CRITICAL of revolution share the same destiny.CRITICAL of revolution share the same destiny.

CRITICAL READING?In the very beginning of the book you come across the subject of the book and it is revolution. The author describes the political time period between 1950s to 1990s by telling the diverse stories of the main characters Yusuf, Poet, and O?uz. For those who experienced the coup years, the book becomes more meaningful especially those who were stands for revolution. On the other hand, for me, for the new generations and for those who are against revolution Tol is just a book on a shelf. But it could lead people to think about revolution. In the book as Yusuf’s life fades the seed of revolution dries too. Their lives and the chance of revolution share the same destiny. So the author claims the idea that nothing is more important than revolution. It is so obvious that in one chapter of the book O?uz choses to seek vengeance for revolution and abandons his three months pregnant wife. Also it is impossible to observe chronological time circle in book. Of course normally you don’t expect an order but here the time is so complicated that you need to go back and forward in pages to understand the whole story. Plot twists are nicely handled, in fact after finishing the book, those parts claims the majority when it comes to criticize the author’s mind games. 262 pagesseems much for this book. It could have written shorter but considering that Murat Uyurkulak wrote this book in four years it explains the length of the book. I can’t say that I am a fan of the characters because character developments were not fully efficient for me to create a bond between me and them. The idea of only living for an ideology doesn’t seem right to me. It is also interesting and a good approach that the author directly speaks to the reader in the page 95 ” her kimki bir an için onlar? unuttu?unu, ihanet etti?ini, dü?tü?ünüdü?ünmü?tür, bundan sonras?n? okumas?n.”. In this quote author clearly states that do not continue reading if you think they betrayed us. He states his political view and at the same time he gives an option to the reader that whether you continue reading or stop reading. It is kind a moral dilemma depending on which path you choose. If you continue reading you accept that they didn’t betray but if you won’t continue you will not going to learn what is going to happen next. If you happen to continue reading but still think they are betrayed, yours will be cheating. Also there is no normal way of death in the book. The characters either commit suicide or shot by police forces. It describes the physical and psychological violence of those periods. Furthermore, in the chapter of O?uz’s letters, author shows the generation difference between the old classy revolutionists and the new postmodern revolutionists. He depicts the poor, alone, and wasted lives of the socialist and militarist thoughts with a highly simple language using. Also the author gives a moral message to socialists that they should look after the east of Turkey too. When they are passing by the stations we, the reader, are informed with the political history of us. Murat Uyurkulak did a hard job in his first novel. He manages to be tragic as much as being funny, argumentative as much as a partisan, and hopeful but sad at the same time. In terms of formalism it does not directly offers an explicit connection to the past as it is told in the book. The book is written in three chapters and chapters are named convenient to the name of the book as T, O, L. If you haven’t give a thought about ”revolution” or if you are in favor of it, this book offers a lot about the emotional background concepts and pushes the reader deep into an ocean  approximately through 50 years of incidents. You can see each of the main characters in the book are showing the different aspects of the human life and every one of them are dreaming for a future that can never be fulfilled. Also, the book emphasizes the whole process of people trying to accomplish their revolution, while they carry on with their lives, rather than focusing on the results of it. Furthermore, there is a decent textual featuring in the book. Paradoxes are well plotted, many ironies can be seen in every part of the book and almost all the point of views is used but somehow the speaker’s voice is directly controlling the tension in the book. There are certain objects and ideas in the book that is possible to defamiliarize by the reader (e.g: lottery ticket, alcohol, revolution etc.). In terms of structuralism there are certain types of structures that convey the meaning through the organizations of the text. The narration of the book can be related directly from the text to a larger structure of this particular genre of revenge. The book is easy to understand for the experienced reader, in this case the ones who experienced the era 1950-1990, than a reader with no background knowledge and specific details belong to that era. The content is build within a broad structure and it leads reader to the concept of revolution rather than focusing on a shadowy revenge plot.