FATİH- HARBİYE ROMANI VE BİN HÜZÜNLÜ HAZ ANLATISININ GELENEKSEL- MODERN- POSTMODERN ANLATI DÜZLEMİNDE YORUMLANMASI

Abstract

Öz:Bu çalışmada Fatih- Harbiye romanı ve Bin Hüzünlü Haz anlatısı geleneksel- modern- postmodern anlatı düzleminde "tema/ izlek", "olay örgüsü", "kişiler", "zaman", "mekân", "bakış açısı ve anlatıcı", "dil ve anlatım" alt başlıklarında yorumlanmış, bu bölümlerde ulaşılan temel noktalar çalışmanın sonuç bölümünde özetlenmiştir. Verilerin özetlenmesinde Ihab Hassan tarafından modernizm ve postmodernizmin karşılaştırıldığı tabloda yer alan maddelerden bazıları yol gösterici olarak kullanılmıştır. Edebî metinlerin dönemin kozmolojik anlayışı ile şekillendiğinin varsayıldığı bu çalışmada, Gümüş ve Ecevit'in Hasan Ali Toptaş eserleri üzerine gerçekleştirmiş oldukları değerlendirmeler bir arada düşünülerek Bin Hüzünlü Haz adlı eserin geleneksel roman unsurlarının modernist bir filtreden geçirildiği postmodern bir eser olduğu gerçeğinden hareket edilmiştir. Peyami Safa'nın geleneksel ve modern roman anlayışlarından izler taşıyan Fatih- Harbiye romanı ile Toptaş'ın geleneksel izleri modernist bir filtreden geçirilmiş postmodern bir anlatı olarak değerlendirilen Bin Hüzünlü Haz anlatısı, geleneksel metin tahlili unsurları ile post- yapısalcı metin analizinin temel elementleri merkeze alınarak çözümlenmiştir. Böylece gelenekselmodern- postmodern anlatıların tahlil sürecindeki açmazlara da işaret edilmiştir. Ulaşılan veriler bir arada değerlendirildiğinde FatihHarbiye'nin geleneksel roman izleri taşıyan ancak modern romanın da sınırlarını zorlayan bir geçiş dönemi eseri olduğu, Bin Hüzünlü Haz'ın ise postmodernist bir modernist anlatı özelliği taşımakla birlikte geleneksel roman izlerinden de büsbütün kurtulamamış bir yapılanış sergilediği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır

