TANPINAR’IN GÜNLÜĞÜ: KURGU MU GERÇEK Mİ?

Since its publication in 2007, Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar’s diary has been critiqued only in terms of showing Tanpınar’s personality. However, the diary entries possess literary value as its rhetoric, organization, and literary techniques hold some idiosyncratic characteristics attributed to Tanpınar and his writing style. There was surely a distinguished portrayal of Tanpınar, and it has been mentioned by almost all critics, but it was for the sake of analyzing Tanpınar’s personality. The literary techniques used to assess Tanpınar’s novels, poems, and articles have never been applied to evaluate the diary, which confines the diary to a few shallow discussions. However, as Huzur has Mümtaz, Sahnenin Dışındakiler has Cemal, Saatleri Ayarlama Enstitüsü has Hayri İrdal, Muhur Beste has Behçet Bey, and Aydaki Kadın has Selim as protagonists, the diary has a hero too – that is Tanpınar himself. This article aims to question the authenticity of Tanpınar’s diary as Tanpınar creates a fictional universe in the diary, and as the editors, İnci Enginün and Zeynep Kerman, contribute to this world by controlling and channeling the interpretation of readers. Diary writing has specific characteristics; it allows for change and growth, giving diarists some area of freedom. Diarists can, therefore, decide by themselves on how to behave and then change the rules of diary keeping as they go along. All these characteristics of diary writing, however, give diarists or the editors of the diaries some opportunities for changing the so-called objective account into fictitious texts, as the authors can create pseudo-identities as well. This article analyses Tanpınar’s diary from the given perspective, that is, Günlüklerin Işığında Tanpınar’la Başbaşa might be considered as a fictional text, in which Tanpınar created a projected identity and which the editors controlled and channeled the reader to some interpretations through guidance in the preface and the footnotes. This article focuses on two major points: the authenticity of and the editorial interference in Tanpınar’s diary. The issue of authenticity can be questioned through a close analysis on Tanpınar’s references to audience in the diary and on his literary motivations. There are a few remarks about the publication of the diary, the most important of which reads how Tanpınar thinks his diary would be read after his death. The editors interpret Tanpınar’s explicit declaration of public audience as that he in fact wanted his diary to be read by only his close friends and that Tanpınar was keeping his diary as an autocue. On the other hand, Tanpınar’s use of images, symbols, allusions, and recurring themes that convey his private thoughts and experiences prove the literary quality of the diary. His literary motivations, which most likely stem from his intention of publication, somewhat clash with the authenticity of the document since a diary is either a spontaneously produced text or a carefully crafted one. To better understand the literary quality and its impact on the diary, this article surveys a broad range of theoretical distinctions between the private and public diaries. This section finalizes with an assertion that if Tanpınar took audience-oriented notes and planned the publication of his diary, this would inevitably lead him to have some aesthetic concerns in the entries. A close analysis of the distinguished use of language and the ambivalent presentation of the content in the diary would raise questions about authenticity because the supposedly true personal account might become a fictional text representing a fictional self. The second consideration in this article is editorial interference; it is likely that editors of diaries might study manuscripts according to their stereotypes or prejudices and in some cases according to the image that they want to project. In that case editors hold a great deal of power, and a distorted version of a text is possible. This article analyzes the editors’ likely interference in Tanpınar’s diary since whether the diary is a fiction or non-fiction is based – secondarily if not primarily – on the editing process of the diary. There are various points about the editorial job in the diary. The title of the diary, Günlüklerin Işığında Tanpınar’la Başbaşa, sounds like an academic study; Tanpınar’s diary could have been “Tanpınar’s Diary.” The names of the editors, İnci Enginün and Zeynep Kerman, are on the cover with no sign of that they are the editors, not the writers. The footnotes added by the editors sound like insertions to justify and back for Tanpınar’s negative remarks about several people in the diary. The preface is controversial; the editors draw the attention of readers to certain points as well as they include their interpretations on some remarks of Tanpınar. Perhaps the most obvious editorial interference with the manuscript is the form of presentation. The original manuscript cannot be read thoroughly but can be seen amongst the comments or the summaries of the editors. It is to a certain extent acceptable to see the commentaries of the editors in the preface and footnotes, completing missing words and phrases in the diary entries, but that the diary entries were merged with the instructive comments of the editors is very controlling and turns the diary into a false academic study. Since its publication in 2007, Tanpınar’s diary has brought into question many discussions, most of which were based on Tanpınar’s sore remarks about the people around him. However, the diary was a literary work, another text written by Tanpınar; his plans, novel and poetry drafts, his inner conflicts, his feelings and opinions about his surroundings, depressive moments, and even his sexual desires are all recorded in the diary in passing. It hand, possesses literary value not only because of its rhetoric, organization, or literary techniques but also in terms of Tanpınar’s distinguished portrayal of himself. This article aims to prove that Tanpınar creates a fictional universe in his diary, and the editors, İnci Enginün and Zeynep Kerman, contribute to this world by controlling and channeling the interpretation of its readers.