Enlightenment

by Maureen Freely

Disappearing a few months after her Turkish husband is detained and her young son is placed in foster care by the U.S. Border Patrol, Jeannie Wakefield leaves behind a letter to an anonymous investigative journalist detailing the political factors that shaped her more than three-decade life in Turkey.

Genres: Fiction, Historical Fiction, Turkish, Politics

384 pages, Hardcover

First published March 2, 2007

Reviews

[Cindy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Set in Turkey based on historical events...good story

[Monique Roddy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A friend handed this over a few days before my flight home from Turkey, and let me just say, I picked this book up at a very tired 6 AM in the morning, while sitting on a luggage belt waiting to check in, and didn't put it back down until my flight was about to land many, many hours later. A 10 hour flight. The plot is complicated and intense, and immensely interesting. It captivated all of my attention and the unfolding story intrigued me.

Since reading it, I have pressed it upon three people. One read it through, and found it difficult to keep up with the plot when he had to put it down and come back later. One never even read it. One tried, and couldn't get into it. So maybe the magical dawn hours and travel weariness account for my love of this book, and that it could so thoroughly entertain me for so many hours. I'm not sure. I still recommend it, but my confidence in recommending it is declining!

[Fatou · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was very excited for the 1st 140 pages of this book and then it dragged on and on and on and the ending was disappointing, I could even call it stupid.

[Rıdvan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pekte sardığını söyleyemeyeceğim yani

[Jorun Bork · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating story that is based upon Maureen Freely's experiences of being American in Turkey during the cold war. The story includes intriguing details about the occurring cold-war conflicts, and later also about the islamophobia that occurred in the U.S. after 9/11. I particularly liked the in-depth details about spies, and that they can be detected through their too-perfect Turkish, and also about the difficulties Jeannie faced when attempting to move back to the U.S. from an Eastern country.

The only negative criticism I have is that the plot was occasionally difficult to follow due to the two different narrators (M and Jeannie Wakefield), which is why I am giving the book 4 stars instead of the otherwise deserved 5 stars.

Nevertheless, I do strongly recommend this book -- in particular to those who have an interest in international relations and human rights conflicts.

[mark · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rarely do I give a book two stars and still finish it. This is a novel mostly about Istanbul, Turkey from 1970 through 2005 and characters who are my age who share a syndrome with me--"rootlessness" (Something identified in my novel, "Attachment," as "Global Nomad Syndrome."). Both of these subjects compelled me to finish the book; the depth of the characters did not. This is not a character driven novel and the motivations and personalities of the actors are not well developed. Nevertheless, the story is one of intrigue and the historical context is informative; and there ARE nuggets of worth buried within: "... the past lurked under every stone and no one with a future dared to look." A timeless statement of fact.

[Jess · Rating 1 out of 5]

Quite possibly Enlightenment is the best novel ever written about Turkey during the Cold War, but it was so utterly (and pointlessly) confusing that I can't say for sure.

[Jeanne · Rating 1 out of 5]

I couldn't figure out who was talking or what time period we were in. Nobody seemed very likable. Bleh. DNF.

[Cecile Goldenberg · Rating 1 out of 5]

Complete and utter waste of my time, to be honest. I don't even know why I bothered to finish it. There didn't really seem to be any point to the story, and nothing was resolved at the end.

[Judy]

It was fascinating to begin with, but dragged a bit as time went on.m

[JES · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nothing about my first glance at Maureen Freely's novel Enlightenment threatened disillusion. The cover photo depicts a skyline clearly nowhere in America, a jumble of old and new architecture, street lights, and billboards, with birds fluttering up everywhere at once, from nowhere in particular; behind the title is positioned, where it's hard to ignore, a striking graphic: the star and crescent, iconic symbol of (among many other institutions) the country of Turkey. The blurbs and jacket copy promised an exotic experience: "quietly stunning"; "riveting"; "brave and unflinching"; "gripping and critically acclaimed"...

I enjoyed the book for a while.

