İzlek ve biçem ilişkisi açısından Suat Derviş romanlarının Türk edebiyatındaki yeri

Abstract

This study analyzes the novels of Suat Derviş (1905-1972) by exploring theme and style interrelatedness and discovering how to contextualize her within the history of Turkish literature. Although thirteen Suat Derviş novels were referred to in this study, three of them, Fosforlu Cevriye, Çılgın Gibi , Sınır serialized 1943 - 1945, were chosen for close reading. The analyses draw from Georg Lukács’ contributions to the fields of realism, the concept of reification and the theory of the novel. As the study of these works of popular fiction progressed, the question of popular literature versus high literature arose . In this context, however, it was more pertinent to focus on the feuilleton as a form of popular literature rather than on popular literature versus high literature. The study of all Dervis’ novels emphasized the lines of continuity from the writer’s earlier period versus the novels of her mature period. As a result, a leitmotiv, “alienation”, was found to recur in all her novels. Regarding style, romantic elements are dominant in her earlier novels whereas the structure of her later novels reflects a tension between romantic and realistic elements. In these novels, love is the tool that promises totality by overcoming alienation. However, love, while transforming the characters, is not enough to bring them happiness. The popular elements of her novels, their romantic and realistic style, and the themes of alienation and love were scrutinized to shed light on the writer’s relation to the Turkish tradition of novel-writing in terms of continuity and transformation. This perspective enabled a focus on her non-existence in literary history and also demonstrated that Suat Derviş is a forerunner in Turkish novel-writing in two areas: themes of “horror” in the Turkish novel in the 1920s and the first examples—in Turkish literature—of proletarian novels in the 1930s. Her contribution to the Turkish novel, however, was ignored because her non-appearance in literary histories and her being labelled as a popular fiction writer.