Ok I just finished the reread. I completely forgot about Ibrahim's story of Smryna. Scratch my comment above. (tho I still say Sinai Tapestry is a wonderful read - in fact Larry, that might be one you'd like)

Freida, I also thank you for picking this book. I needed a reread, as I missed many things, and I needed a good group like this to discuss it all with.

>But we are always confined to earth, no matter how much we climb to the high places and flap our arms. Because we cannot fly, we are condemned to do things that don't agree with us. Because we have no wings we are pushed into struggles and abominations that we did not seek, and then, after all that, the years go by, the mountains are levelled, the valleys rive, the rivers are blocked by sand and the cliffs fall into the sea.

Needed to see that again. The author says depressing things about mankind. But then - within the book is incredible beauty and grace, and perhaps man can rise like a bird even without wings.

BTW, what is next month's read?

Janalyn have suggested a few on the Historical Discusssion thread. Larry

Will you wait on me? I am still plugging away at this book. I find that I put it aside too willingly, pick up something else, but then the story lingers in the back of my mind, and so I grab it again with new resolve to finish it off. I've read all the thread, so I know the spoilers. I love the man's ability to describe and compare, but at the same time, I do think he has an uppity air that moves him to use the "thesaurus word," instead of the "right word." (a distinction I make with my hs students)

I am determined to finish it. I also own a copy of Corelli's Mandolin, which I want to read, too.

Was anyone else reminded of Pears' Dream of Scipio while reading this book? I found (am finding) that both books were (are) very challenging in that they have multiple characters/plot lines, use a more advanced vocabulary than the average bestseller, and are set in locales that require me to consult an atlas on occasion.

I don't know that I will have anything profound to add to this thread when I do finally finish, but I don't want it to go away just yet, either.

Anyone else still reading? Maybe I will be encouraged to stick to it if I knew there were one or two RPers still hanging on with me. (Maybe we should establish a prize for the slowest, yet most determined reader. I feel like the tortoise - "sloooowwww and steady.")

captain, keep posting, I'd love to hear more of your comments

I think you are right, there is a sense of Scipio in this book, esp with the cyclic events that never seem to stop happening. Different people, different times, and the same horrors. Interesting comparison.

As for the 25 cent words - Ive read some books where I can almost see the writer looking up in the Theasarus. Didn't with this one however. His words really do seem to flow from one to another. I think chosing simpler words in this case would have made much less of an impact. IMHO of course

I haven't read BWW but notice that several of you expressed an interest in learning more about the background/political situation at the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
I have just read an interesting review in the weekend 'Daily Telegraph' about a new publication Twice a Stranger: How Mass Expulsion Forged Modern Greece and Turkey by Bruce Clark. In it he decribes the background to the 'horse-trading with human lives' that took place when, in 1923 the Weston powers at Lausanne decided to move 1.2 million Greek Orthodox Christians from Turkey to Greece and 400,000 Muslims from Greece to Turkey. The loss of life among all social groups, but especially in the Anatolian and the Armenian communities was staggering.
I shall order it from my local library, they are amazingly good at supplying me with shiny new books.

I have tried to put in a 'Link' but it keeps being rejected. Has anyone esle had this problem?

veer, I can't find the book - is it on Amazon UK?
I do want to read it - I had many questions about these expulsions while reading Birds Without Wings. Think they may help. The idea tho is unfathomable. What were they thinking? Dear lord. Anyway, thanks for the rec.

Cindy, yes, Twice a Stranger is available at Amazon.co.uk only, apparently, so far, and there's no telling when it will make it here to our side. So I've broke down and ordered it. I second the thanks, Vee, for the heads up. I'm finding that era more and more fascinating and am quite flabbergasted that I've been mostly ignorant of the whole Greek/Turkish religious swap. I'm a little more familiar with the Cypriot mess, but not enough.

Mary, I finally acquired Pamuk's Snow that you recommended to me several months back. I'm looking forward to reading it, but right now I'm going through one of my I-can't-settle-into-fiction phases. I need a real-thing fix before I delve into something challenging fiction-wise. You know how long it took me to get around to Austerlitz. :-)

Jayne, slow and steady is good!! I don't know what to say to readers who find Birds Without Wings tough going -- I want to encourage but I know too well that when a book doesn't click, it just doesn't click. I came within a few pages of slamming BWW shut and tossing it in the recycle bin, and if I hadn't had the incentive of wanting to discuss a mutually-read book with Janalyn and the rest of you I probably would have. And then, lo and behold, BWW did click, as I described in one of my earliest posts above, and wouldn't you know it, now I'm spoiled for another novel even nearly as good. Oh, I'm sure one will come along -- it might even be Snow -- but these sorts of books have a way of blindsiding me. In a way, they have to because I can be darned contrary and picky about what I want to read.

