The question: "Literature is art?" Is one that it seems open and unresolved as the definition of literature itself. But if the literature is not art, what is it? The result of a vehicle similar to the work of a carpenter? Or that the architect?

What most of them agree that literature is one of the products of a culture. ) In the same way as other arts (like painting or sculpture is a product of time and culture, but from the hand of a single "artist." The questionas a literary work is not easy to assess when it is called art. Or is the difficulty that some literature (more) art than others.

Receiving one of the most prestigious awards for literature is another indicator that the author created the art. One such author Orhan Pamuk.

I wonder about the assessment of one of his books, the White Castle. How good it is, I thought? I wanted to dig into this, because after reading it I was not impressed too much by theWork, although of course, "interesting."

Above all, the story itself (in my terms), curiously, a Venetian scholar, attacked by the Turks, after the three Italian ships hijacked. The scientist begins a life in Turkey as a slave, though he did not give up his religion, he handed it to someone who looks exactly like him, and he is all his knowledge to his "new brother", also a Scientists transfer. Both work in the course of events on a weapon against one of theWestern army, one of which is the white castle, the symbol and ultimate goal. This (weapon) fails to do its work and to escape the Turkish scientists. Without the ending of the story gets revealed an unexpected direction ...

The protagonist of the story claimed that starts "... the ideal story innocently like a fairy tale to be scary, like a nightmare in the middle, and closes like a sad love story ending in separation." (a quotation) from NYTimes. And that is exactly the same story"said."

Is now under question, assess how this story? And the person of the author's important to assess the artistic level of the product?

I liked the book, but I'm not a literary scholar, and I wondered how other experts would be assessed.

My concern was "against" the many buildings in the book. Of course, the work of an artist is somehow constructed, but as the work of fiction that is not available from the authors, the status of a Nobel,Winners.

To give one example, the story itself as already outlined above, one such construction, I might add that the Turkish scientists called "master". So then you get, the Turkish champions and the Italian slave. Have now written fiction, do you think about the world around you, but this must be the natural ( "many readers of this review will yawn: not another second-rate philosophers presented himself as a writer. You can. Unwind Mr. Pamuk is a storyteller with a lot of cutting andNarrative zip as Scheherazade, "writes the New York Times -). It is also possible that while reading a story, so the rule can designs on the scene and pulled the attention away from the history of the artificial construction.

If - at the beginning of the story - Three sailing ships, the reader might also think of the three sailing boats of another Italian, the explorer Christopher Columbus, who stumbles across a new world. Only a few pages later I read about a Spanish slaveWho Got caught, and who also tells the story of a one-armed man living in his country "to write about it" (in terms of Cervantes lost his arm in the Algerian war and later wrote Don Quixote) ... It seemed to me as an amateur reader a little too "manufactured."

I saw what others think of them. Renowned New York Times praised the white castle, without hesitation. One critic I tend to agree, which, however, wrote, and concludes with his essay:
One might hope that the future PamukFiction is his dealings with the task of adapting the modern and postmodern literary strategies for its non-western themes with a somewhat lighter touch, but there was for his work in its present form with the most prestigious literary prize available, one can assume that Orhan Pamuk will be awarded only to find few reasons to reconsider its approach. (1)

The reason I agree that I read about the author before the first reading of The White Castle. In the book "Other Colors" --Essays and a story - Pamuk wrote the article: "Why did not I become an architect," because that's his professional background, although he is not starting. And he explains, "because I did not design homes." But his professional background did not leave him alone - I think. Pamuk is a slave, a slave of his own past?

My Links : Kindle dx Receiver Sale multimedia design