turkish literature entered a recession after the '80s and Turkish readers became far more interested in foreign literary work. Due to the unpopularity of Turkish literature, most Turkish critics chose to shift their interest to becoming writers. As Lekesiz mentioned, their choice was mostly based on economic reasons since they were unable to make a living from reviewing other people's work.

Since Turkish literature has undergone extremely rapid development within the last couple of years with famous writers such as Mehmet Eroglu, Selim Ileri and Ahmet Yurdakul, Turkish literary criticism will also develop.

(THE NEW ANATOLIAN; 25 NİSAN 2006)