A year or two back, a bunch of RPers did a group read about the Ottoman Empire. Any of you who participated: Weren't most of the books read and discussed about the medieval era? I don't recall the waning years being mentioned much, but they might have been and it just didn't register with me. Do you think most readers are more interested in ancient history than the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? It seems that way to me, but my impression may be off kilter.

frieda, speaking of a book not clicking - I could not get through Snow. One of my book groups was reading it, and the subject was of interest - but I don't think I made it through 1/3. The part where the one guy is assassinated early in the book was quite qute creative and interested - otherwise, I just wasn't interested. Hope you like it better than I did!

I tend to be interested in Medieval history in general, so have read much about the Byzantian empire as well as the early Ottoman empire as it expanded. I was also involved in Balkan folk dancing so the Ottoman influence and history in the area was often discussed. But lately I've wanted to know more about that 'sick old man', and how Greece and Turkey came to such a state. Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August was the first to cover that for me. Later, reading novels such as Sinai Tapestry helped me understand more. But I think BWW has done the most to teach me.

Another non-fiction read which deals with the Armenian Genocide is The Burning Tigris. But it doesn't cover the 1800s, which seems to be a pivotal time for the area. I'd love to read more.

And yeah, I did discover that book at Amazon UK. I really don't want to wait a year for it to come out, so I may just bite the bullet, pay the shipping cost, and get it now.

6am on Sunday morning here in Australia. Have been reading all night and have just finished de Bernieres Captain Corelli's Mandolin. Told myself a dozen times to put the bloody thing down and sleep but I was just so utterly hypnotised by dB's tale that I could not possibly resist reading on. Book probably been discussed here before so I won't be too longwinded about it. Just must say that it was an experience similar in every way to reading BWW. Initially infuriating because of dB's penchant for dumping the reader straight into alien territory full of historical, social, cultural, mythical and geographical arcana at some point it burrows deep into your psyche and suddenly you are entranced. The characters leap off the page and at times his prose has an unearthly beauty. Cannot praise him enough nor thank RP enough for introducing me to an author who I seriously doubt would have attracted my interest. Just wonderful. Larry

I fell through the cracks in an update at my library system and wasn't notified that BWW was being held for me. I finally called, and, sure enuogh, it was there. I'm about 200 pages into it. My favorite line so far is, "Husbands! How God must have hated wives."

I'm about to get the characters straight, as Larry says above, and am enjoying the book.

Larry I read Captain Corelli's Mandolin when it first came out about 10 years ago.
A wonderful book detailing part of WWII about which I had very litle knowledge. I loved the small humerous spots . .eg the English soldier sent to help the Resistance who can only speak Classical Greek.
The film was a big disappointment.

I believe L de B actually makes mandolins as a hobby.

I've just finished BWW this afternoon and reread all your posts. The discussion has been marvelous, and I don't have anything to add except to say that I was hopelessly ignorant about the whole subject and am glad to have added a little to my knowledge of history.

It was interesting to see what areas you all quoted from. Here is one at the end where Karatavuk was writing to Mehmetcik that I found almost unbearably touching: "All the same, I miss you, my old friend, and in the hope that there is a life after this, I will enter death anticipating that we will become boys again in the old paradise, filling our birdwhistles with water, running about and flapping our arms, and calling to each other among the tombs, and that there we will find the people of our childhood who have all slipped beneath the earth . . . and there we might find again the companions of our childhood . . . There perhaps will also be Fikret from Pera, and my comrades from the wars, and there we will find again our old enchantment."

This is indeed a wonderful book that will stay in my mind. Thank you again, RP, for broadening my horizons.

It's been some time since I read this but I am still thinking about the story and the issues it raised. Due to his timeless human themes and exquisite writing style, I am going to stick my neck out and maintain that deBernieres is one of the finest writers living today, IMHO.....

