, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 411–433 | Cite as

The making of world literature: Turkish fiction as a case study

  • Hülya YıldızEmail author


This study is an investigation of the conditions and contexts of translated fiction, especially Turkish fiction, in international publishing and literary circles. Based on current discussions on what constitutes “world literature” and interviews conducted with cultural intermediaries in the transnational publishing world, this article focuses on the factors influencing the production, circulation, and reception processes of transnational fiction in the global literary field. These factors include the process of selection in international publishing houses and the ways in which translated fiction is presented and received in the literary publishing world, such as through book reports, reviews, and awards. The case of Orhan Pamuk as an example of a “celebrity author” in the current world literature canon is discussed in comparison with the entry of another Turkish author, Hasan Ali Toptaş, into global circulation “against the odds” according to many of the criteria relevant for “world literature.” Thus, focusing on the dynamic relationship between sites of cultural production and institutionalizing, and using recent trends in the global dissemination of Turkish literature as a case study, the article draws attention to the consideration of material conditions of global literature, institutions of literature, and the necessity of interrogation of the assumptions on which “world literature” debates are based. Since the world literature canon is in the process of formation at the moment, demystifying the production, circulation, and reception processes of this formation and drawing attention to the uneven representation of literatures from the world is crucial to our understanding and the formation of a more inclusive system.


World literature Turkish literature Global fiction Fiction in translation Transnational literature 



