We held the first interview of our section with the concept of Conversations on Literature and Life with Ayşegül Pomakoğlu, one of the valuable academicians of our school. We would like to thank him again for answering our questions and spending time with us.
Question 1: In our interview with you, we wanted to discuss under the title of “Conversations on Literature and Life“, and since our monthly theme is emotions, we prepared questions for you in this context. My first question to you is, “What is Literature, in your opinion?”
Ayşegül Pomakoğlu: There are many theoretical definitions of literature, of course. But looking at it from a daily life perspective, I can say it is the ability for people to explore alternative lifestyles beyond their own experiences. Or it could be seen as a space where we can fill what we perceive as aesthetic needs. This may not only be in an emotional sense. Sometimes, it can also appear in a sociological sense. For example, we also want to see justice there. It could be love, fear, or anger.
Question 2: So, do you think when we read books and choose poems, are we looking for what we lack in ourselves, or are we simply progressing according to our interests?
Ayşegül Pomakoğlu: This is a question I can answer personally. I am looking for what I lack. If I am going to read something personal rather than professional, I prefer reading fantasy works. Because compared to the raw reality of life, the sense of otherness and experiencing the unexperienced that fantasy fiction offers appeals to me more. But that doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy more realistic works. I think it also depends on the style. I enjoy reading books where the narrative has been played with, like those with disrupted chronologies or where you can hear multiple minds simultaneously, especially in modernist and postmodernist works. I find these types more appealing in poetry and novels. Returning to our main question, I think we are indeed looking for what we lack. Are we not experiencing things that we read about, things that we have lived through and experienced ourselves? We are. It creates a sense of similarity. The feeling of being seen and understood is important, but my expectation from literature goes beyond that.
Question 3: Is there a book among those you have read that you wish you had written yourself?
Ayşegül Pomakoğlu: What a great question. At the same time, it’s a difficult question. There are some clichés like Orhan Pamuk’s “Black Book.” We can also go for newer ones, more contemporary works. For example, I am currently reading Ömür İklim Demir. From newer authors. The language of “The Book of Various Fears” appealed to me a lot. His approach to events, capturing the ordinary in a way that everyone could tell but trying to tell it differently, made me think, “I wish I had written like this.” Going back further, we could say this for the books of Fatma Aliye in our literature. Recently, upon the recommendation of our esteemed professor Bilge Ulusman, I read Safiye Erol, and I also liked it very much. Her narrative and character construction are really beautiful. From the well-known authors, I really like Hüseyin Rahmi. I like Hüseyin Rahmi’s style, which seems to be giving a lesson but at the same time becomes absurd. I love Firuzan. I love Sevim Burak. There are so many things on my mind. It’s very hard to choose, honestly.
Question 4: In your opinion, how has our literature evolved from the Ottoman period to the present day? There used to be a somewhat heavier literature in those times. Now we see a more modernist literature. What do you think about this?
Ayşegül Pomakoğlu: We look at Ottoman literature as if it were a single type with our biases, but it wasn’t much different from today’s literature. When you start to trace it, you can see that there was a lot of diversity in the oral field, even though only a single type of literature was written. But we had some difficulties in accessibility. Just like today’s publishing houses have set certain standards, and the literature we reach is always the same type. I mean, there is a bit of a difference between the literature of the period and the accessibility to us. When you look at a period, for example, youth literature or postmodernism explodes, and thus literature can progress in the footsteps of populism and capitalism. Especially from the 1940s and 1950s onwards, many things changed in people’s lives, and we try to show this in our classes. That collective memory, the sense of unity and togetherness, or the sense of trust that people had in each other, completely shattered from the middle of the 20th century onwards. Thus, in individuals, there arises a sense of “I exist, and if I exist, the world exists.” Before that, there was a perception of “I am a part of a world.” As we begin to question, we see more individuals starting to question. In today’s context, where would we say we are? In our society, in terms of being immersed in everyday troubles or struggling against injustices. People use their voices to draw attention to these issues. On the other hand, we see that these issues also face the same amount of suppression. We say polarization, and I think literature also has this situation. One part of it is more inclined, both individually and collectively, to articulate these issues, but at the same time, the other end continues to progress and become more popular. We can return to our first question here. What is literature? It can be seen as an artistic expectation, but at the same time, there are those who think of it as a tool, and there always will be. This makes the discussion about literature as art open to debate.
Question 5: In your opinion, is literature a form of art?
Ayşegül Pomakoğlu: Absolutely yes. If there is no aesthetic element in our writings, it would be very difficult for us to distinguish them from other genres. The thing that distinguishes a novel from a newspaper article or a story from a research book is something. It’s not just about reality or fiction. It’s an aesthetic, I think, that is the decisive factor there. It is the aesthetic touch that makes literature literature.
Question 6: In line with our theme, I would like to ask you a few questions about emotions. How do you think emotions are expressed through literature today?
Ayşegül Pomakoğlu: Especially with the prominence of psychoanalysis in the current period, there are many things we see and follow about psychologists’ novels becoming popular. In all of these, we see how emotions are actually not being expressed enough today. Love, for example, does not appear clearly in literary works today, in my opinion. Because people do not have as clear ideas about what love is anymore. Or hate, for that matter. Now that I think about it, I can’t recall a beautifully written love story. We used to see this in the 18th and 19th centuries when romanticism was at its peak, the definition of love was clear in literary works, and that’s why we saw beautiful expressions in those works. But today, all of these are mixed together.