Finished! Hooray for me! I am glad I stayed with it, after so often putting it aside. My earlier post made it sound like I was trudging along, and while I was, to a degree, the fact of the matter is that a bit of real-life came knocking and we had a major life event occur - I am now a mother-in-law! My son and his girlfriend eloped last month. To say that I was not in the mood for concetrating on reading would be putting it mildly. However, all is well - the newlyweds are happy as clams, and I am delighted with my son's new wife. I'm coming to grips with the fact that my kids are no longer following the script I had prepared for them. :-)

Now for BWW - I will join others here that I was entirely ignorant of this chapter in our world's history. Even after reading this, I would be hardpressed to explain with any depth the reasons for the conflicts and the relationships of all the major players. The fact that Mustafa Kemal was actually a real person came as a surprise to me about halfway through the book. Being htis ill-informed would naturally make the reading and understanding of the book difficult, I think. Well, at least, I'm telling myself that.

The characters that I most appreciated were Mustafa Kemal, Leonidas, and Fikret. Here are some passages that I marked. (Yes, Janalyn, I took the library's copy back and bought my own, and I did mark in it - a lot!)...

"Kemal remains quarrelsome. He fires off letters demanding better defence of his positions, and disputing the command structure in his sector. He is seldom guilty of subtle and tactful diplomacy, and hemakes a vocation of antagonising important people," (335)

"It is quite likely thatn without Mustafa Kemal the Ottomans would have lost the campaign at Gallipoli, which would have saved the whole world a great deal of trouble. There would have been no Russian Revolution and no Cold War, and the Great War might have ended a year sooner, but Mustafa Kemal does not believe in saving anyone any trouble, and in Istanbul he continues to harass the authorities without pity." (355)

These 2 passages epitomize the brash, self-confident Kemal. In looking back over earlier chapters about Kemal, even from his childhood he had this greater than life attitude about himself.

Daskalos Leonidas's great stance at the deportation of the Christians from the village is memorable. "He saw his dreams evaporating. Fired up witht he courage of the outraged, he found enough audacity within himself to scramble clumsily up on to the very table under the plane tree...He was weeping for the loss of everything that he had believed in and for which he had fought. All his adult life he had dreamed and worked for the idea of Greater Greece...and now it was impossible to imagine that suddenly history had changed sides, and created a country called Turkey in a Greek place. Leonidas was a nationalist in the ays before the erosions and landslips of time exposed the miserable stupidity of nationalism."...

Hi- captainbackfire, you will certainly not be the last one to add comments! I am on page 150, and enjoying it immensly. Too bad I have to go back to work on Monday. It may slow me down, but I think I will finish it soon. Having recently read Holy War and Unholy Terror by Bernard Lewis and watched Ararat, and being European helps me know a little about the setting already I guess. But, the beginning of Eugenides' Middlesex is set during 1922 Smyrna fire and the massacre and quick exodus of Greeks from there. I don't know if the book gets as far as that, and I haven't read the messages, so sorry if I am saying something completely anachronistc here.
Magda

>the beginning of Eugenides' Middlesex is set during 1922 Smyrna fire and the massacre and quick exodus of Greeks from there.

I knew I had read another book where Smyrna was a part, that whole first section was really the best part of that book. This book includes Smyrna, and while it describes horrible scenes, it did not give me the sense of horror and outrage that Middlesex or Sinai Tapestry did as the Greeks were trying to escape and those ships just stood by and watched....

Glad others are popping in with their comments. Re Mustafa Kemal - It took me a little while to get who he was. Once I realized he was Ataturk, so much of it made sense. As far as not knowing the history - I knew a bit of background, but was blown away by the parts I did not know. I knew about the Armenians, but had no idea about the mass 'ethnic cleansing' that took place.

Rather interesting - I just finished Cloud Atlas, which among other themes looks at man's nature - can we rise about the tooth and claw? Reading BWW made me think perhaps not. Or perhaps like Ground Hogs Day, we just have to keep reliving these damn cycles of violence till we figure out how to make it all right before we destroy ourselves.

On that happy note - keep the comments coming!

I just googled _Sinai Tapestry_ and came up with a book by Edward Whittemore. Is it what you were referring to? It looked interesting. Is it worth reading?

Magda (whose TBR pile is higher than the ceiling, and who really doesn't need another book to put there, but who cannot resist)

Yep, thats the one. Its the first of a four part series (tho I don't think that word fits) which covers the same time period as BWW. And its well worth reading! A friend turned me on to it last year and I was really blown away by it. A bit different, but once you get into it, its a page turner.

I have 100 pages left to go, so not quite done yet. I've been cheating today, though, and reading some reviews on various sites. I don't know how to post multiple links in one reply, so you may have to cut and paste these in your browser to follow the link.

First, I found an interesting review of BWW in The Economist, which mentions the book, "Farewell Anatolia" by Dido Sotiriou. Has anyone read it? Here's The Economist review of BWW:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2921295

Next... here's the link about Sotiriou's book. It's described as a fictionalized account of her family's expulsion from Turkey during this time:
http://www.armeniandiaspora.com/archive/11889.html

I also found this interesting review and historical commentary by Norman Stone (don't know who he is or anything about him) which appeared in an online magazine called Cornucopia. It actually discusses another book with a similar historical account called The Maze, and his comments re de Bernieres' book start in the middle of the article:

http://www.cornucopia.net/aboutbwwmaze.html

Anyway... I wondered if anyone had heard of these other books that were mentioned in the above links and what your opinion was on some of these reviews (hope I'm not being an obnoxious poster with the links).

Lastly, I also went to Random House's site to read the Reading Guide for this book. They offered the following as suggested reads if you liked BWW:

Paul Bowles, The Sheltering Sky;
Lawrence Durrell, The Alexandria Quartet;
John Fowles, The Magus;
A. R. Homer, The Mirror of Diana;
Gabriel García Márquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude; James McBride, Miracle at St. Anna;
Henry Miller, The Colossus of Maroussi;
Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

Late, late, but I loved it too!
Now, that I have read the thread and can see that my observations come very, very close to the others here.

OT- Frieda- I just read two South American books that have nothing to do with magical realism. One is by nobody else but Marquez, My Melancholy Whores- very good, and the other, A Night in Chile by Bolano- likewise. No magical realism, very good. And, no I didnÂt feel it was magical realism in the description of the drowning, just a narration technique.

I havenÂt read CCM, and now I am wondering if I should.
I recently read two books (A Short History of Islam by Armstrong and Holy War and Unholy Terror by Bernard Lewis) which brush by this period in history and this location, took a course on Islam and watched Ararat. They all deal with the last days of Ottoman Empire, ethnic and religious problems, and the birth of modern Turkey. Especially Lewis refers to the lunacy of having the Ottoman Greeks, who didnÂt speak Greek, expelled to Greece, and Greek Turks to Turkey where they were total strangers.
I also have a nice new student from Turkey, and there was PamukÂs trial not so long ago. The beginning of Middlesex by Eugenides is also set in the same period and starts with1922 Smyrna massacre and fire, and the exodus of the Greeks from Anatolia.
This all made me want to read more on the topic. When I realized that this book was about all that, and it was on sale for six bucks, I decided to take a risk and buy it. It didnÂt look like a book I would enjoy, and it was awfully long, but I took a plunge and didnÂt regret it for one second. It was well worth it.

ItÂs an epic novel in the best tradition of the genre. The whole novel is crowded with beautifully drawn characters and great observations. There are some amazing descriptions and observations there, and sentences you wish you would remember for the rest of your life.

I found the narration about Mustafa Kemal a bit awkward, and had to consult Wikipedia on a few occasions, because I wasnÂt sure about the details of the historical background being given. I would also have edited one scene out of there. Otherwise, it was a sheer pleasure to read. It was at the same time funny, poignant, sentimental, factual, and written in such a way that you cared about all the characters.
Bernieres supposedly spent ten years researching the background for it, and it indeed contains an amazing amount of information and details on historical background, cultural background including Nassredin stories, flora and fauna.

A question about Pamuk. I had a feeling that it was a female cat. I am wondering what the name means so it serves as a name of a cat and the last name of the writer, Orhan Pamuk.

Did you have a feeling, like me, that Bernieres was sympathizing with the Turks?

And, in response to your comments, I was also very surprised how well the war was described. I also tend to skip the descriptions of battles and...

I am so glad that so many of you have picked this book up and made comments when you finished. Sometimes when we start these discussions it seems that very few have joined in and for the original posters it can seem discouraging. This makes it all worthwhile. magda, I think you would really enjoy CCM, so do try to find it.

To answer my own question about the meaning of the word 'pamuk', it means 'cotton'. I thought it might mean 'snow', but it doesn't. Cotton is OK too, I guess :)

I don't have much to add to the comments above. PPs have elaborated far more eloquently about this book than I can. However, I am curious about one minor incident in the book. Did anyone find themselves curious which neighbor might have written the letter for Karatavuk's mother which prompted him to send a letter back to her? Since most of the women were illiterate, and obviously Leonidas didn't get involved until Iskander brought him Karatavuk's letter, I was curious who might have written it. As far as Karatavuk's letter -- what a wonderful and brilliant surprise! I think this is an example of what Frieda talks about above -- the way de Bernieres foreshadows pivotal events, but then in the telling of the individual stories gives us these wonderful surprises.

