Divan poetry, thus, is equated with Eastern phantasmagoric narrative, lacking the ability of providing an accurate picture of the world. The novel in turn symbolizes Western ability of grasping the world as it is due to positivism
[294]. The dualities of poetry-prose (novel), phantasmagoric-realistic, figurative-literal had been established and followed by dualities between the terms of Eastern, Islamic epistemology, tradition, and old versus the terms of Western, scientific epistemology, modern and new. The contrast, for instance, between the ‘old’ poetic style of Ottoman classical literature and the ‘new’ poetic understanding formed under the influence of Western literature, underestimation of their common aesthetic techniques, styles and structures, and their conception as two different aesthetic domains started to underline the ‘progress’ of literary reforms in the XIX century. It was soon identified with the success of political reforms of Tanzimat era, and the critical discourse was dominated by the idea that the field of literary production is the mirror of political conditions. This brings us to the second discursive mechanism, the myth of progress and development, which is strongly tied to the logic of binary oppositions.
The XIX century literary debates on the aesthetic criteria of ‘proper’ literature signify the essential paradigm shift in the field of literary production
[295]. Attracting many Ottoman intellectuals, this debate intrinsically became the field of defining social, cultural, political 'modernity' in the Ottoman context
[296] through the clarification of aesthetic criteria which separate the 'modern' from the 'traditional', the 'old' from the 'new', the backwardness' from the 'progress'. The discussions on 'the classical literature', the matter of prosody, the content of proper poetry and introduction of fresh concepts such as 'liberty', 'justice' and 'reason' were among the focal points of the 'new Ottoman poetry' debate. Accordingly, the Ottoman classical poetry became the symbol of political backwardness, childishness and underdevelopment of the Empire whereas characteristics of being realistic, mature, and progressive were symbolically equated with the success of Ottoman modernization, i. e. Tanzimat era.
The dualistic paradigm and the myth of 'progress and development' sustained itself in the XX century since binary oppositions between the Ottoman Empire and the Republic as well as the Eastern and the Western, the 'imperial' and the 'national' identities also defined in terms of their representations in literary works and criticism
[297]. The birth of the novel in the Ottoman-Turkish context provides an excellent opportunity to explore how the myth of progress and the separation among classical period of the Ottoman Empire, XIX century Ottoman and XX century Republican modernities were distinguished from each other through the utilization of historical narrative of literary progress and modernization. The historical narrative of XIX century Ottoman literary transformation declares The Love Affair between Tal’at and Fitnat to be the 'first novel of European style' novel, The Awakening to be the first 'novel of literary value' and The Carriage Affair to be the first 'realistic and European-like' novel
[298]. There is, yet, Akabis Story which was not mentioned in the core texts of literary history although it was the first serialized novel, in Ottoman language written in Armenian script, in historical timetable, in addition to The Forbidden Affair published in 1900 and considered to be the first novel produced by the 'imaginary faculties of a genuine novelist'
[299] to bridge the gap between the mere replicas of incapable Ottoman novelists and the genuine talent of a modern novelist, Halit Ziya, who continued his literary endeavor in the Republican period as well
[300]. The penetration of Ottoman classical literature, the inability of XIX century novelists to get rid of literary and technical influence of Ottoman classical poetry became the aesthetic criteria of defining an 'authentic' novel based on premises of French realism and of determining the imitative nature of the old/the traditional/the Ottoman/the Eastern against authenticity of the new/the modern/ the Republican/the Westernized novels. It helps to set up strict borders and to stress the differences rather than commonalities between the terms of such series of binary oppositions. Historical narrative of the birth of Ottoman-Turkish novel turns into the basic realm of determining and maintaining political identities of the empire and the young nation-state. This ultimately results in a linear, teleological understanding of history spreading itself between the point of origin (Divan poetry) and the final destination ('authentic' novels of Westernized realism), and furthermore, the myth of progress and development both in the political and literary realms becomes visible.
Historical periodization of the literary and political progress, on the other hand, is of vital importance as it provides the substance which fuels the historical narrative of modernization. The age of 'modern'/ 'new' literature was subdivided into periods, each being identified with the degree of authenticity and achievement, paradigms and purposes of successive periods. The degree of aesthetic achievement and 'authenticity' increases, and the paradigm shifts in consecutive periods. The first period had essentially instrumentalized literary production for the sake of promoting various formulas of'proper' modernization
[301]. 'Servet-i Fiinun', was influenced by the 'scientific' education provided in newly established Ottoman military schools of medicine
[302], and the purpose was to determine the real cause of social and political backwardness and to show how it must be scientifically dealt with
[303]. The 'Fecr-i Atť distinguished itself by claiming the superiority of its aesthetic quality, and declared literary production as a 'personal and a meritorious’ activity
[304]. 'Republican Literature’ had similar characteristics, but put a rather strong emphasis on the differences between the backwardness and imitative characteristic of Ottoman versus the genuine progress, the correct understanding and development of the Republican modernizations. The image of the 'novelist’ or the 'intellectual’ fabricated through various novels was important, and differed in each period. The novelist adopted the role of a teacher, a doctor, a sophisticated individual, a political forerunner and a 'modern’ intellectual in consecutive periods. This imagery provided the qualities of the properly 'modernized’ subjects of the Empire and citizens of the young Republic.