Here's the story in its general form:

The plot spans the last three decades of the 20th century and the first few years of the 21st. An American woman, Jeannie Wakefield, has engaged a journalist friend -- known only as M -- to help her uncover the truth about her husband Sinan, a US-born Turkish documentary filmmaker who has disappeared. Jeannie herself disappears, leaving M (by her own admission, a specialist in stories about mothers and babies) to assemble on her own the shadowy international jigsaw puzzle.

By far most of the action takes place in Turkey, especially Istanbul. Jeannie's father William is stationed there, pretty clearly as a US intelligence professional -- a "spy," although one of the aloof, sit-and-observe, John le Carré variety rather than the rough-and-tumble Ian Fleming sort. And it is there, in the 1970s, that Jeannie falls in with a leftist cadre of young (but mostly upper-class) Turkish intellectuals and American expats, including the young Sinan.

Central to the plot is the so-called "trunk murder" of 1971, in which the group's mentor -- an American named Dutch Harding -- was brutally killed and then disposed of in a large wicker trunk. And yet this murder is something of a Hitchcockian McGuffin: it perhaps did and did not happen; the victim may have been Dutch Harding, or someone else, or no one at all; the killer may have been one or more of the students, or perhaps someone in the employ of the Turkish government and/or American intelligence service. As the years and decades pass, Jeannie fitfully tries to learn the truth of the trunk murder. No one tells the story consistently, unambiguously. She drifts out of and back into contact with the others of the group, especially Sinan, whom she eventually marries and has a son with... but she can't get a straight answer even from him.

And then comes 9/11, and the over-reaction by the US Department of Homeland Security which sends anyone "foreign" remotely associated with terrorism straight into the shadowy world of Guantanamo Bay and extreme rendition... anyone like, say, Sinan, with his leftist past. Denounced by old enemies in the Turkish "deep state," Sinan simply disappears into the maw of US security. Their son is taken from Jeannie and placed in foster care. Enter M, and her investigation.

----

Now, all of this sounds promising enough. Yet Enlightenment, to my taste, not only failed to deliver on the promises of the plot; it failed as well to depict convincingly the characters and their interrelationships, and it even failed to bring Istanbul to life for me. And, in a coup de grace for the things I like to find in fiction if I can find nothing else, it's stylistically, well, uninspired.

Let's tackle the Istanbul setting as an example.

I love reading about other countries (although I've been overseas exactly once, for barely a week). Having read a description of a city street down which I have never walked, and probably never will, I love to close my eyes and see it for myself -- the shops and the faces and the windows and flags and trees and mountains -- to feel for myself the pavement under my bare feet and the fabric between my fingertips, to hear the wind blowing through the leaves and the voices of children and their parents in a marketplace.

But Maureen Freely never managed to pull off any of that for me in Enlightenment. She is not the first novelist to namedrop streets and landmarks -- think of all the writers who've used phrases like "the Twelfth Arrondissement" as glib summations of everything important about a setting. Freely seems to have forgotten that the reader may not see what she herself sees upon encountering a proper noun like, say, Belek. ("Oh yes, Belek. I remember it well. No need to describe it!") But I can't enjoy reading about a place of which I know nothing if I must constantly run to Wikipedia to pull it together in my mind's eye; eventually I just stopped trying to picture any of the places mentioned. Perhaps a map of Istanbul in the book's front or back matter would have helped.

As for the style, I will say only, with embarrassment, that it took voracious-reader me four damn months to read these fewer than 400 pages. It was very difficult for me to read more than a few pages without getting distracted or, well, nodding off.

I owe it to you to note that I'm apparently in a very small minority among the book's readers. The blurbs on the book jacket do not mislead: they do represent fairly the critical response to the novel. Non-professional reviewers around the Web, by and large, agree with the pros. They pronounce the plot's resolution satisfying, and are enthralled by the magical/luminous/etc. picture of Istanbul which the book paints.

