Analysis Of Aynalara

Critical Reading
Starting with the epigraph of “Aynalara bakma, aynalar fenalık, denizi, sonsuz olanı düşün artık (p.5)” from Ahmet Muhip Dıranas, narration of Fehmi K. ve Acayip Serüvenleri reminds a transition from imaginary order inholding Lacanist mirror phase to a symbolic order (Arıkan, 2015 p.386). Lacan synthesizes the linguistic theory of Ferdinand de Saussure, describing Freud's unconscious concept as a system of indigenous representations, based on the symbolic order on which the language and discourse are founded in the unconscious. Saussure uses the linguistic theory of signs to describe the overlapping of the unconscious with the language system and says, "It is structured as an unconscious language" (Lacan, 1977, p. 20) According to Lacan, as it is in the language, unconscious interpretation works through the “indicative” and “indicated” and this process starts from the moment that baby enters the language. All of the beings who step into the language and then become the subject of
Hilmi Yavuz, the narrator-writer of Fehmi K., sends this limitlessness with the following words: “Belki, bilinç dışına itilmiş strüktürel bir bağıntı vardır; ama kendi bilinç dışımı semptomal olarak okuyabilmiş değilim henüz. Şimdilik, sadece büyükbabamın ve babamın bilinçdışlarıyla (using İzzeddin Şadan Bey for both) uğraşıyorum” (p. 128). In Fehmi K., neither Hilmi Yavuz nor the narrator-writer Fehmi K. set up a defined ”indicative” - “indicated” relationship, the narrative presents an infinite likelihood that varies according to the recipient: “Belki siz, bütün bu saçmalıklardan kimin anlatan, kimin de anlatılan olduğunu çıkarabilmek ferasetini gösterebilirsiniz. Okuyan, yazandan ârif gerek!..” (p. 139). Well, is there any sense in this slippery floor, if so how does it get