Question 7: In your opinion, how closely do writings about love reflect reality? Are they overly romanticized? If so, could there be any harm or perhaps benefit to our society?
Ayşegül Pomakoğlu: I think we touched on this a bit in our previous question. So, a hundred years ago, love was romanticized to some extent, or idealized, because writers had some definition of love in their minds. And they thought it was a universal definition. They could associate this universal definition with many things. They were creating a definition by adding factors such as the patriarchal society of that time, dominant cultures, their perspectives, morality, religion, etc., and they were writing things according to that definition. Because in the literary history, actually, it was to write what was ideal, not what was lived, experienced, or seen. But I think nowadays it’s not like that anymore, meaning that we have already changed that attitude of writing what is ideal because our expectations and definitions regarding humanity have changed. For example, the fluctuations of World War II and the upheaval of societal values, even though Turkey did not participate in the war, also affected us. And after that, our realities really changed. It was realized that we need to let go of universal truths. Different people, different societies have different definitions of love. Most of what is being narrated now, I believe, reflects the stronger individual perspective. There’s an attitude of “This is true for me, according to me, and I’m telling my truth, my love story, and no one has to like it.” This attitude is good in terms of plurality. It gives you the chance to see and read things that are different and maybe not suitable for you. But of course, it can also lead to people getting lost. There’s a definition there, a different definition somewhere else, and the question of “what is my definition” can confuse people. This chaos could also lead us to a sense of helplessness. Because when we read those old novels, we think how beautiful everything was, how simple, clear, and straightforward it all seemed. So, that clarity must be necessary. Someone should narrate the ideal. Or narrate the ideal of a group. It’s very difficult for one to prevail and silence the other without the other. It would be so nice if it were possible. Let one narrate the ideal love as, “even if it doesn’t exist, it could be like this,” and let the other narrate, “there is no ideal love and there is no ideal, there are different loves,” I think by doing this, we can reach the ideal situation.
Question 8: In your opinion, what are the most unforgettable works that depict love? And what is love according to you, considering this question?
Ayşegül Pomakoğlu: Love, in my opinion, means being blind. It means forgetting what is right, what is wrong, who you are. It means losing yourself, going through everything, and even becoming blind to the person you love without seeing them. There are many works that depict this feeling, of course. Again, which one should we choose, how should we choose? Eylül comes to my mind first. A novel that I find raw and too moralistic. In Eylül, lovers resist not experiencing that feeling, for example. That situation is quite different from my definition of love. There, Suat and Necip, who should have darkened their eyes and done everything, restrain themselves. Aşk-ı Memnu also comes to my mind, which is very similar to this. The attempt to conceal love makes it easier to express because there is an inability to reach. Perhaps being familiar with Ottoman literature makes me think like this. In Ottoman literature, there is always someone being loved, and the pleasure of not reaching that person is greater than the person and the love. And even if they reach, the feeling will end. Looking at world literature, only Jane Austen comes to mind.
Question 9: Do you think different literary genres create differences in the portrayal of love?
Ayşegül Pomakoğlu: Absolutely. Love depicted in a novel cannot be the same as love depicted in a short story. And then there’s poetry. Poetry is a whole different topic. Because you have to create a sea of associations with very short words. Even in a short story, there are areas that allow you to form sentences and progress straightforwardly. But poetry splashes you from one stone to another. That’s why I think love can be expressed well in poetry. It creates a ground where everyone can find their own definition of love due to the multiple meanings that can arise simultaneously. Sometimes when we read poems that we think have a very obvious meaning, we can still be engulfed in very different emotions. When I read a poem years ago, I can now see this very clearly when I read it again. At that time, I had a completely different interpretation and a completely different feeling, but now when I read it, I see new things that are completely unrelated. It also happens in prose, of course, but I think it’s more limited there.
Question 10: What is your favorite poem and poet?
Ayşegül Pomakoğlu: I really like Melih Cevdet Anday. I like the elements he takes from mythology and all those word games. “Death of Icarus” is my favorite poem, I can say. I think the poet has squeezed a lot of things into it.
Question 11: Do you think there is a difference between poetry being written in free form or adhering strictly to forms? Does using free form turn poetry into prose?
Ayşegül Pomakoğlu: I don’t think it does. I think it just changes certain things due to the literary or artistic expectation. So, I think it’s a limiting factor for the content of a poem to be diminished or for certain things to be skipped in order to fit into those forms or patterns. I don’t think that poems written adhering to rhyme or maintaining syllable counts necessarily suffer from this. We see that very deep emotions are expressed in sonnets and gazelles using those forms. Our expectations from literature and poetry have changed a lot after the Second New movement. Many think that searching for rhyme or adhering to forms is restrictive and constraining. But I think poets who are used to and comfortable with writing in a structured way already apply rhyme and patterns effortlessly. There’s also the downside of free verse making people think that anyone can write poetry. It leads us to the question of what we expect from poetry and what we call poetry. The question “What do we expect to find in poetry?” also leads us to the definition of literature. It’s not entirely correct to think in terms of periods, although literary scholars don’t like that very much. But in terms of genre classification, there is a need for it.
Question 12: So, to conclude and getting down to the general level, I want to ask you this: What would you advise individuals who want to cultivate a reading habit?
Ayşegül Pomakoğlu: They should definitely find what they want to read first. One of the biggest mistakes of our education system and one of the factors that alienate people from reading books is this. We have a classic prescription, and we give it to everyone.
Resources:
Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash