Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Nal Sesleri Abbas Sayar’ın Yılkı Atı Adlı Romanının Zoopoetik Bir Okuması

Year 2020, Issue: 43, 183 - 194, 15.06.2020
https://doi.org/10.21497/sefad.756004

Abstract

20. yüzyılın sonlarına doğru gerçekleşen kültürel ve dilbilimsel değişikliklerin şekillendirdiği yeni bakış açısı 21. yüzyıl için daha az insan merkezli bir tutum gerektirir. Buna bağlı olarak, insanlar ve hayvanlar arasındaki ilişkiye ve hayvanların temsil rolüne dair artan bilimsel ilgi “zoopoetik” teorinin doğuşuyla sonuçlanır. Teori edebiyatı hayvanların varoluş hallerini edebi metinlerin nasıl yeniden yorumladığını analiz ederek insan dışı farklı temsil formlarını ön plana çıkarmak için kullanır ve edebi üretimin sadece insan katkısıyla sürdürülmeyeceğini aynı zamanda edebiyatı şekillendirme ve oluşturmada hayvanlarında etkin rol alabileceğini ortaya koyar. Aaron Moe’nun da belirttiği gibi “İnsandışı hayvanlar (zoion) yaratıcıdır (poiesis), ve bu yaratmada payları vardır” (2013, s. 2). Daha çok hayvanların yaratıcı tarafını ön plana çıkaran edebi metinlerin zoopoetik okuması hayvanların metnin özünü ve diğer karakterlerin hayatını nasıl değiştirdiğini göstermekle kalmaz aynı zamanda bu tür metinlerin içerdikleri ahlaki ve sosyal temaların gözler önüne serilmesi içinde zemin hazırlar. Bu anlamda, Yılkı Atı’nda (1970) Abbas Sayar bir atı yaratma kapasitesini tamamen öne çıkararak metnin tam ortasına yerleştirir. Atın tutumu direk olarak diğer karakterlerin yaşamlarını ve tüm metnin şekillenmesini etkilemektedir. Daha da önemlisi, okuyucuyu insanlarla hayvanlar arasındaki yakınlığı ve aynı zamanda 1970ler Orta Anadolu’sunun sosyoekonomik konularını yeniden düşünmeye iter. Buna bağlı olarak bu makalede Yılkı Atı adlı roman zoopoetik teorinin ışığı altında incelenecektir.

References

  • Berger, J. (2009). Why look at animals? London: Penguin Books.
  • Commoner, B. (1971). The closing circle-nature, man, and technology. New York: Knopf.
  • Derrida, J. (2008). The Animal That Therefore I Am, trans. David Wills and ed. Marie-Louise Mallet. New York: Fordham University Press.
  • Driscoll, K. and Hoffmann, E. (2018). Introduction: what is zoopoetics? K.Driscoll & E.Hoffmann (Ed.) What is zoopoetics? texts, bodies, entanglement. (pp. 1-15). USA: Palgrave.
  • Kate, R. (2007). Prometheus redeemed? from autoconstruction to ecopoetics. L. Kearns & C. Keller (Ed.), Ecospirit: religions and philosophies for the earth. (pp. 240-94). New York: Fordham University Press.
  • Marchesini, R. (2016). Zoomimesis: animal inspiration. Angelaki. 21 (1), 175-97.
  • McHugh, S. (2009a). Literary animal agents. PMLA 124 (2), 487–495.
  • McHugh, S. (2009b). Animal farm’s lessons for literary (and) animal studies. Humanimalia. 1 (1), 24–39.
  • Middelhoff, F. and Schönbeck, S. (2019). Coming to terms: the poetics of more-than-human worlds. F. Middelhoff & S. Schönbeck & R. Bogards & C. Gersdorf (Ed.), Texts, animals, environments. (pp.11-41). Berlin: Rombach Verlag.
  • Moe, A. (2012). Zoopoetics: a look at Cummings, Merwin, & the expanding field of ecocriticism. Humanimalia. 3 (2), 28-55.
  • Moe, A. (2013). Toward zoopoetics. Rethinking whitman’s original energy. Walt Whitman quarterly review. 31 (1), 1-17.
  • Norris, M. (1985). Beasts of the modern imagination: Darwin, Nietzsche, Kafka, Ernst, and Lawrence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Sayar, A. (1980). Yılkı Atı. Istanbul: Otuken.
  • Shaviro, S. (2015). Consequences of panpsychism. R. Grusin (Ed.), The Nonhuman Turn. (pp.19-44). Minneapolis: Minnesota UP.
  • Tabitha, F. (2008). Psychoanalytic concepts of fatherhood: patriarchal paradoxes and the presence of an absent authority. Studies in gender and sexuality. 9 (2), 113-139.