Magda, I agree with you about the drowning scene being a narrative technique and not an example of magical realism. However, I think I have read something with a similar technique (someone dying/dead narrating) but can't remember what is was. Maybe I'm thinking about the movie Sunset Blvd, though?

Did Karatavuk's account of the exchanges that occurred between the Turks and Franks at Gallipoli remind anyone of the movie, A Midnight Clear?

One slice of humor I enjoyed was the description of Rustem Bey and Lt Granitola speaking a somewhat invented form of French to one another that the Italian would use later in life, much to the consternation of the French.

As for all the touching moments in this book, I could go on and on. This was my first de Bernieres book, but won't be my last. However, I need to let this one settle for a while.

Re: Narration technique
Georgia-Peach, actually A Night in Chile by Bolano uses this technigue. It is an account of a dying priest who goes through his life lying on a deathbed. Curious that I picked it. Maybe this was precisely what reminded me of this book.

Okay, magda and georgia, since you both agree that Georgio's drowning is not magical realism, I will accept that it's not (I'm sure both of you are more familiar with magical realism than I am). Instead it's a "narrative technique." Er, yes, but what defines that technique; does it have a more specific name?

Georgio relates his drowning so matter-of-factly and realistically -- describing the fishes swimming by his face, etc. -- yet he's dying and then he's dead, and he can't really be telling us what his drowning is like. That's where it feels magical to me, much as when Garcia Marquez has the granny hanging out the wash suddenly ascend to heaven, or people walk through walls, or see into another person's soul; or Kundera has people suddenly levitating on streets and joining hands in midair to fly circles around those folk whose feet are still stuck to the ground. Then there's Georgio's earlier narration (after he's already dead!) telling about how he built the water fountain for travelers. Well, the combination of realism and implausibility surely has to have a definition beyond technique, and I've probably been mixed up for a long time but I always thought it was magical realism. Argh! The whole idea is too amorphous for me. :-)

I'm tickled that other readers are chiming in. You all have given me much more to think about re Birds Without Wings -- when there's already so much. At this rate, BWW will probably land at the top of my "Books of the Year" list, maybe even "Books of the Decade."

>Did you have a feeling, like me, that Bernieres was sympathizing with the Turks?

Mmm, I didn't get that. His depiction of this community which was able to function quite well with the diverse population gave me the feeling that its just the way he'd want to see things. I think rather than siding with one or the other, he's just disgusted that governemtns start wars and mass evacuations with out any clue as to what it does to their people, their communities, their ecomony and ultimately their country. Almost like the prince says in Romeo and Juliet 'a plague on both your houses'

>but what defines that technique; does it have a more specific name

First person narrative? Not sure, I'm not a writer. There probably is a name tho.

Magda, I did, indeed, get the feeling deBernieres' sympathies were a bit on the side of the Turks. Perhaps because I had recently read M. Marcom's wonderful "Three Apples Fell From Heaven" which is the story of the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottomans, ca. 1917. I recommend this to you if you want to read "another side" of the events from a different perspective.

I, too, have read the Bernard Lewis book about the Middle East and found it very enlightening.

I was interested in the Random House reccomendations for those who liked BWW. They are right on the money, IMO, because I also am a fan of Fowles, Bowles, Miller, and Durrell, specifically loved the 4 books mentioned above.

I hope those of you who read BWW but have not yet read "Corelli's Mandolin" will do so. This is a master story-teller....

Frieda- ok, I didn't notice that Georgio relates the story of the water fountain after he is already dead! Does he? Have to check it. I'll report back. That would surely make it magical realism.
I quickly skimmed the chapter, and there is one moment in his narration that indeed may suggest that the story is related after his death. He mentions that the village has been reduced to rubble, and things have fallen into disrepair. That does make it magical realism after all, and proves me to be a sloppy reader :)

Follow-up to the magical realism.

On the other hand, I think that there needs to be more in a book that just one dead person telling the story for the book to be in the convention of magical realism.
Because it bothered me I checked Wikipedia, and here is what was there:
'Common aspects of magical realist novels and films
The following elements are found in many magical realist novels and films, but not all are found in all of them and many are found in novels or films that could fall under other genres.

