A Literary School Criticized on Merits of “Kara Bela” (“Misfortune”): Namık Kemal

One of the most notable writers of Turkish literature, Namık Kemal was rather a school unto himself, owing to his pursuits in the creation of a New literature, his works and critical essays. Several prominent figures assembled around him, sharing his thoughts, and also defending him ardently. More often than not praised, he was sometimes criticized bitterly. Introducing Western literary forms to a nascent universe, he assigned importance to theater. For him, it is entertainment – but a most useful distraction. “Mukaddime-i Celal” is the preface of the title “Celalettin Harzemşah.” This prelude was composed with an allusion to Victor Hugo’s Cromwell foreword. In this, his views on drama are markedly captivating. He penned his play “Kara Bela” (“Misfortune” ) while in exile in Famagusta. Published posthumously, it was purported, however, to be rather a tenuous piece. “Kara Bela” was criticized in “Tenkidat-ı Edebiye – Namık Kemal - Kara Bela Münasebetiyle” (“A Literary Critique – On Merits of Namık Kemal’s ‘Misfortune’,” written in 1911 by Şahabettin Süleyman, among the illustrious portraits of the Fecr-i Âti (“Pending Twilight”) period. He portrays Namık Kemal as a crony of the commoners. Thereafter, he adjudges that its plotline fails to align with real life. Remarkably, he chooses the less formal reference of “Kemal,” who has prevailed in the literary realm long before his debut. Criticized in this article for his artistic stature, Namık Kemal will be assessed with the Author-Based Critical Approach. Evidently, this method places the artist at the core of the critique.

Keywords

Namık Kemal, critique, Kara Bela, Şahabettin Süleyman