Starting with the epigraph of “Aynalara bakma, aynalar fenal?k, denizi, sonsuz olan? dü?ün art?k (p.5)” from Ahmet Muhip D?ranas, narration of Fehmi K. ve Acayip Serüvenleri reminds a transition from imaginary order inholding Lacanist mirror phase to a symbolic order (Ar?kan, 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 the laws of its symbol. “Unconscious, established by the influence of the word on the subject; this is the dimension at which the subject is determined in the development of verbal influences; as a result, unconscious is constructed like a language (Lacan, 1977, p. 149), Lacan says, and emphasizes that this subject is born out of the language of the subject and is, in fact, a subject of unconsciousness that is structured like language. The fact that the author exists within the symbol of the subject begins with its entry into the language, the symbol.
In this context, Yavuz’s Üç Anlat? also offers a freedom of speech based on the word, and this freedom is determined by the unconscious limitlessness of the narrator, the reader and the text. Hilmi Yavuz, the narrator-writer of Fehmi K., sends this limitlessness with the following words: “Belki, bilinç d???na itilmi? strüktürel bir ba??nt? vard?r; ama kendi bilinç d???m? semptomal olarak okuyabilmi? de?ilim henüz. ?imdilik, sadece büyükbabam?n ve babam?n bilinçd??lar?yla (using ?zzeddin ?adan Bey for both) u?ra??yorum” (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 saçmal?klardan kimin anlatan, kimin de anlat?lan oldu?unu ç?karabilmek ferasetini gösterebilirsiniz. Okuyan, yazandan ârif gerek!..” (p. 139). Well, is there any sense in this slippery floor, if so how does it get caught?
Lacan reveals the problem of how a certain meaning is caught on this very slippery floor with the so-called stabilizer points “point de capiton”. According to Lacan’s theory, in the meaning process the “indicated” is constantly shifted, but with the so-called “copitone points”, the meaning is obtained at certain points and moments of meaning are captured; yet the meaning is condemned to go between these points. Hilmi Yavuz’s rescue of “image” from being a “concept” also obliges the receiver to go between these copitone points. His second narrative, which seems to be the closest to the traditional novel narrative, is the shuttle between literary meanings in “Fehmi K.”. Already the narrator writes that the purpose of writing the text is to apply paradoxical semantic practice in narrator – narrative – receiver triangle (Ar?kan, 2015 p.391)
Postmodern features in the work are the first noteworthy loss in reality perception. The text is held to the reality, with various clues about the life of Hilmi Yavuz, while it gets away from reality with Fehmi K., Selim Ta?il and Anette, the unreal heroes. When Fehmi K.’s these fact-dream delusions added to the fiction, serious reality problems occur in the narrative (Koçako?lu, 2012 p.105).
To a large extent, this narrative could be read in reader-response criticism perspective which focuses on finding the meaning in the act of reading itself and investigate how individual readers experience the texts. These critics determine what kind of reader or what community of readers the work implies and helps to create. They may also examine the importance of commentaries that the reader has in the reading process (Delahoyde, 2018). In postmodern texts, especially in Fehmi K’n?n Acayip Serüvenleri, the process of writing the text is one of the main themes of the text. Thus, the fictional structure of the text becomes the subject of the text. From the first line to the last line, the narration is the narrative itself. The phrase “parody of narration” that Hilmi Yavuz said for this narrative is the best explanation of this text. The narration is, in fact, deprived of ‘a story to be told’. This ambiguity is often emphasized in the text, and the reader is warned. Especially, it is emphasized that the aim is to “narrate the narration of the narrative”. As he does so, reader-response critics focus on what texts do in the minds of the readers. In fact, a text can exist only as activated by the mind of the reade.r