Journals / Melius: Journal of Narrative and Language Studies / 2025 / Sayı: 4

The Discourse Created by the Animal in Gölgesizler and İnce Memed

Gölgesizler ve İnce Memed’te Hayvan Tarafından Oluşturulan Bağlam

Suzan Deniz(NAMIK KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5963-5719
Pages
34–41
Publication Date
2025-09-26
🏛️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)

The main aim of this study is to state that animals are not only meant to be interpreted as symbols of concepts; on the contrary, they present their own autonomy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:As one of the aspects of ecocriticism, zoopoetics focuses on the existence of non-human animals in literary works.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The term expresses how animals or rather non-human animals are able to create their own poetry through systematic vocalization, therefore creating their own art.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The main aim of this study is to state that animals are not only meant to be interpreted as symbols of concepts; on the contrary, they present their own autonomy.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Zoopoetika · Jacques Derrida · hayvan

Abstract

As one of the aspects of ecocriticism, zoopoetics focuses on the existence of non-human animals in literary works. The term expresses how animals or rather non-human animals are able to create their own poetry through systematic vocalization, therefore creating their own art. It is a term Jacques Derrida coined in his essay ‘‘The Animal Therefore I Am”. Although Derrida focuses on poetry as a genre, the term will be applied to two Turkish novels: İnce Memed by Yaşar Kemal and Gölgesizler by Hasan Ali Toptaş. As the human characters in literary works have their own personality and are therefore able to create discourse with their monologues or dialogues, non-human animals also create their own discourse. In İnce Memed, as the English translation [Memed, My Hawk] suggests, the hawk is the central animal and therefore displays a certain discourse of power. The non-human animals in Gölgesizler bear, horse, and dove are also notorious for their power but are able to create a discourse of cruelty as well, among many different aspects. Consequently, non-human animals also are the focus of attention of literature from the view of zoopoetics. The main aim of this study is to state that animals are not only meant to be interpreted as symbols of concepts; on the contrary, they present their own autonomy.

Özet

Zoopoetika, hayvanların ya da daha ziyade insan olmayan hayvanların sistematik seslendirme yoluyla nasıl kendi şiirlerini yaratabildiklerini ve böylece kendi sanatlarını yarattıklarını ifade eder. Ekoeleştirinin boyutlarından biri olan zoopoetika, edebi eserlerde insan olmayan hayvanların varlığına odaklanır. Bu terim, Jacques Derrida'nın “Hayvanım Öyleyse Varım” adlı denemesinde kullandığı bir terimdir. Derrida, her ne kadar bir tür olarak şiire odaklansa da bu terim çalışma kapsamında iki Türk romanına uygulanacaktır: Yaşar Kemal’in İnce Memed ve Hasan Ali Toptaş’ın Gölgesizler romanları. Edebi eserlerdeki insan karakterlerin kendi kişilikleri olduğu ve bu nedenle monologları veya diyalogları ile söylem yaratabildikleri gibi, insan olmayan hayvanlar da kendi söylemlerini yaratırlar. İnce Memed'de, İngilizce çevirisinden de anlaşılacağı üzere [Memed, My Hawk], şahin merkezdeki hayvandır ve bu nedenle belirli bir güç söylemi sergiler. Gölgesizler'deki insan olmayan hayvanlar olan ayı, at ve güvercin de güçleriyle nam salmışlardır ancak pek çok farklı yönlerinin yanı sıra bir zalimlik söylemi de yaratabilmektedirler. Dolayısıyla insan olmayan hayvanlar da zoopoetika açısından edebiyatın ilgi odağıdır. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, hayvanların sadece kavramların sembolleri olarak yorumlanmadığını, aksine kendi özerkliklerini ortaya koyduklarını belirtmektir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Deniz, S. (2025). The Discourse Created by the Animal in Gölgesizler and İnce Memed. Melius: Journal of Narrative and Language Studies, Sayı: 4, 34–41. https://doi.org/10.62425/melius.1697656

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (23)

  1. Akyol, Ö. (2020). The Sounds of Horseshoe a Zoopoetic Reading of Yılkı Atı by Abbas Sayar. SEFAD, (43), 183-194.
  2. Ayık, A. (2010). Hasan Ali Toptaş’ın Gölgesizler Romanında Postmodern Kurgu. Yeni Türk Edebiyatı Araştırmaları, 2 (4), 67-77.
  3. Bergthaller, H. (27 April 2013). What is Ecocriticism?. https://www.easlce.eu/about-us/what-is-ecocriticism/
  4. Derrida, J. (2002). Trans. David Willis. “The Animal That Therefore I Am.” Critical Inquiry, 28 (2), 369-418.
  5. Derrida, J. (2003). And Say the Animal Responded? in Zoontologies: The Question of the Animal (Ed. Wolfe, C.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  6. Derrida, J. (2008). The Animal That Therefor I Am. Fordham University Press.
  7. Driscoll, K., & Hoffmann, E. (2018). What is Zoopoetics? Texts, Bodies, Entanglement. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
  8. Guerlac, S. (2012) Derrida and His Cat: The Most Important Question. Contemporary French and Francophone Studies, 16 (5), 695-702.
  9. Jacobs, J. (2018). The Grammar of Zoopoetics: Human and Canine Language Play, in What is Zoopoetics? Texts, Bodies, Entanglement (Eds. Driscoll, K., Hoffmann, E.), Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
  10. Kaya, H. (2019). A Comparative Study: Existentialism in No Exit by Jean Paul Sartre and Shadowless by Hasan Ali Toptaş. folklor/edebiyat, 25 (99), 577-591.
  11. Kincal, F. (2024). The Trickster Figure and Environmental Identity in Thomson Highway’s Kiss of the Fur Queen. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim Dergisi, 13 (4), 1444-1459.
  12. Marland, P. (2013). Ecocriticism. Literature Compass, 10 (11), 846-868.
  13. Middelhoff, F., & Schönbeck, C. (2019). Coming to Terms: The Poetics of More-than-human Worlds in Texts, Animals, Environments: Zoopoetics and Ecopoetics (Eds. Borgards, R., Gersdorf, C., Middelhoff, F., Schönbeck, C.), Rombach Verlag.
  14. Moe, A. (2012). Zoopoetics: A Look at Cummings, Merwin and the Expanding Field of Ecocriticism. Humanimalia, 3 (2), 28-55.
  15. Ortiz-Robles, M. (2016) Literature and Animal Studies. Routledge.
  16. Sarıkaya, D. (2023). Dylan Thomas' Animalized Self: A Zoopoetical Reading of Dylan Thomas' Poetry. Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(25), 125-144.
  17. Simon, A. (2018). Other Temporalities of Life: Zoopoetics and Animal Perspectivism. Dibur: literary journal, Visions of the Future, 1-16.
  18. Sundvall, S. (2018). Rhetorical Speculations: The Future of Rhetoric, Writing, and Technology. Utah State University Press.
  19. Tharaud, B. C. (2017). Çukurova: Yaşar Kemal Edebiyatının Temelleri. Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  20. Toptaş, H. A. (2014). Gölgesizler. İletişim Yayınları.
  21. Yaşar Kemal (2015). İnce Memed, 1. Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  22. Wolfe, C. (2003). Zoontologies: The Question of the Animal. University of Minnesota Press.
  23. zoon. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-zoon