Contains fantastical elements
The fantastic elements may be intuitively "logical" but are never explained
Characters accept rather than question the logic of the magical element
Exhibits a richness of sensory details
Distorts time so that it is cyclical or so that it appears absent. Another technique is to collapse time in order to create a setting in which the present repeats or resembles the past
Inverts cause and effect, for instance a character may suffer before a tragedy occurs
Incorporates legend or folklore
Presents events from multiple perspectives, such as those of belief and disbelief or the colonizers and the colonized
Uses a mirroring of either past and present, astral and physical planes, or of characters
Ends leaving the reader uncertain, whether to believe in the magical interpretation or the realist interpretation of the events in the story
Note that it is common in some fantasy stories to include a frame story, in which the central, fantastic story is explained as a dream. Because the main story works equally well with or without the frame story, and since either way the reader feels no ambiguity about choosing between the magical and the real interpretation, these are usually not included in the category of magical realism."

What do you think?

On the other hand, I think that there needs to be more in a book that just one dead person telling the story for the book to be in the convention of magical realism.magda, that is what bothered me about the whole bit of Georgio narrating. Everything else in the book is logically enough told: The various other narrators are remembering after the fact, and they obviously aren't relating their memories after they are dead. The "I Am Philothei" chapters are related by Philothei before she died and are included in a diary-like manner. When Georgio first introduces himself in chapter 45, "The Humiliation of Daskalos Leonidas," he sounds as if he's one of the survivors, too. He tells how he built the pump house in 1919. Okay, then in chapter 85, "I Am Georgio P. Theodorou," he reintroduces himself with this apology:You catch me at an awkward moment, my friends, and you may find my thoughts a little disconnected, but if you find me a little incoherent, if you detect that my discourse has come adrift, you will surely find me blameless, for I am at this very moment sinking slowly through the oily waters down to the harbor floor of this very lovely city that was Smyrna.Then he proceeds to tell how and why he wound up in the harbor. He's not one of the survivors, after all. Perplexed, I had to go back to chapter 45 to reread, and it was only then that I realized that that chapter was weirdly told -- after the fact, yes, but how much after? It couldn't have been long because the destruction of Smyrna was in 1922, and it struck me as creepy that Georgio was speaking of events as if they happened many years before -- before he died. It jolted me because the rest of the storytelling is so obviously not in the conventions of magical realism -- or the way I've always understood magical realism, which is imperfectly, I'm sure. But time is either weirdly stretched out or collapsed, for that one character, or he's a vocal "shade"; so that's why I wondered if that part -- and that part only -- was a bit of magical realism that had crept in. I'm probably not explaining myself well. It's probably no biggie in the overall scheme of the storytelling, but I disliked being confused...which I still am, obviously.

I think magical realism is a widely debated label among certain critics and academics. For me, the novel in its entirety does not feel like magical realism, though I did feel the influence of South American writers in his narrative. There are attributes of magical realism in Georgio's drowning, mainly the implausibility of a dying or dead man relating his tale in the first person. If de Bernieres had written that chapter in the third person, do you think it would still feel like magical realism? I don't think so, and that is why I would hesitate to call it magical realism. In this instance, too, I think the label is limiting, esp within the greater framework of the novel. I prefer not giving that scene a label. But that's just my preference, and I'm not really a student of literary techniques or terminology.

I think magical realism is a widely debated label among certain critics and academics.Heh! Georgia, that's consoling. If the authorities on the subject can't agree, no wonder we ordinary readers have trouble knowing what is and what isn't magical realism.

>I had recently read M. Marcom's wonderful "Three Apples Fell From Heaven" which is the story of the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottomans, ca. 1917.

I've read it, and yes it is a very good (and depressing) companion book to this one, as is Burning Tigris, a historical account of the time.

Magic realism again. Yes, I lost sleep on it. I am joking, but I think that I know how I would want to define it. It's my definition, of course, so who knows what the lit critics would say.

The novel is written in a magic realism convention when the supernatural in any way (ghosts, magic, time warps, premonitions, etc.) infuences the course of the plot, or actions of the characters. A good axample of it would be Like Water for Chocolate where the main character's feelings poured into food make everybody sick. In other words, the feelings influenced the lives of the characters in a tangible, physical way.
Since Georgio's narration had no impact on the course of action, or the characters, I would define it only as a narration technique and not a magical realism device.

Magda, I appreciate your cogitation and the results. Your definition makes sense; indeed, it's a lot clearer than the usual descriptions I've read or heard.