As a junior in high school, I read Silas Marner with much the same sense that I read Enlightenment. Baffled that it had attained the standing of a highly respected classic, I yet made up my mind to finish it. At the book's end, many weeks later, I sighed with huge relief -- and never read anything else by George Eliot.

Please do not be put off by my review, then. There are so many ways in which any given author's sensibility and aesthetic can misalign with any given reader's that it's a wonder we ever fall in love with novels in the first place. Enlightenment, for me -- and perhaps only for me -- turned out to be one of those rare, utterly out-of-whack duds.

[NOTE: This review originally appeared, in slightly different form, at The Book Book.]

[Aslihan · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's always interesting to read books on your country/ culture from a foreigner's perspective, you notice things that you take for granted, or things you didn't even take note of. This could have been the case in this book as well, unfortunately the author is trying very hard, has this overambitious take to write historical fiction, a love story, a political thriller and probably a personal narrative all at the same time, and loses her grip along the way. The element of suspense is tedious and not well constructed, by the time it's resolved it makes you think "Did I read hundreds of pages for this?" The whole thing goes on and on giving you hope for a climax that never shows up.

It was interesting for me to read personally as I went to the same schools mentioned in the book -a generation later-, hung out in the same places in Istanbul, so it was a bit of nostalgia for me. Also, all the events mentioned in the book pertaining to the recent history of the country are true stories, that was also a plus to trace those events and the transformations in the country. However, at the very few moments where the author took the liberty of making political comments, I think she could have been bolder, especially in reference to the deep state.

Unsurprisingly, many people did not finish so read it if you have a specific reason to read it, or if you have patience.

[sandy · Rating 1 out of 5]

let me start with the things i liked about this book.
the location. i’ve read very few books that are centred in turkey—which is probably my fault—and i loved reading about the places the characters went two. freely paints an impressive picture.
the time period. again, not something i’ve seen touched on a lot before. it was fascinating and heartbreaking all at once.
that’s about it. the characters are very one-dimensional, the story has its twists and turns but they’re not very interesting and are incredibly easy to predict. the ending is underwhelming. sinan and jeannie make it nearly impossible to root for them because of how unbearable the two are, and the characters that do seem compelling (like suna & chloe) are given very little attention in comparison.
i hate that sinan’s children from his first marriage are completely forgotten after they’re used to further the plot, like what? jeannie mentions that the way sinan holds their son tells her he knows how to handle children, and not at any point does she stop and consider the fact that her husband ABANDONED his first two kids.

[Derya Ekin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Arka kapağını okuduktan sonra beklentim 70'lerde işlenen sandık cinayeti, soğuk savaşın Türkiye üstündeki etkileri, Türkiye'nin 70'lerden bu yana geçirdiği sosyo-politik değişim gibi konulara farklı bir perspektiften bakmasıydı. Ama hiç de beklediğim gibi olmadı( Bu benim hatam da olabilir nihayetinde bir roman, beklentimi neden bu kadar yüksek tuttum ki?) Kitap roman olarak yazıldığı için Mahir Çayan, İsrail başkonsolosu Elrom olayına kurgu gereği değinilmiş. Aslında ortalama bir roman denebilir. Ortalamanın üstünde puan verme sebebim ise kitabın çok akıcı olmasıydı. Yazar, merak unsurunu özellikle bölüm sonlarına çok iyi yerleştirmiş, sürekli diğer bölümü okuma ihtiyacı hissediyorsunuz. Uzun zamandır bu kadar seri okuduğum bi kitap olmamıştı. Sonlara doğru yardımcı karakterlerin olaya dahil olmasıyla biraz dağıldım ve 'ne alaka' modunda bitirdim. Ama dediğim gibi arka kapak yazısına göre alıp okursanız hayal kırıklığına uğrayabilirsiniz benim gibi

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked something about this book but was often irritated with it.