The Sounds of Horseshoe a Zoopoetic Reading of Yılkı Atı by Abbas Sayar

Year 2020, Issue: 43, 183 - 194, 15.06.2020
https://doi.org/10.21497/sefad.756004

Abstract

The new perception influenced by the cultural and linguistic turns of the late 20th century requires a less anthropocentric vision for the 21st century. By extension, an increasing scholarly interest in the relation between humans and nonhuman animals and the agentive role of the latter result in the emergence of “zoopoetics.” The theory includes literature to explore different nonhuman agentive forms by analysing how literary texts reproduce animals’ modes of being and reveals that poetic creation is not only sustained through human affair but animals also take an active part in making and shaping poetry. As Aaron Moe indicates “[N]onhuman animals (zoion) are makers (poiesis), and they have agency in that making” (2013, p. 2). A zoopoetic reading of literary texts which focuses on the nonhumans’ creative modes not only shows how nonhuman animals function in conducting the lives of other characters and the very substance of narrative but also forms a basis for the manifestation of the ethical and social dimension of such texts. In this sense, Abbas Sayar, in Yılkı Atı (1970) positions a horse in the centre of the narrative by making it truly an agentive form in a way that the horse’s attitude affects other characters’ lives and the overall formation of the text and, more importantly, makes the reader ponder about the proximity between humans and nonhuman animals as well as socioeconomic issues of 1970s’ Central Anatolia. In this article, then, Yılkı Atı will be explored under the light of zoopoetic theories.

References

  • Berger, J. (2009). Why look at animals? London: Penguin Books.
  • Commoner, B. (1971). The closing circle-nature, man, and technology. New York: Knopf.
  • Derrida, J. (2008). The Animal That Therefore I Am, trans. David Wills and ed. Marie-Louise Mallet. New York: Fordham University Press.
  • Driscoll, K. and Hoffmann, E. (2018). Introduction: what is zoopoetics? K.Driscoll & E.Hoffmann (Ed.) What is zoopoetics? texts, bodies, entanglement. (pp. 1-15). USA: Palgrave.
  • Kate, R. (2007). Prometheus redeemed? from autoconstruction to ecopoetics. L. Kearns & C. Keller (Ed.), Ecospirit: religions and philosophies for the earth. (pp. 240-94). New York: Fordham University Press.
  • Marchesini, R. (2016). Zoomimesis: animal inspiration. Angelaki. 21 (1), 175-97.
  • McHugh, S. (2009a). Literary animal agents. PMLA 124 (2), 487–495.
  • McHugh, S. (2009b). Animal farm’s lessons for literary (and) animal studies. Humanimalia. 1 (1), 24–39.
  • Middelhoff, F. and Schönbeck, S. (2019). Coming to terms: the poetics of more-than-human worlds. F. Middelhoff & S. Schönbeck & R. Bogards & C. Gersdorf (Ed.), Texts, animals, environments. (pp.11-41). Berlin: Rombach Verlag.
  • Moe, A. (2012). Zoopoetics: a look at Cummings, Merwin, & the expanding field of ecocriticism. Humanimalia. 3 (2), 28-55.
  • Moe, A. (2013). Toward zoopoetics. Rethinking whitman’s original energy. Walt Whitman quarterly review. 31 (1), 1-17.
  • Norris, M. (1985). Beasts of the modern imagination: Darwin, Nietzsche, Kafka, Ernst, and Lawrence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Sayar, A. (1980). Yılkı Atı. Istanbul: Otuken.
  • Shaviro, S. (2015). Consequences of panpsychism. R. Grusin (Ed.), The Nonhuman Turn. (pp.19-44). Minneapolis: Minnesota UP.
  • Tabitha, F. (2008). Psychoanalytic concepts of fatherhood: patriarchal paradoxes and the presence of an absent authority. Studies in gender and sexuality. 9 (2), 113-139.
There are 15 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Creative Arts and Writing
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Özlem Akyol This is me

Publication Date June 15, 2020
Submission Date February 10, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020 Issue: 43

Cite

APA Akyol, Ö. (2020). The Sounds of Horseshoe a Zoopoetic Reading of Yılkı Atı by Abbas Sayar. Selçuk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi(43), 183-194. https://doi.org/10.21497/sefad.756004

Selcuk University Journal of Faculty of Letters will start accepting articles for 2025 issues on Dergipark as of September 15, 2024.