Mirroring: A part of a story may have some of the literary elements of magical realism, but it is not necessarily MR unless it affects the whole story in some way (for example, the other characters or the plot). Georgio's narration of his own drowning doesn't, so that sequence is not magical realism. Hmm, is that a good enough boiling down, Magda?

Now I'm wondering why de Bernieres wrote Georgio's part the way he did, being as it is anomalous to the whole. Perhaps, like Georgia pointed out above, it's the South American influence (without it being magical realism). However, I am sometimes too worried about logicality and rationality. Perhaps I should just enjoy the sequence -- and I did enjoy it -- without worrying about whether it really fits, or not. :-)

Having never heard of the term 'magical realism' until I arrived at the RP site some years ago and since then managed to get along quite nicely without knowing what it meant, I now belatedly realise that it could be a hottish topic and something of which I need to have an understanding.
After Googling around I found the info. below which might make the subject clearer to fellow ignoramuses.

Here is a link that might be useful: Magical Realism

Frieda said: Now I'm wondering why de Bernieres wrote Georgio's part the way he did, being as it is anomalous to the whole.

I think Georgio is the character who comes closest to reflecting de Bernieres' own views and historical interpretation of the events of that period. I think de Bernieres was just getting creative on how to project his own opinions into one of his characters. Anyway... that was my intepretation of Georgio's drowning scene and the historical hindsight he seems to offer us.

I've read quite a few positive opinions on this book. I usually try to look for at least one negative opinion to seek a balance of views. So far, this is the most negative one I've found. It appeared in a column of the Sunday Times by John Dugdale, called Literary reputations on the line. Apparently, fellow critic Peter Kemp did not like BWW -- and appears to not like magical realism, either, by the tone of his comments.

Critical putdown of the year
"Although de Bernieres shows no sign of realising this, his thematic material is stuff that has by now become threadbare after widespread handling in the fiction of the past 30 years or so . . . The folksy facetiousness much relished by magic realists is widely apparent. De Bernieres's taste for waggishness can be disastrous for his purposes. Beneath the whimsy, anything of substance is fatally submerged . . . Many characters are just stereotypes spray-painted with exoticism . . . The same points are hammered home again and again . . . Not since Flaubert's Parrot can a work have held so much appeal to the ornithologist. But  flabby and ungainly  the novel itself fails to lift off." Peter Kemp reviews Louis de Bernieres's Birds without Wings, The Sunday Times

BTW - I disagree with this critic that many of the characters are stereotypes. I guess this could go in the mysterious divergence of opinions thread.

I found a wonderful reply by de Bernieres to this critic, though. He says:

"Sometimes you read criticism which is actually quite helpful, and
you think, hmm, yes, that's a good point," he said. "The Peter Kemp
one -- he was annoyed with me that everyone was called Ali the
Broken-Nosed or Ali the Snowbringer, or etc, etc. The fact is that
back in those days, Turks didn't have surnames, so that's what they
were being called, but Peter Kemp thought that was just me trying to
be fake-exotic. That kind of criticism is just so ignorant, it just
makes you feel contemptuous rather than hurt."

As to which group de Bernieres may sympathize most with, I found this article by de Bernieres that appeared in The Observer: How I Learned to Love Greece Again (link below). Apparently, the article created some negative comments from Greeks and Greek sympathizers re BWW (in regard to how de Bernieres has interpreted the historical events). I noticed that several who reacted to the article had not read the book, though.

Sorry -- I just realized how long this...

Georgia, thanks so much for posting the eloquent article above by de Bernieres. I visited both Greece and Turkey in the 1960's and love them both for quite different reasons. DB is so right about the Greek music and poetry of Manos Hadjdakis, for example. I've been collecting bouzoukia music since the Sixties and his are among my favorites.

Of course I do not agree at all with the review posted above of BWW.

Don't apologize for length of posts; it's the quality that counts ;-)

The "folksy facetiousness" and "stereotypes spray-painted" phrases sound like they belong in our alliteration thread. Maybe Peter Kemp should read our discussion.

Thanks georgia peach for that article. L de B was 28 the year he first visited Greece, the same age I was although he beat me by a few years. I was there during one of their elections. Interesting. I know what he is talking about.

> I noticed that several who reacted to the article had not read the book, though.

