Orhan Pamuk’s protagonist in Black Book always wanted to be someone else. His cousin who is a famous columnist in a news paper disappears and gives him this chance of taking his place. But this process also proves the paradox behind becoming someone else.
I very much like Hubert Dreyfus‘ interpretation of Karamazov Brothers in his lectures “Existentialism in Literature and Films”. He tells us that Dostoyevsky portraits all brothers and the father as existential stereotypes. Eldest brother Dimitri is “local” who sees the paradox between “local” and “universal”. This puts him in an agony. He listens to his “local”, primitive feelings and acts on them but later realizes what he has done is “universally” non-ethical and suffers from his actions. But repeats this all the time.
According to Dreyfus this paradox between the “universal” and “local” is in all of us but some of us realize its existence, some don’t. Like the father Karamazov who is not realizing that there is such a paradox but feels the problem. Father tries to escape from this existential problem by indulging himself in women, gambling and alcohol. Ivan one the sons is the same as the father but this time he is indulging himself in the “universal” instead of gambling etc.
Dostoyevsky shows us that the best was to tackle with this existential problem is to accept it just as the youngest son, Alyosha.
We can also read the Karamazov brothers with Pamuk’s formula. Alyosha is the character who is “universalist” who wants to be a “localist”. On the other hand Ivan is a “universalist” who is happy being one. Dimitri on the other hand is a “local” but wants to be “universal” in his actions. Unlike his father who is happy to be “local” all the way he can.
The paradox here is trying to be someone else. You never be able to become that. But it is a better life compared to being happy with what you are. Therefore I agree with Pamuk that the goal of life should not be “trying to be happy”.