  1. Abrams, D. (2013). Agent Nicole Aragi on the future of literary fiction translation. Publishing Perspectives. July 8.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, T. (2005). For me, England is a mythical place. The Observer, 20 February. Accessed 12 February 2016.
  3. Approaches to teaching world literature. Modern language association. Accessed 9 March 2019.
  4. Apter, E. (2005). The translation zone. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Association of authors’ agents (AAA). Accessed 9 March 2019.
  6. Brennan, T. (2001). The cuts of language: The east/west of north/south. Public Culture,13(1), 39–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brockes, E. (2003). Agent provocateur. The Guardian. November 24. Accessed 23 March 2019.
  8. Brouillette, S. (2011). Postcolonial writers in the global literary marketplace. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  9. Casanova, P. (2004). The world republic of letters. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Casanova, P. (2013). What is a dominant language? Giacomo Leopardi: theoretician of linguistic inequality. New Literary History,44(3), 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Connelly, H. (2015). The head and the body. Harvard Political Review, May 23. Accessed 26 December 2015.
  12. Damrosch, D. (2003). What is world literature?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dirlik, A. (1996). The global in the local. In R. Wilson & W. Dissanayake (Eds.), Global/local: Cultural production and the transnational imaginary (pp. 21–45). Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  14. English, J. F. (2005). The economy of prestige. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. English, J. F. & Frow, J. (2006). Literary authorship and celebrity culture. In J. English (Ed.), A concise companion to contemporary British fiction (pp. 39–57). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flood, A. (2018). Nobel prize judges quit over handling of sexual misconduct allegations. The Guardian. 9 April. Accessed 14 March 2019.
  17. Freely, M. (2013). Misreading Orhan Pamuk. In E. A. Allen & S. Bernofsky (Eds.), In translation: Translators on their work and what it means (pp. 117–126). New York: Colombia University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gross, D. (2011). Andrew Wylie. The Wall Street Journal, May 26. Accessed 23 March 2019.
  19. Gün, G. (1991). Being oneself and another. The World and I, June 6.Google Scholar
  20. Gün, G. (1992). The Turks are coming: Deciphering Orhan Pamuk’s Black book. World Literature Today,66(1), 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halman, T. S. (1991). Ottoman shadow theater. The World and I, June 6.Google Scholar
  22. Huggan, G. (2001). The postcolonial exotic: Marketing the margins. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Moretti, F. (2000). Conjectures on world literature. New Left Review,1(Jan.–Feb.), 54–68.Google Scholar
  25. Moretti, F. (2007). Graphs, maps, trees: Abstract models for literary history. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  26. Mufti, A. R. (2016). Forget English!: Orientalism and world literatures. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Orhan Pamuk official website. Accessed 1 March 2019.
  28. Pamuk, O. (2005). On trial (Tr., M. Freely). The New Yorker, 19 December. Accessed 19 March 2019.
  29. Pamuk, O. (2007). Who do you write for? Other colors: essays and a story (Tr., M. Freely) (pp. 241–246). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  30. Parks, T. (2007). Translation style: A literary approach to translation—A translation approach in literature (2nd ed.). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Parks, T. (2015). Where I’m reading from: the changing world of books. New York: New York Review of Books.Google Scholar
  32. Quintana, A. G. (2005). Orhan Pamuk, the art of fiction No. 187. The Paris Review 175 (Fall/Winter). Accessed 23 March 2019.
  33. Riggan, W. (1992). The 1992 Neustadt international prize for literature: jurors and candidates. World Literature Today,66(1), 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schiffrin, A. (2000). The business of books: How international conglomerates took over publishing and changed the way we read. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  35. Shadowless. Bloomsbury. Accessed 18 March 2019.
  36. Shih, S. (2004). Global literature and the technologies of recognition. PMLA,119(1), 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Snaije, O. (2014). The translator as agent. Publishing Perspectives. April 14. Accessed 27 January 2016.
  38. Spiegel Online. (2006). Avoiding EU condemnation Turkey drops Orhan Pamuk trial. News item. Spiegel Online, 23 January. Accessed 23 March 2019.
  39. Spivak, G. C. (2003). Death of a discipline. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Suleri, S. (1989). Meatless days. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. TEDA. What’s TEDA? Accessed 23 March 2019.
  42. Tekgül, D. & Akbatur, A. (2013). Literary translation from Turkish into English in the United Kingdom and Ireland 1990-2012. Literature Across Frontiers, Accessed 24 June 2015.
  43. The Nobel Prize in literature. Accessed 27 January 2016.
  44. Three percent. A resource for international literature at the University of Rochester. Accessed 16 March 2019.
  45. Updike, J. (2001). Murder in miniature: A sixteenth-century detective story explores the soul of Turkey. The New Yorker, September 3. Accessed 5 March 2019.
  46. Updike, J. (2004). Anatolian arabesques: A modernist novel of contemporary Turkey. The New Yorker. August 30. arabesques. Accessed 5 March 2019.
  47. van der Heijden, H. (n.d.). True books, good books: Turkish literature in Dutch translation. Transcript 32 New prose fiction from Turkey. 23 September 2018.
  48. Walkowitz, R. L. (2007). Unimaginable largeness: Kazuo Ishiguro, translation, and the new world. Novel,40(3), 216–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Walkowitz, R. L. (2009). Comparison literature. New Literary History,40(3), 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Walkowitz, R. L. (2013). Comparison literature. In R. Felski & S. Stanford Friedman (Eds.), Comparison: Theories, approaches, methods (pp. 235–250). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Warwick research collective (WReC), Deckard, S., Lawrence, N., Lazarus, N., MacDonald, G., Pablo, Mukherjee, U. (2015). Combined and uneven development: Towards a new theory of world- literature. Liverpool: Liverpool UP.Google Scholar
  52. Yıldız, H. (2015). Yerelden küresele: ulusal edebiyatların küresel ortamda yer bulma sorunsalı. In C. Sakallı (Ed.), Yerel bağlamlar Küresel küresel yakınlıklar. V. uluslararası karşılaştırmalı edebiyat bilimi kongresi bildiriler (pp. 65–73). Mersin: Mersin Üniversitesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
  53. Yıldız, H. (2016). “You write in the breeze of knowledge, not in light of it”: A conversation with Hasan Ali Toptaş. World Literature Today,90(3–4), 56–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Žižek, S. (1997). Multiculturalism, or the cultural logic of multinational capitalism. New Left Review,1(225), 28–51.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Foreign Language Education, Faculty of EducationMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations