The Sounds of Horseshoe a Zoopoetic Reading of Yılkı Atı by Abbas Sayar / Nal Sesleri Abbas Sayar’ın Yılkı Atı Adlı Romanının Zoopoetik Bir Okuması

Özlem Akyol

Öz


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.


Anahtar Kelimeler


Abbas Sayar, Yılkı Atı, zoopoetics.

Tam Metin:

PDF (English)

Referanslar


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.


Refback'ler

  • Şu halde refbacks yoktur.


online sayaç