The Three Daughters of Eve by Elif Sharak

We thought this was a good book, with an average score of just over 7/10 but will lots of reservations.

It’s an interesting story of the contrast between West and East, specifically UK and Turkey, London and Istanbul. And the contradictions in the Turkish middle class - wanting the life of a well off Westerner and yet mistrusting and ridiculing thy west too. Chris liked the discussion of politics and description of contrast between public utterance and private anger. It felt real. Others did not like this extended dinner party narrative. It was more Riviera than McMafia, said Neil. Richard loved Sherwin’s cliché about Turkey: “‘What I’m saying is they either have a sunny impression – sandy beaches and Eastern hospitality, that kind of shit. Or a gloomy one – Islamic fundamentalists, police brutality and Midnight Express. When they want to be nice to you, they throw in the first; when they want to challenge you, it’s the second. Even the most educated are not immune to clichés.’”

The book throws lots of issues into the air e.g. sexism, religion vs secular – but does not quite land them all. Chris liked the range of the issues that were explored, politics, religion, east west relationship, sexual politics, childhood, trans-cultural relationships, childhood, and marriage. The book raises and attempts to deal with a range of issues which have great resonance for today’s world.  She writes “Peri – and hundreds of youngsters like Peri – would become an educated, idealistic, forward-thinking graduate who would rescue this country from its backwardness” which of course gets juxtaposed with what is happening now in Turkey (with the raid on the house, the guns, the attempted rape in the streets all able to be seen as a riff on the state of the country today, where this ‘educated, idealistic, forward-thinking graduate’ group are now cowering indoors hoping not to get arrested, tortured or shot).

The most interesting passages for Richard were related to both religion and culture:  “Was religion an empowering force for women who otherwise had limited power in a society designed for and by men, or was it yet another tool for facilitating their submission?” I very much liked the fact that there were women in the book who represented all viewpoints, and that the book raised (but did not really force an answer to) so many of these key questions – ones that I have grappled with myself over the years.  I used to feel that religion was something that society had outgrown – it was needed in the past to hold society together and to ensure that basic rules of social groupings were followed; but that we had evolved as a group of societies to the extent that there was sufficient shared belief in the importance of these rules that we no longer needed the ‘do it because God commands it’ rationale – we could do it because we collectively agreed that these rules led to a better and more equal and fairer society.   Now, I am far less sure – I feel that the loss of ‘religiosity’ in a lot of the West has coincided with a negative shift within society towards inequality and unfairness, and a rise in substance misuse and anti-social behaviour, and that maybe turning away from religion has not been good after all.  I am not sure, and neither is the book, and I liked it the more for that.

Richard: There were also resonances for me about my own relationship with Judaism – as with Peri: “Culturally she was a Muslim, no doubt. Yet the number of prayers she had learned by heart would not exceed the fingers of her hand. She neither practised her religion nor acknowledged, as Shirin did, being a lapsed Muslim.” And yet, there are cultural bonds which mean that wherever I am in the world, I know that I could find a Jewish community who would immediately take me in: “Invisible strands of solidarity threaded among strangers who, upon finding out they shared the same religion or nationality, developed an instant affinity. A camaraderie that manifested itself in the smallest details – a smile, a nod, a sandwich.”

As is often the case (it was towards the end of the last book, on slavery in the US) there is one passage that contains the heart of the book. Here, for me, it was this:  “‘You say our life is only one of many possible lives we could have led. And deep inside I think we all know this. Even in happy marriages and successful careers there’s an element of doubt. We can’t help wondering what our lives could have been like had we chosen another path … or paths, always plural! And you tell us that our idea of God is only one of many. So what is the point of being dogmatic about God – whether we are theists or atheists?’ ‘That’s right,’ Azur said, his gaze sweeping across her face, surprised and pleased to hear such an outburst from her. ‘But you have to know there are many in this world, like my mother,’ Peri continued, ‘whose sense of security comes from their faith. They’re convinced that there is only one interpretation of God: their own. These people already have enough to deal with, and you want to take away their only protection: their certainty. My mother … I mean sometimes I look at her and I see so much sorrow, I can sense she would’ve gone crazy without her faith to hold on to.’ Silence opened up between them as delicately as a silk fan. ‘I understand. But absolutism of all kinds is a weakness,’ Azur said. Absolute atheism or absolute theism. To my mind, Peri, they are equally problematic. My task is to inject the faithless with a dose of faith and the believers with a dose of scepticism.’”

Some felt it was almost chick lit with some Mills and Boon style writing. Whilst admiring the learning and intelligence of approach of the writer, it didn't quite work, was over structured, too long, formulaic and over elaborated.

Richard liked a lot of the language (an example is “Time, like a skilful tailor, had seamlessly stitched together the two fabrics that sheathed Peri’s life: what people thought of her and what she thought of herself” or “a mixture of scents – fried aubergine, ground coffee, freshly baked flatbread, simmering garlic – emanated from the open windows, so strong that it permeated everything, seeping into gutter drains and manhole covers; so sharp that the morning wind immediately changed its direction. But the locals did not complain.”) and a lot of the phrasings (“But solitude was a rare privilege in Istanbul. There was always some important event to attend or an urgent social responsibility to fulfil as if the culture, like a child scared of loneliness, made sure everyone was at all times in the company of others”) both of which captured a feel of the place and the people. There are many other examples of lovely phrasings: “Theirs was a two-storey house, the colour of sour cherries”; “They were as incompatible as tavern and mosque”; “She often wondered what it was that made her father so sad. She imagined sorrow sticking to him like a fine layer of black tar under the sole of his shoe”.  But then sometimes she gets it wrong – hence after the lovely bit quoted above about ‘scents’ she ends it with: “But the locals did not complain. They never noticed the smell.” – but these scents (fried aubergine, ground coffee, freshly baked flatbread, simmering garlic) are not ‘a smell’!

