Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorMignon, Laurenten_US
dc.contributor.authorTunç, Gökhanen_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-07-01T11:07:00Z
dc.date.available2016-07-01T11:07:00Z
dc.date.issued2006
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/29850
dc.descriptionCataloged from PDF version of article.en_US
dc.description.abstractIn this thesis, focusing on Nâzım Hikmet’s (1902-1963) Ferhad ile Şirin (1948) and Sezai Karakoç’s (1933- ) Leylâ ile Mecnun (1980), the two poets’/authors’ interpretation of these traditional love narratives is examined, as well as the characteristics and the reasons of these handlings. Until now, there has been a marked tendency to characterize the two poets’ attitudes towards traditional literature via the expression “to make use of tradition”. However, this is a common and an abstract expression. Throughout the thesis, the multiple characteristics of approaches to tradition are underlined. The embodiment of this multiplicity could be found in Nâzım Hikmet’s producing a counter-discourse by transforming the discourse of tradition from within. Sezai Karakoç, on the other hand, recalling a traditional literary production, tries to resist the negativity of “the moment experienced” and, eventually, envisions a resurrection of civilization through the negativity he has transformed. For instance, in Nâzım Hikmet’s abovementioned text, Ferhad, unlike his counterparts in traditional mesnevis, attains not the love of God through the metaphorical love of a particular beloved, but the love of society, which is all-embracing and metaphysical at once. As for Sezai Karakoç, he projects the conscience of his epoch onto his text and adds Islamic motifs that are not part of the original Leylâ ile Mecnun. The traditional love narratives are turned into places of struggle, reshaped according to the authors’ own ideologies. Another point emphasized in the thesis is that these two poets/authors who have hitherto been regarded as disparate in fact have a lot in common in the context of the texts mentioned above. Their resemblances could be summed up as follows: Nâzım Hikmet and Sezai Karakoç used similar means of expressing their differing discourses.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityTunç, Gökhanen_US
dc.format.extentvii, 161 leaves, 31 cmen_US
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectNâzım Hikmeten_US
dc.subjectSezai Karakoçen_US
dc.subjectFerhad ile Şirinen_US
dc.subjectLeylâ ile Mecnunen_US
dc.subjectSource texten_US
dc.subject.lccPL220 .T85 2006en_US
dc.subject.lcshMasnavis, Turkish History and criticism.en_US
dc.titleÇağdaş mesnevinin peşindeen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.departmentDepartment of Turkish Literatureen_US
dc.publisherBilkent Universityen_US
dc.description.degreeM.S.en_US
dc.identifier.itemidBILKUTUPB100130


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record