THE AIA METHOD AS PROCEDURE: SIGNS OF AN INDICIAL PARADIGM AND KILLER WRITING IN THE NOVEL MY NAME IS RED

Abstract

vThe article discusses the method of aia submerged in the diegesis of the novel My name is red by the writer Orhan Pamuk, and its relationship with the indicial paradigm approached by the historian Carlo Ginzburg in his historical work. We approach how this method assists in the revelation of the identity of the murderer in the interstices of this novel, vestiges and traces left in the diegesis by the author of two crimes: the death of the elegant miniaturist Efêndi and Uncle Efêndi. We also endeavor to demonstrate, as from this method, that a reading about the formal functioning of this work is possible. We work with the following hypothesis: the insertion of a historiographic style that is part of the methodical practice of writing history in the diegese of the novel is presented as a modern irony and as the writer's insight to indicate to the reader (semiotic) a way of approaching of that place in which the Romanesque deed deposited its form: narrative discourse. We will also address what we are calling killer writing, from the readings of Roland Barthes and Maurice Blanchot, who argue that the writer writes to die in his work, and thus validate his permanence in the memory of literature.

The article discusses the method of aia submerged in the diegesis of the novel My name is red by the writer Orhan Pamuk, and its relationship with the indicial paradigm approached by the historian Carlo Ginzburg in his historical work. We approach how this method assists in the revelation of the identity of the murderer in the interstices of this novel, vestiges and traces left in the diegesis by the author of two crimes: the death of the elegant miniaturist Efêndi and Uncle Efêndi. We also endeavor to demonstrate, as from this method, that a reading about the formal functioning of this work is possible. We work with the following hypothesis: the insertion of a historiographic style that is part of the methodical practice of writing history in the diegese of the novel is presented as a modern irony and as the writer's insight to indicate to the reader (semiotic) a way of approaching of that place in which the Romanesque deed deposited its form: narrative discourse. We will also address what we are calling killer writing, from the readings of Roland Barthes and Maurice Blanchot, who argue that the writer writes to die in his work, and thus validate his permanence in the memory of literature.