Journals / Akdeniz İnsani Bilimler Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 10

The Question of Wholeness in Daniel Martin

Daniel Martin’de Bütünlük Sorunu

Hamdi Ali Serdar(RECEP TAYYİP ERDOĞAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)
Meryem Ayan(PAMUKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3138-1523
Pages
427–436
Publication Date
2020-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is only through the interventions of this ghost in Daniel’s narrative that his search for a more stable way of assembling his fragmented consciousness and of being later able to devote it to the writing of a coherent novel becomes possible.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In Daniel Martin, a semi-autobiographical novel, John Fowles draws a portrayal of the powerlessness of a scriptwriter who wishes to make a significant change in his career, stop writing others into his scripts, instead to become a novelist and write himself into his own novel.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Living in the United States in the late 1960s, Daniel feels detached from whatever and whoever he has had in his life to make himself the Daniel Martin of the late 1940’s.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is only through the interventions of this ghost in Daniel’s narrative that his search for a more stable way of assembling his fragmented consciousness and of being later able to devote it to the writing of a coherent novel becomes possible.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Bütünlük · Parçalanma · Anlatı

Abstract

In Daniel Martin, a semi-autobiographical novel, John Fowles draws a portrayal of the powerlessness of a scriptwriter who wishes to make a significant change in his career, stop writing others into his scripts, instead to become a novelist and write himself into his own novel. Living in the United States in the late 1960s, Daniel feels detached from whatever and whoever he has had in his life to make himself the Daniel Martin of the late 1940’s. His earlier change of direction in his career from a playwright to a scriptwriter later brings Daniel to a point at which he feels disenchanted by what he has become. He also feels that he has become torn apart between his past and his present—something which pushes him to try to gather the bits and pieces of his life into a visible whole in a narrative. That is why he begins his narrative with a scene from his childhood in the first chapter. Yet, in the latter chapters of his narrative he is seen to have difficulties in sticking to a fixed tense and a fixed voice. The recurring zigzags in the choice of tenses and of voices eventually result in Daniel’s failure to respond strongly to fragmentation. His powerlessness is, however, covered up as well as made up for in the final chapters of the novel by someone else —the ill-concealed ghost of John Fowles’s third-person narrator. It is only through the interventions of this ghost in Daniel’s narrative that his search for a more stable way of assembling his fragmented consciousness and of being later able to devote it to the writing of a coherent novel becomes possible.

Özet

Yarı-otobiyografik bir roman olan Daniel Martin’de John Fowles, kariyerinde önemli bir değişiklik yapmayı, senaryolarında başkalarını artık yazmamayı, bunun yerine bir roman yazarı olup kendi romanında kendini yazmayı arzulayan bir senaristin başarısızlığının portresini çizmektedir. 1960’ların sonlarında Birleşik Devletler’de yaşayan Daniel, kendisini 1940’ların sonlarındaki Daniel Martin yapan ve hayatında yer alan her ne ve her kim var ise onlardan kopmuş hissetmektedir. Kariyerinde daha önce gerçekleştirdiği oyun yazarlığından senaristliğe doğru yön değişikliği Daniel’i olduğu şeyden hayal kırıklığı duyan bir noktaya getirmiştir. Keza, kendisini geçmişi ve şu anı arasında da parçalanmış hissetmektedir—ki bu durum onu bir anlatı içinde hayatının parçalarını bir bütüne dönüştürmeye itmektedir. İşte bu sebeple anlatısına ilk bölümde çocukluğundan bir sahneyle başlar. Fakat anlatısının sonraki bölümlerinde sabit bir zaman kipine ve sabit bir bakış açısına bağlı kalmakta zorlandığı görülmektedir. Zaman kipi ve bakış açısı seçiminde tekrar eden zikzakların sonucunda, Daniel’in bu parçalanmaya güçlü bir şekilde yanıt veremez. Ancak, romanın son bölümlerinde bir başkası tarafından —Fowles’un üçüncü-şahıs anlatıcısının kötü gizlenmiş hayaleti—hem güçsüzlüğünün üstü örtülür hem de güçsüzlüğü telafi edilir. Daniel’in parçalanmış bilincini toparlaması ve sonrasında bunu daha insicamlı bir roman yazımına adayabilmesi için daha istikrarlı bir yol bulma arayışı bu hayaletin, Daniel’in anlatısına yaptığı müdahaleler sayesinde mümkün olmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Serdar, H. A., Ayan, M. (2020). The Question of Wholeness in Daniel Martin. Akdeniz İnsani Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 10, 427–436. https://ajindex.com/articles/1358349

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Alter R. (1984). Motives for Fiction. Cambridge 1984.
  2. Boomsma P. J. (1980). “‘Whole Sight’: Fowles, Lukacs, and Daniel Martin”. Journal of Modern Literature 8/2 (1980) 325-336.
  3. Brandt P. (1996). “Somewhere Else in the Forest”. Twentieth Century Literature 42/1 (1996) 145-164.
  4. Butler L. (1991). “John Fowles and the Fiction of Freedom”. Ed. J. Acheson. The British and Irish Novel since 1960 (1991) 62-77. New York.
  5. Cooper P. (1991). The Fictions of John Fowles: Power, Creativity, Femininity. Ottawa 1991.
  6. Cresap K. (2013). “The World-Making Capacity of John Fowles's Daniel Martin”. Texas Studies in Literature and Language 55/2 (2013) 159-183.
  7. Ferris I. (1982). “Realist Intention and Mythic Impulse in Daniel Martin”. The Journal of Narrative Technique 12/2 (1982) 146-153.
  8. Fowles J. & Vipond D. (1996). “An Unholy Inquisition”. Twentieth Century Literature 42/1 (1996) 12-28.
  9. Fowles J. (2004). Daniel Martin. London 2004.
  10. Gardner J. (1977, October 1). “In Defense of the Real”. Saturday Review, pp. 22-24.
  11. Huffaker R. (1980). John Fowles. Boston 1980.
  12. Lukacs G. (1969). The Meaning of Contemporary Realism. London 1969.
  13. Olshen B. N. (1978). John Fowles. New York 1978.
  14. Onega S. J. (1989). Form and Meaning in the Novels of John Fowles. London 1989.
  15. Park S. (1985). “Time and Ruins in John Fowles's Daniel Martin”. Modern Fiction Studies 31/1 (1985) 157-163.
  16. Salami M. (1992). John Fowles's Fiction and the Poetics of Postmodernism. Rutherford 1992.
  17. Salami M. (1998). “The Archaeological Representation of the Orient in John Fowles's Daniel Martin”. ARIEL: A Review of International English Literature 29/3 (1998) 143-168.
  18. Wilson R. J. (1995). “Overcoming Reification in Daniel Martin: John Fowles's Response to George Lukacs”. The Journal of Narrative Technique 25/3 (1995) 304-319.