Freely sets her story mostly in Istanbul and she knows her way around that beautiful city. She’s also the translator for Pamuk’s book Snow. From the beginning, it promised a good mystery and offered a complex structure, with one narration embedded in another. It also alters between the approximately the present day and the 1970s when Istanbul was in the midst of serious Cold War authoritarianism, with many arrests and tortures.

Much of the story revolves around Jeannie, an American high school graduate who takes up residence with her father in Istanbul in 1970, meets leftish students and find that her father is a spook. Perhaps he is encouraging or ordering the vast assault on basic human rights that Turkey carried out in those Cold War days.

Mysteries arise in this 1970s period of he story, but the book actually begins with the present day mystery. Jeannie has now grown up and married one of the Turkish students, Sinan. They have a five year old boy. But, outrageously in everyone’s view, Sinan has been detained by Americans on entry into the United States. The boy was placed somewhere unknown, painfully parallel to the extraordinary renditions, but presumably without torturing the boy.

To deal with these arrests, Jeannie seeks the help of M, a woman whose history in Istanbul is peculiarly like Jeannie’s. M becomes involved, whereupon Jeannie disappears and M reads her journals from the 1970s. We thus get M’s narration with Jeannie’s narration embedded. As the book progresses, M summarizes Jeannie’s story more and more in her own words, which begins to sound like a third person narrator--unless you think she sounds like Jeannie herself.

All the characters wear false faces and hug their secrets. They’d better if they want to stay alive, out of prison and unmutilated. But with no one talking–“You have no idea how dangerous it is to ask that question,” Jeannie is told in effect and with irritating repetition– it’s pretty hard to get a story unfolding. The characters have characteristics, but though we surmise they are left-wing students, we don’t really know what they think or how violent they are prepared to be. That’s part of the mystery, to be sure, but also part of the reason we don’t know them and part of the reasons why the mysteries have little or no content. The constant blurring and outright hiding of facts is maybe the chief irritation I felt through most of the book.

The secretiveness, the false lives of the characters gave substance to a theme that was barely referred to in words. Privacy is necessary for human fulfillment, but as you see the vagueness and insubstantiality of life with no reliably shared thoughts or information, you have to believe that sharing of feelings and thought is also essential to human development and fulfillment. That point can be stated as a privacy value, too; a state that makes secrecy seem necessary is a state that is dangerous because it intrudes on us when we share our lives with others. I thought the book successful in demonstrating this point, but the price was the blurring of the story, which never seemed to escape the strangulating secrecy and mystery.

There are some other themes that are stated somewhat abstractly but not developed. One of these condemns American imperialism of the Cold War era, seeing Americans has having bought Turkey (which seems absurd today as Turkey flirts with Iran; President Gul is in Iran as I write this). The American cultural/monetary imperialism theme is one-sided. A historian of Turkey (Zurcher) has explained that Turkey had been through a period of self-chosen trade-isolation, with the result it had no reserves of foreign money, yet needed to supply its own industry with the purchase of foreign goods. The foreign financial institutions that aided Turkey may have wanted a quid pro quo (surprise!), but they helped save Turkey from its absurdly nationalistic and self-imposed economic disaster. A little nuance in this theme would have made it more real. American imperialism is connected to the present day story, too, transmuted to become American overreaction to 9-11. But the novel just doesn’t give facts, not even “fictional facts” to support this theme. Too bad; factual support by way of actual scenes would have enlivened the thin abstraction. It would have been fun to read about how the strings were actually pulled by the supposed puppet-masters.

The payoff for me was not where I want the reading payoff to be– in the reading enjoyment. The payoff for me has been rather that the book made me think about some reading-and-writing issues afterwards. Did I have any good basis for re-reading Conrad’s Secret Sharer as soon as I finished this novel, for the feeling that the narrator M and the character Jeannie are, in some sense, one and the same? Or for wondering, if so, which was the “real” one, or if either existed at all? Why did Freely deliberately obstruct the reader’s access to any real and precise information throughout the book? Was either of the narrators (M and Jeannie, the latter by way of her journals) reliable about anything? For that matter, was there a single character who was reliable? I wanted a really good monograph that worked through the permutations of unreliable narrators– the story reasons, if any, for their unreliability, the author’s reasons for it, the nature of their unreliability, the point at which the reader should ideally be allow to perceive they aren’t to be trusted, the scope of their unreliability....on and on.

