Author: Katie Dolan

An especially interesting part of Orhan Pamuk’s My Name is Red is the format of the novel. It is split up into lots of short chapters with alternating narrators and these narrators are sometimes pretty unconventional. In addition to having the corpse of Elegant act as a narrator, the pictures hung up in the coffee shop act as the voice of several chapters. Instead of using ekphrasis to describe the drawings, Pamuk has the coffee shop storyteller act as a voice for the art. He is speaking as art rather than about it. This seems to elevate the drawings from being just a backdrop for his stories, showing that they have the power to tell stories on their own.

In the chapter I am a Tree, the storyteller seems to almost be making fun of the fear that all representational art is idolatrous. The tree says, “Since I’m not representing something in a book, what comes to mind is that my picture will be nailed to a wall and the likes of pagans and infidels will prostrate themselves before me in worship” (47). This is made to seem ridiculous coming from the image of a hastily drawn tree on a rough sheet of paper. In addition, even though the tree is not part of a book, the fact that the storyteller is speaking for it shows that it can still be part of a story. Art can act as its own story, whether being used to illustrate written words or not. By giving the pictures a voice, Pamuk almost brings them to life, showing that they have a purpose and a story to tell. They are meant to reveal meaning, and anyone who uses them as an idol to worship does not understand their purpose.

The first way in which paganism is present in the Secret of Kells is through Ashleigh, the fairy Brendan befriends in the forrest. Although a belief in fairies was a part of the pagan religions the Christian church was trying to stamp out in Ireland at this time, Ashleigh is shown in a positive light in the movie and helps Brendan. This positive image of Ashleigh could be a result of the fact that she is almost  a personification of the forrest, which was necessary for monks to create ink so that they could illuminate manuscripts. This use of plants from the forrest, which monks like Challach considered dangerous and wild, to further the spread of Christianity is an example of turning darkness into light, a common refrain in the movie. Even though Ashleigh is friends with Brendan when he is a child, when he comes back to Kells as an adult she will no longer reveal herself in her human form in front of him, which could show that he has succeeded in spreading Christianity in Ireland through the Book of Kells and that paganism, although still present, has been mostly suppressed.

Paganism is also presented in the film through Crom Cruach, who at first seems like the villain of the story. He (possibly symbolizing paganism in Ireland) is responsible for the spread of darkness. However, in the end it turns out that Crom Cruach, or at least a part of him, is necessary for Brendan to complete his illumination of the Book of Kells. This is another example of the theme of turning darkness into light, but it also implies that the spread of light (Christianity) is impossible without the incorporation of at least a little darkness. I took the use of Crom Cruach’s eye to complete the manuscript as a metaphor for how it was necessary for the church to allow certain aspects of local pagan religions to be incorporated into Christianity in order for the religion to spread successfully. Overall, the characters of Ashleigh and Crom Cruach showed how complicated the relationship between local Irish beliefs and the church were at the time of the Book of Kells.

W.J.T. Mitchell opens the chapter on ekphrasis by saying “ekphrasis is impossible” because “No amount of description […] adds up to depiction” (Mitchell 152). While it is true that in most cases it is not possible to explain every detail of a visual piece of art so thoroughly that anyone reading the description would be able to perfectly visualize the original work, this fact is what makes the literary genre of ekphrasis so interesting. Presumably, one would only put in the work required to write  poem describing a piece of art if that artwork had a truly profound effect on the poet, made him feel some emotion or appreciation of beauty that he wanted to share in his own way. I find poetic ekphrasis fascinating because it allows a writer to honor a work of art and share it with others while simultaneously making it his own. The general sense of the artwork, or at least the parts the poet finds most significant, can be conveyed in a way unique to the writer.

In writing such a poem, the poet in a way creates an infinite amount of new pieces of art, the ones his readers picture in their minds while reading his work. It is seemingly impossible for any two readers of an ekphrastic poem to visualize the exact same thing, which was demonstrated by our drawings of the Shield of Achilles in class. However, I would not consider this to be an example of a failure of ekphrasis, but rather an instance of the potential it creates for one piece of art to inspire the creation of many more.