Does the author "roll in his grave"?

           (The concept "death of the author" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author) is not about his literal passing and subsequent decay. Rather, it strips away the idolization of the author’s intent and encourages readers to focus on the text itself: what it means, its implications, the reader’s bias, its basis in societal constructs and so forth, and how it reads.)

Orhan Pamuk’s voice is all too clear across contrapuntal narratives told by various characters, which range from a frothy, rebellious “mongrel” dog to a wealthy, determined large-scale project manager to an artist/murderer, and beyond. Though his characters may have distinct voices, their styles of expression are freakishly similar, wherein lays the accusation: perhaps Pamuk’s authorship is too heavily impressed upon his characters.

The gross attention to detail in characterization is undermined by Pamuk’s attachment to his own writing style: in short, the grammar of each character is nearly exactly the same.

Here’s an example of a grammatical tick that Pamuk repeats chapter to chapter: the absence of the oxford comma (ie: “a desolate and wild Nature among lions, tigers, stags and jackals” (29); equally, “In all probability, the gardeners, royal pages, halva makers, riffraff and clerics like himself became his lackeys” (14) —now is that the difference between a rich man and a dog?)....Stylistic choice? Yes. A character’s conscious choice? No.

Another positively prominent tick is the use of listing. Each character describes things in lists! Is it irrational to notice the similarity? ...Not when we’re talking about a prize-winning novelist. Writers pay attention to these kinds of things, and I find it difficult to believe that Pamuk is simply ignorant to the whole affair.

The only difference, then, between characters is the matters of which they speak, and the things that matter to them. For instance, the tree wishes to be symbolic and maintain a lasting impression, while the corpse wishes to be avenged and continue onward.

So what? Why should I care about the so-called similar writing styles of these narrators? If the characters were entirely unique their ‘voices’ would be as well. The author’s writing is infused in the telling of the story; he is a presence not to be missed.

The mixing of narratives in a big plot pot makes it seem as though this raging similarity may be intentional. Perhaps it’s an indication of each perspective as a fragmented piece of Allah? An interconnectedness between characters in the same universe? An author’s intentional, extensive voice with much more to offer as the novel unfolds?

There is something happening with the author’s voice here, whether he realizes it or not. I’d judge that he is indeed aware of this and intends to thread the stories all together under one voice. So we’re left to wonder…does the second half of the novel have a twist in store for us?