Anyone got a suggestion?

[Monica · Rating 1 out of 5]

I just wanted it to stop. I kept hoping it would get better and make sense, but sadly, it did not.

[Lynne · Rating 1 out of 5]

Maybe two stars, because the Afterword by Suna was the best part of the novel. The afterword shows that Freely can write clearly, concisely, with depth (though still a few clumsy issues). The rest of the novel, while trying to create an air of mystery and subtlety, failed in that attempt and was just a big, annoying, repetitive mess. I wonder if this is Freely's first novel? Or, is she imitating writers she's translated without truly understanding plot and character development? I think she could grow into a fine writer, but this text was frustrating, dull, disappointing, poorly crafted. Clumsy really is a good word for it; and, the work of an inexperienced writer (it just has a lack of mature craft). I am shocked by the positive reviews plastering the outside and inside of the novel. They made me question if I just wasn't "getting it." But no: Don't waste your time!

I think what's so disappointing is that I was so excited for this novel. But Freely is NOT an Elif Shafak. I'm going to go read another Shafak novel, thank-you-very-much.

I finished this damn thing b/c I did want to know what happened, but I skimmed from page 230 on. I could have easily just read the Afterword and been done. Such a frustrating mess of rehashing the stupid Trunk Murder over and over and over and of annoying, pathetic Jeannie. The perpetual miring in and revision of the past could have been so much more artfully communicated. This book was in need of an overhaul. Revision, revision? Yes, Bueller.

I'm done; I've got to stop raging over my disappointment in this [I really hate to say it] terrible novel.



Here's my review after reading 230 pages:


I was so relieved to read two reviews here [on Amazon] that agreed with my own conclusion--reached at least by page 230 in the novel, if not earlier--that this book is indeed, "a mess." I recognize that Freely wishes to create layers of mystery. However, the novel quickly sprawls into "a mess," instead of a shadowy, compelling story, for a few reasons.

1) M and Jeannie don't come across as believable characters. I can't buy into who they are, so the impetus for the novel fails for me. If the women were younger, less mature in 2005, their characterizations would be more believable to me. Not that women in their 50s have automatically figured out their lives. But these women--the women, as they are in 2005--have experienced much. Jeannie and M don't appear to have grown, with Jeannie waiting on M to publish her story and sending plaintive emails, and M still a teenager, fretting over who nabbed her fiancee 30+ years later (um, get over it?). The novel undermines its own claim that experiences in other countries and with political turmoil can shape maturity, and instead creates two women who are stunted. I can see that these women are mired in the past, but I would expect deeper psychological shaping due to the decades that they've been haunted by the events of the 70s. Is Freely making a comment on Turkey-US relations, or some other comment through this choice? Perhaps. But if so, I just don't believe that this method portrays her message well. Instead, the characterization of the women in the book is a discredit to the characters' own hard experiences. Again, it makes the characters unbelievable, which destabilizes the novel.

2) The frame story of M reporting information to Mary Ann is a weak choice for an audience. Why would "Mary Ann" read a nearly 400-page novel, as most of/all of the novel is told to her? To me, the purpose of the novel is immediately called into question by this inelegant choice of audience.

3) Although I don't like to judge a book on typos, the typos are, indeed, glaring ("swang"? Really?). How can a book be considered masterful when every word does not count, when every word has not been carefully chosen? The typos are symptomatic of a novel which is, overall, not a tightly written text.

I had such high hopes for the novel. I kept thinking that perhaps the style wasn't to my taste or that maybe this was a case where I just didn't "get it" (I constantly read complex pieces, but was quite willing to take the blame). Maybe this review does just reflect me and a lack of sensitivity to subtlety, but I do think the above elements of the novel turn what is touted as a compelling read into a dull and disappointing piece.