Another interesting stylistic point for Richard was that he felt that her writing set in Oxford was led confident, less assured, and felt as if she was less familiar with what she was writing about than the pieces set in Turkey. And Peri taking up running seemed rather easier than it would have been for someone who had rarely done any exercise before – she seemed suddenly to get some shoes (“The same day, she bought herself a pair of trainers”) and that was it! “After a few trial-and-errors she found her ideal route. … Getting into a rhythm was the hardest part, but once she did she could keep on going for almost an hour”. As someone who took up running only this summer, it takes a while to get up to running for an hour!  It doesn’t happen almost immediately after buying some shoes! Another amateur-ish phrase was “The next morning they all returned to Oxford. Whenever Mona and Peri talked about their trip to Wales, it would be with a buoyant smile – even though each had sensed, in her own way, that beneath the special moments lay something darker.” 

Similarly, her academic work was rather too easy too – “She had no trouble following the lectures.” Well, actually almost everyone studying PPE at Oxford has some trouble following the lectures! I know she is meant to be bright – but that is what happens to bright people when they go to somewhere like Oxford/Harvard/Cambridge/etc – they get confronted by being with everyone who is the brightest in their school/town/community, and that is always challenging to them.

There were also the usual irritating errors – bad copyediting!  So we hear that the seminars at on Thursday afternoons (“If you are still interested in my seminar, it begins next Thursday at 2 p.m. sharp!”) and then the next seminar starts with “‘How’s everyone this morning?’”!! And everyone at her Oxford seems to call their tutor ‘Sir’!!! Well, even in the 1970s that didn’t happen – and certainly not in the early 2000s.  People are usually called by their first names, or maybe a Dr X or Prof Y, but I have NEVER heard someone called ‘Sir’ at a UK University.

And she introduces unnecessary secrets! “It would take Peri years to discover what he meant by that.” But why – it added nothing to the book – why do so many authors feel that they have to introduce secrets into families – families are complex enough without needing to make them even more complicated!

We liked Peri, the leading character, the unsure, doubtful character contrast with the believer and the atheist. She is a full and credible character with a wide range of emotions and interpersonal relationships. And she has a strong will of her own despite her caution. So whilst trying to straddle the divide between her parents, can also challenge both of them, especially as she grows up. The same happens with her friends. An issue- how did Peri know her English so well? Richard found Peri’s character somewhat irritating at times due to her intense passivity (and found the person that she was at the dinner party and in the street a very different one from the person described at Oxford – and would have liked to know more about how that transition happened). Richard also warmed to her and to the other characters, and found myself looking forward to picking up the book and continuing to read it.

We were less convinced by the characters of Peri’s parents and student friends. Neil felt Troy, for example, was a cartoon character. He also felt Sharak had set up our expectations of the Professor Azur as a brilliant man. But dialogue in the tutorial at Oxford did not work for Neil. The crush on Azur worked well and the conversations about God were well described but then not explored very deeply.

Richard adds: my main problem was with Azur – he is meant to be this amazingly charismatic figure, and yet for me, she has not written him nearly strongly enough.  She WRITES that he is interesting, but what he says and does are not that amazingly interesting. She writes at one stage: “But then, as infatuated as she was with him, she abhorred his air of superiority, his bloated pride, the hubris that infused his whole being. He dismissed the worries of others, indoctrinating students with his own perspective, exercising a form of power over them….” But I didn’t really get any of this.

The well signposted scandal was in the end unclear. Why exactly was Azur disciplined and why had Peri "betrayed" him? Richard again: And the BIG THING in the book – her rejection of him, is simply inexplicable to me: “She, Peri, Nazperi, Rosa, Mouse, would not testify. Neither now, nor later. She was not an actor but a mere spectator. This was their problem. Their stupid game. She turned back and walked away as though it were a stranger’s good name at stake and not the future of the man she had loved, dreamed of and desired with all her being. Years had to pass before she came to the realization that her passivity actively contributed to the ruination of the man she loved. When she betrayed Azur, she betrayed the truth.” Inexplicable, unforgivable, and I have no idea why she did that – as she felt a bit shy?! The book did not explain to me at all why she did that.

The settings of Oxford and Istanbul were well described but there was some clumsy plotting and the twin brother came out late in the book. Some bits worked very well e.g. the wedding and its immediate consequences.

Most liked the ambiguity of the emending but were less convinced by the event itself. Ending fine-but not the event itself. The book ends rather suddenly for Chris. what is the point of all her journeying if she now goes out and gets killed? The new beginning after the shift in her relationship with Azur could be very short-lived!

Most enjoyed reading the book. The oscillation between time periods worked well and was helpfully signposted. The story of Peri’s experiences in Oxford and Istanbul was well developed, though the contrast between young Peri and Peri in her 30s is almost too great. It was good to read a "proper novel" with satisfying use of language, range of character and plot. But somehow not all the strands come together to make a really powerful book.

Chris B

Mark W 7. 5
Steve 6. 5
Neil 6.7
Mark T 7.6.
Chris 7.5
Chris W 7.6
Richard 6. 5