Abstract:In this study, the Fatih- Harbiye novel and the Bin Hüzünlü Naz narration are interpreted on traditional- modern- postmodern narration platform from the respects of “theme”, “plot”, “persons”, “time”, “place”, “point of view” and “narrative language and expression” and the key points reached in these segments are summarized in the conclusion. In this study in which the literary texts are assumed to have been shaped by the cosmological approach of their respective epochs, Gümüş and Ecevit’s assessments on the works of Hasan Ali Toptaş are taken together and Bin Hüzünlü Haz is treated as a postmodern work in which the traditional elements of novel are filtered through a modernist approach. Fatih- Harbiye novel, having the traces of Peyami Safa’s traditional and modern novel approach and Topbaş’s Bin Hüzünlü Haz narration where the traditional traces are treated as postmodern narration in which the traditional traces are filtered through modernism are analyzed putting the fundamental elements of traditional text analysis and post-structuralist text analysis in the center. Therefore, dilemmas of traditional-modern-postmodern narrations during the analysis are also pointed. Information obtained after this work may be summarized below under the guidance of certain items presented in the comparison table of modernism and postmodernism by Ihab Hassan: Fatih- Harbiye, in terms of style, is a work which has a proper setting, and is combining and closed text and designed in a structure which may be defined in the word of “form”. Bin Hüzünlü Haz, on the other hand, has a suitable structure which is capable of being shaped in different forms in each reading and by each reader, and is an uncompleted, divisive open work which does not have a classic setting and freed from the causality concern. For that reason, it would be proper to apply the term “antiform” to the structure of work. Being a novel with a thesis, Fatih- Harbiye has a purpose to be fulfilled by its author and a message to convey to the reader. Bin Hüzünlü Haz, however, reflects a game atmosphere which is plotted with pieces of events depending on possibilities occurrences of which are independent from one another. In Fatih- Harbiye, where the plot is shaped by a cause and effect relationship is the written form of author’s plot from his mind reflected in lines of words. Bin Hüzünlü Haz, however, narration which is shaped by the pluralistic structure in which the principles of “uncertainty”, “relativity” and “possibility” are dominant, is a form developed by the coincidences. Fatih- Harbiye, is a hierarchical structure in which the order and discipline are dominant, whereas Bin Hüzünlü Haz is a perfect platform anarchy on which the chaos reigns. The author of Fatih- Harbiye, plotting his work’s fiction around logos, has an absolute control on his work through using facilities of dominical point of view. Contrary to that, the author of Bin Hüzünlü Haz preferred to voice his exhaustion by putting himself at the back stage. The author aims in so much as it is possible to make the other works and especially the voice of his reader heard in the text through which he wishes that the voice of his silence is heard. Fatih- Harbiye shows a pattern of a completed work Bin Hüzünlü Haz, on the other hand, does not have a definitive end. The latter has a formation which is continued to develop in reader’s mind even after it is read. There is always a certain distance between the author-text and the reader in Fatih- Harbiye. Bin Hüzünlü Haz, however, aims to the active participation of reader in the process of development of text. There is a solid established relationship among the combined text elements in Fatih- Harbiye through which an analysis is aimed. Bin Hüzünlü Haz however, aims to destruct what is created, deconstruction and antithesis. Text is all existing and availably known in Fatih- Harbiye with all its beginning and end. In Bin Hüzünlü Haz, however, uncertainty is so strong that most powerful word to describe the existence of text is “nihility”. All elements in Fatih- Harbiye are centered on West-East conflict and Neriman. Theme, plot, persons, time, place and narrative language and expression are in disorder in Bin Hüzünlü Haz. There is no center in the work where all these elements are gathered. The latter is diffused to all humanity, all minds, all literature history, all conscious of people of literature, all times and places and all readers. Fatih- Harbiye is a novel whose limits are defined. It has all the characteristics of this style. Bin Hüzünlü Haz is a narration forest where inter-textual communication networks are established.When the two are compared on an intertextual platform, one of the striking points to consider is Riffaterre’s reader based theory. In this theory, Riffaterre mentions two types of intertextual perceptions and defines the operation process of intra-literary reference: “Ordinary intertextual” and “compulsory intertextual”. The first type of intertextual relationship requires a sound cultural literacy to comprehend an allusion to another text, an unclear narration, a stolen piece or a text and is completely depended on cultural competence of the reader. Compulsory intertextual, however, is an intertextual of linguistic discrepancies: stylistic and semantic traces of intertextual references in the text inevitably force every reader’s perception. This form comes from the intertextual texts and is not depended on the reader. Since it is depended on the compulsory intertextual linguistic discrepancy, it is not gone unnoticed by the readers (Aktulum, 1999: 64- 65). By moving from this classification Riffaterre, Aktulum states that there are two types of readers: ordinary reader and wise/genius reader. First type of reader, are those who are incapable of finding the roots of an intertextual trace although being aware of it (…) Second type of reader, however, (…) are those equipped with infinite cultural accumulation. Minds of these types of readers play crucial roles in finding the intertextual references (Aktulum, 1999: 68- 69). When analyses of works and Riffaterre and Aktulum’s “intertextuality” and “reader classifications” are considered together, it is concluded that Fatih- Harbiye extensively uses compulsory intertextuality which addresses to ordinary reader and Bin Hüzünlü Haz, on the other hand, is a very example of an ordinary intertextuality which addresses wise/genius–elitist/reader. When all these above are considered together, it is concluded that Fatih- Harbiye is a work of transition period which has traces of traditional novel but also forces the limits the of modern novel, Bin Hüzünlü Haz, however, carries the characteristics of a postmodernist modernist narration but has a structure not completely free from the features of traditional novel.