The concept of identity is a
reoccurring theme throughout the contemporary pieces that we have read. The question of what it means to exist as an
individual and understanding who oneself is on a deeper internal level plagues
the minds of the characters, specifically in the three most recent books that
we have completed. In both Orhan Pamuk’s
novel, The White Castle, and his
autobiographical work, Istanbul: Memories
and the City, as well as in Derek Walcott’s Omeros, the reader can recognize these questions repeating. As the characters develop through the works,
there are questions of individuality that are both resolved and brought about
as they move through the process of self-discovery.
In The White Castle, Pamuk causes his main
characters to ponder their own individuality by creating circumstances that
bring the two of them together. Due to
their uncanny physical similarities, the two characters eventually trade places
and go about living the lives of one another.
In their early moments of realizing their unusual circumstance, the
narrator of the piece as well as his master Hoja are standing together in front
of a mirror admiring this coincidence.
The narrator relays that “the two of us were one person! This now seemed to be an obvious truth… I
would not tear my eyes away; then he was gleeful as a child who teases a friend
by mimicking his words and movements. He
shouted that we should die together!
What nonsense, I thought. But I
was also afraid. It was the most
terrifying of all the nights I spent with him” (82-83). In this scene, it is apparent that the
narrator is struggling to distinguish himself as an individual. As Hoja continues to mimic his gestures
flawlessly, the narrator becomes increasingly afraid and insecure. He questions how it can be that he is no
longer unique and what can be done to define himself as his own person.
Upon
reading through Pamuk’s autobiography Istanbul:
Memories and the City, we can see that there are numerous ways in which The White Castle was riddled with pieces
of his real life. As early as the first
line of Pamuk’s account of his time and connection to Istanbul, he states that “From
a very young age, I suspected there was more to my world than I could see:
Somewhere in the streets of Istanbul, in a house resembling ours, there lived another
Orhan so much like me that he could pass for my twin, even my double” (3). From the very beginning, Pamuk has set the precedence
that he has questioned his own individuality sense he was just a young
boy. And, as we have discussed in his
fictional piece, Pamuk has created an actual account of this stirring within
him that caused him to wonder about his other self since childhood. Pamuk later goes to describe the relationship
that he also had in this sense of a replicate him. He says that “Whenever I was unhappy, I
imagined going to the other house, the other life, the place where the other
Orhan lived, and in spite of everything I’d half convince myself that I was he
and took pleasure in imagining how happy he was, such pleasure that, for a time,
I felt no need to go to seek the other house in that other imagined part of the
city” (5). In this case, Pamuk’s
individuality was a cumbersome part of his existence. By connecting to this other person, he had
the escape that he desired, away from his actual circumstance that he seemed to
dread.
Walcott’s
Omeros, while it takes a different
approach to the question of identity in that there is no sense of sharing one’s
identity with someone else, does question what identity truly is and how we can
often times lose who we really are. In
the story, Achille returns back to Africa in a state of trance and is reunited
with his father, Afolabe. In the process
of their conversations, Afolabe admits that he has forgotten the name that he
bestowed on his son and he asks what his new name now means. To this, Achille replies “Well, I too have
forgotten. Everything was
forgotten. You also. I do not know. The deaf sea has changed around every name
that you gave us; trees, men, we yearn for a sound that is missing” (137). Upon hearing that his son was not even aware
of the meaning of his own name, Afolabe becomes seemingly annoyed and responds
rather harshly saying “but you, if you’re content with not knowing what our
names mean, then I am not Afolabe, your father, and you look through my body as
light looks through a leaf. I am not
here or a shadow. And you, nameless son,
are only the ghost of a name” (138-139).
Through this interaction, we can gain insight into what Walcott thinks
is important to understanding one’s identity.
It is not necessarily that the exact meaning of one’s name is hugely
significant, but it is crucial to one’s understanding of who they are as a
unique individual. This is why Afolabe
becomes so disgruntled. If Achille is
willing to live his life without knowing the meaning of his own name, then he
must be willing to go through life not knowing who he truly is. And this is something that his caring father
cannot bear to witness.
The
question of identity is by no means a cut and dry issue. There are multiple factors that need to be
considered before even attempting to contemplate who someone actually is and
what their individuality really means to them.
I think that these three books discussed above do well to portray just
how complex an issue this can be for us as people. Personally, I think that through various
approaches, Walcott and Pamuk were both successful in shining light onto this
intricate topic and have really caused me to consider what it means to be ‘me’
too.