[Ajk · Rating 2 out of 5]

Taken from the memories of Ms. Freely's youth in Istanbul, its about a bunch of college kids trying to foment revolution against the heavy-handed (and nefariously Deep) State in '60s Turkey. Its a solid backdrop for a story...true love, lust, the delta between the two, all taking place with Daddy Issues and evading state security. Because when you're 13-20, everything that happens to you is The Most Important Thing Ever. So why not write a book where it actually, in some small way, is like where you staying with your boyfriend has international implications?

I'm obviously a target audience, what with going to Istanbul at a young point in my life. So even though I read reviews where folks complained about not "getting" the locale, I actually do, sorta. And fighting imperialism, rebelling against parents, all that sort of thing is all my sort of thing to. So yeah, if you studied abroad and have an overinflated sense of yourself, you're the target audience too.

Freely is famous for being Orhan Pamuk's translator first and foremost, and this is, I believe her first novel. And it is a bit uneven, and some characters are a bit wooden, and things are generally not absolutely fantastic, or even on Pamuk's level. But it's a fun, taut, pageturner. Its a good mystery/romance novel for twenty-somethings. So its a fun book. I won't necessarily recommend it to all of my friends, but I'd give it to a girl who just came back from studying in Istanbul or something. Its full of coasties, privileged diplomats' kids, and hard-boiled journalists, and everyone in the book is super-fantastic. So its a fun read...just more like Grisham than Pamuk. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Leanna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Author Maureen Freely grew up as an ex-pat in Istanbul and sets her latest book, Enlightenment, there. Freely has an intimate view of the city, but the book’s setup is convoluted in the extreme.

“M,” the narrator, is an American who also grows up in Istanbul. During high school, she falls in love with the son of a Turkish diplomat, Sinan. After M moves back to the U.S., Sinan dumps her for another ex-pat, Jeannie.

Fast forward thirty-plus years. Jeannie contacts M, a journalist, after Sinan is arrested by Homeland Security in the United States for terrorist activities. And that’s just the beginning. The narrative revolves around spies, revolutionaries, murder, and terrorism, among other things.

Enlightenment is well written and fascinating, but I ended up plodding through it because the story simply makes my brain ache. M skirts around issues. She is vague and deliberately obtuse. She hints but never fully reveals. And I find this manner of storytelling frustrating, disingenuous, and just plain mind-numbing.

That being said, Enlightenment is an intriguing, though frustrating, mystery. Freely gives a captivating glimpse into an unstable Istanbul and the lives of the nefarious ex-pat community (if she’s to be believed, the U.S. is to blame for many of the country’s problems). This book is excellent for anyone with a lot of patience and a desire to be dragged willy-nilly without any satisfactory payoff.

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

The story of an American woman, Jeannie Wakefield, who comes to Istanbul in 1970, and becomes involved with a group of leftest student radicals. Her father, William Wakefield, is a CIA operative, while boyfriend (and later husband) Sinan, is one of the leftists. As the country slides into civil war and military rule Jeannie accuses Dutch Harding, their mentor, of being an agent provocateur. Dutch is apparently murdered (the so-called "Trunk Murder") by the group, who are said to have been imprisoned and tortured. Jeannie returns to Istanbul in 1980, and spends the next 25 years trying to discover the truth of what happened, amid many layers of complexity, lies and subterfuge.

It was all a bit confusing for me, to be honest, but one learns a lot about Turkey, its history and its politics and especially its role in the Cold War. Turkey, straddling the historic border between Europe and Asia, was a key front in the Cold War. The Turkish military has long been closely allied to the United States, as well as being the protectors of secular rule. The 1960s and 1970s saw left student uprisings and a sinister right response, which turned into a murky mix of demonstrations, kidnappings, assassinations, bombings, and ultimately chaos.

