Final Paper: Culture Clash and Depersonalization of Style in Orhan Pamuk’s My Name Is Red

Abstract

            This essay will cover an analysis about the theory of depersonalization presented in the novel. I’m going to use Eliot’s theory of depersonalization in art to explain the issue regarding culture clash between the West and the East which then lead to the clash of the miniaturists who are currently working on a secret book commissioned by the Sultan using the new style called Frankish style. One side refused to use the new western style for they want to keep the tradition and avoid blasphemy. The other side tempted to selectively absorb some value from western style that is called Frankish or Venetian style. However, Eliot argued that as one cannot escape from the past everytime he creates art in the present, one has to appreciate the tradition and his predecessor whose influence will always appear in his art. Depersonalization means the creator of art understands his tradition and also aware of the past.

Response 3: Cixous' Castration or Decapitation?

            The story of the decapitation of wives of the king for being disobedient to the order of Sun Tse shows that men do have power to shut the women’s mouth. In the story,  the wives were beheaded after refusing to follow Sun Tse’s instruction They kept on laughing instead of doing what they are told to so Sun Tse decided to decapitate them to shut them up. This shows that the decapitation takes women’s ability to speak. Sun Tse cut their heads thus they don’t have any power to speak anymore. Being decapitated means women lose their head, power, and identity, all at once. Decapitation is used for women instead of castration for the lack of phallus in their bodies. Phallus itself is the symbol of men’s masculinity and somehow it gives them power to ‘decapitate’ women. So the question is, can it work the other way? Can women castrate men? Cixous then mention about men’s anxiety of being castrated.

Response 2: Foucault's What is an Author?

First of all, I’d like to express my confusion into a question that is exactly the same as the title of this text I’m going to make a response of, what is an author? Different from Barthes’ The Death of the Author which said that the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of Author (and I wonder why the word Author is always written with capital ‘A’, does it have something to do with God?), Foucault provides a different point of view which I understand as possible relationship between the author and his works. But honestly I am still confused of this idea. Foucault gives an example of the difference between proper name and author’s name. He conveyed the idea of author’s name being more significant than proper name. If author’s name is really that important, does it mean the author defines his works? Or vice versa?