I am always amazed at how many people give opinions of books of which they know nothing. It happened in that instance, it happens all of the time in Amazon 'reader' reviews, and with many folks who would like to censor material which they deem offensive (again, they haven't read it). I just shake my head and move on

And yeah, Kemp has an axe to grind somewhere. Interesting that was the only negative review you found, which says something

As for Magic Realism, I learned this term about the same time I learned the term Post Modernism on Table Talk. After six years, I am not sure what either one of them mean. This however:

>The novel is written in a magic realism convention when the supernatural in any way (ghosts, magic, time warps, premonitions, etc.) infuences the course of the plot, or actions of the characters

is perhaps the most sensible definition I have read. Now can you take a stab at Post Modernism? :)

I have not read Corelli's Mandolin, but seeing the movie gave me the feeling that the slant was pro Greek. Is that how the book reads? If that's the case, maybe he wrote a pro Turkish slant to satisfy critics? (still not sure there is a slant here, but thats just me)

IMHO, the CCM movie was terrible, not true to the book and Cage was awful as Corelli. How's that for a succinct review? ;-)

Cindy, I agree with your comment above:I think rather than siding with one or the other, he's just disgusted that governemtns start wars and mass evacuations with out any clue as to what it does to their people, their communities, their ecomony and ultimately their country. Almost like the prince says in Romeo and Juliet 'a plague on both your houses'

Frieda- yes, you understood me perfectly well. It is exactly what I meant. I think that I agree with Georgia about his role in the novel.

Veer- many good points in that article that you found. Which reminds me that I wanted to reread One Hundred Years of Solitude.

Georgia- very interesting, and the article sort of confirms my feelings about the novel: Bernieres wanted to do Turks justice with his book. In Europe, Turks are a bit looked down on and are associated pimarily with the Ottoman empire and its barbarianism and atrocities. What Bernieres shows in his book (and what is confirmed by the article)is that both sides suffered equally, thought similarly and were basically very much the same. I am not surprised that it has caused an outrage in Greece, though.

Maybe it's the yob philistine in me or just plain literary indolence but the last thing I care about in novels is what label the critics (or readers for that matter) want to pin on a particular work. The only question I ask is does the tale hangs together well? I can accept fantasy,surrealism a little magic realism (whatever the hell that is), whatever - just so long as it feels right within the framework of the story. I guess this is purely an instinctual approach but my preferred one. I found Georgio's death one of the most affecting parts of BWW and it did not jar in the least.
I do agree that Georgio's drowning diatribe against political,religious and military "F***heads" ruining a beautiful world represent pretty well a summary of deB's own views. I don't think in either novel he takes a particularly anti-Greek, anti- Italian or anti - Turk point of view or their converse. He does criticise unmercifully all their leaders however in all their incompetence, greed, sheer pig ignorance and self aggrandising madness. It is the ordinary people of all these nations that he admires and weeps at the travails visited upon them by their maniacal leaders.
I read somewhere that deB said his preferred method of work was to show how the megalomaniacs chew up the societies the try to remake in their own twisted image.
Above all this analysis and introspection both BWW and CCM are beautiful human works by a great writer. Larry

Larry- by the way, I don't think he is anti-anybody, I think he might pro-straightening out certain things, but I agree with you and Cindy that he mainly is anti-so called leaders.
Something else came to my mind re Georgio, and the technique used.
Because Georgio is dead, he is sort of floating over the landscape when he is narrating the chapter about the water fountain, or am I mistaken? If this is indeed so, then it affords him a winged bird's eye view, a much more panoramic one than the very narrow view of the 'birds without wings', and much more insight because of that. Is it going too far???
Now, regarding that Post Modernism, ...:)

I got the DVD "Gallipoli" from the library and just finished watching it. Brutal. I haven't seen that movie in 20 years but BWB certainly brought another element to it. The DVD includes a history of this war which expands on what Larry wrote way above this post. Recommended.

Just to let you know that I just finished Captain Corelli's Mandolin. I liked it as much as I liked BWW. If I were to compare the two, I would say that both very masterfully told stories, but each one had its strengths. BWWÂs strength was in the plot and CCM in the style. They were both a great pleasure to read.

And just to bring this to the top, and add my two-pennorth. There's nothing I can say that hasn't been said already - but my goodness, what a wonderful book.

Well, I'm glad this was brought back up. Someone gave me a stack of unwanted books a couple of months ago. All of them seemed to be uninteresting or poorly written. BWW was one of them. I tried for a few pages and just couldn't get started. I figured it was like the rest of the stack.

Now, I think I will hunt it up and try again.

agnes, the same thing happened to me. It must have been my mood, because once I tried it again, it hooked me from the start. Go for it!