[Deon · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Enlightenment by Maureen Freely is set in Turkey. Istanbul is the gateway between east and west, a cosmopolitan city pulled in opposite directions by it’s allegiance to each. Ms M’s first love was a handsome youth with dark eyes. She was shattered when he threw her over for another woman. Now decades later that other women, Jeannie, is asking for M’s help to free Sinan from Guantanamo. Sinan, a filmmaker of controversial documentaries, was stopped at the airport with his young son and taken into custody. Jeannie has no idea where her child is being held. M, a reporter, can publicize their outrageous treatment in the hopes of bringing pressure to bear to free Sinan and his child. This is a complicated, elaborate story with many a dark twisting alley. Maureen Freely is also the translator for the fabulously talented Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk.

[Joyce · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. It carried me along, it made me think. The characters were real and it was true to life. There was good complexity to this book and an interesting type of suspense.

If you've ever lived overseas or spent time with another culture, particularly a Middle Eastern one, then I think you would like this book.

I think this book worked on many levels, and I believe the disjointedness and skipping around were more realistic in capturing how well people understood what was going on, how different people brought who they were to the table and how that mix was itself the largest contributor to the events that followed.

I look forward to reading more from this author.

[Aimee · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was strange. The stories whisked around in circles, like a spinning top, or a tornado. The characters seemed to be just swept up in this tornado for a time, and then spit out. I had trouble deciding whether the end offered some sort of conclusion, and felt perhaps that it was more a snapshot of Turkey in the '70s, than a story with a normal beginning, middle and end. The descriptions of Turkey were amazing however, so colourful and sensual - I'm inspired to go there one of these days now, not knowing diddley-squat about it before reading this book.

[Sandy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was tempted to rate this book higher because I found it fascinating. It tells the story of Turkey in the 60s and 70s (up to current day) through the eyes of two American students who lived there. It is a mystery at heart but tries also to deal with the realities of modern Turkish political life and Turkish-American relationships. The book is also frustrating in it's convoluted unraveling of the mystery. Perhaps that's the point, that there is no way to know reality! But a little less frustration would have been appreciated;.

[Melis · Rating 3 out of 5]

dili vasat (çeviriden dolayı değil diye düşünüyorum, ingilizcesi de pek iyi değil gibi duruyor. best seller roman dili var çoğu yerinde), kurgunun en kritik yerinde hiçbir şey anlatmayan diyaloglar beceriksiz bir gizem yaratma çabası gibi geldi bana. eski istanbul'u mekansal ve siyasal olarak okumak güzeldi: bir aşk hikayesinin uzun detayları yerine hisarüstü'nü daha ayrıntılı okumayı tercih ederdim.

[Jt · Rating 2 out of 5]

I tried. Some good reviews led me to this book, and reading that the author is Orham Pamuk's English translator helped me buy it.

It boils down to this: too much telling, not enough showing. I read the first 8 chapters and almost all the story is happening inside the narrator's head. I need more action!

More and better books await.

[Mimi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed the story. Having grown up in DC and met many people like these characters I completely identified with them on an abstract level. Obviously the story is fiction however I found the characters to be rich and believable. This was a page- turner. Couldn't put it down. Really fun read.

[Sarah Coolidge · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a 3 star book until the end. It held my interest for quite awhile but I just got bored of all the "intrigue." there was so much information withheld and so many false leads given that at the end i really didn't care whodunnit and what they dun.

Also, I have never read a book with so many typos. Did anyone even glance this book over before it went to print?

[Ann Tonks · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am so ambialetn about this book. On the one hand, the pictures she paints of Istanbul are wonderful as is the politic scene there in the lat 20th century. But the layers and layers of story telling ultimately were irritating as a form and Istarted to lose focus on the the two American women characters. I was engrossed but ultimately disastisfied.

[Magda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not as darkly Conrad-esque as the cover comments make it out to be. A compelling story, especially for those who have been to Turkey / Istanbul and have seen the city transform.
At times the story was hard to follow (needs some editing, perhaps?), as it jumped between eras, characters and cities. Regardless, a suggested read.