Besprechungen / Reviews 95 poems, as well as their interaction with other texts, might have complemented some of Tobias’s blanket statements. Also, where, indeed, does Celan’s poetic language fit in among Benjamin’s remarks on allegory and symbol in his Origin of the German Mourning Play? The brief discussion in the «Epilogue» hardly allows for a concrete answer to this compelling question. Still, like every reader who grapples with Celan’s highly specialized poetic vocabulary, Tobias surely deserves credit for trying to meet the challenge. Kenyon College Paul Gebhardt L ESLIE A. A DELSON : The Turkish Turn in Contemporary German Literature: Toward a New Critical Grammar of Migration. NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005. 264 pp. $ 65. This perceptive study is a notable contribution, primarily due to the author’s construction of new analytical paradigms and new ways to conceptualize familiar issues surrounding the cultural mythology of Turks in post-1961 Germany. Adelson treats the emergence of the strikingly innovative literature that has followed the Turkish migration - their «newly imaginative labors of invention» - taking up not only the subject of migration patterns and national issues, but also processes of imagination and narrative structure (172). Her aim is to offer a comprehensive picture of cultural influences on Turkish migrants in Germany, which she tries to do by illuminating some of the otherwise ambiguous discussions on the topic, all while raising critical questions about key issues such as the various cultural frameworks involved and their relation to one another. One significant contribution of this study rests on the book’s initial chapter, where Adelson provides a meticulous analysis of the popular archetype «between two worlds,» which for Turks in Germany has become a cultural myth. The author provides credible support for the notion that no literary or historical account on the subject can prevail under the impact of this concept once incidents are imagined this way. After elaborative theoretical deliberations, Adelson goes on to textual analyses of works by Sten Nadolny and Emine Sevgi Özdamar, in an effort to explore the issue of Turkish migration outside this archetype. What makes her approach distinctive is that she does not separate real and fictional realms within the textual elements she discusses. Both thematically and structurally, she allies these two realms, envisioning «the concept of touching tales as an alternative organizing principle for considering ‹Turkish lines of thought›» (20-21). Literary (i.e., fictional) and historical (i.e., real) discourses are thereby blended into one another. The entire second chapter of her book dwells on the concept of «touching tales,» and this also constitutes the book’s most problematical aspect. She does see the vital difference between historical and literary contexts, particularly in regard to ethnic identity and political rights, and she acknowledges that the «fusion of horizons in interpretation» becomes rather challenging when cultures with immensely different histories are concerned (26). For, as the author herself confirms, «touching tales» (as literary narratives) allude to cultural 96 Besprechungen / Reviews experiences and historical events that do not belong together in any proper sense, as in the examples of Turkish migration and the Holocaust, the Cold War, European modernity, or the Armenian genocide (20). Herein lies an example of the problematical aspect of this chapter: the term «Armenian genocide» itself is already a subject of grueling debates among scholars and non-scholars alike. The most troubling aspect of Adelson’s approach to this particular alleged event is the fact that in no proper sense does the debate on this issue receive the balanced treatment we might expect from a scholar of her standing. Adelson does not show that the texts she discusses «conjoin historical and literary narrative in particular ways without laying claim to particularist ethnic identities or political rights attaching to them» (10). It is equally disappointing to see that she fails to provide scholarly references to substantiate her claim about genocide within the Armenian context. Her primary point of reference with regard to the Armenian history is Die Zeit, a weekly German newspaper. As for a counterargument, none is given, though in an endnote she does cite studies by Peter Balakian, Vahakn N. Dadrian, and Richard G. Hovannisian. Just one study by a non-Armenian author, such as Justin A. McCarthy, could have given this part of her book more credibility. McCarthy asserts, incidentally, that based on the evidence, both sides killed each other, concluding that «Armenian genocide» is a false description of a complicated history. On this issue, besides McCarthy, I would also recommend Stanford Shaw, Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Daniel Goffman, and Samuel Weems. A question Adelson raises in the last chapter highlights the book’s most problematical aspect: «How does the boundary between text and context come alive in such first-person narration, when some of the most moving histories of the twentieth century are at stake? » (108-109). Here, in her analyses of works by Aras Ören, Emine Sevgi Özdamar, and Zafer Senocak, the elimination of the boundary between text and context is done at the cost of ignoring critical distinctions within the framework of Turkish history, and may in turn even create new ground for further stereotyping Muslims and Turks within both the German and the European context. Adelson discusses the Muslim headscarf in the Turkish context, as well as honor killings by Turks in Germany, but her discussion of these two sensitive and widely controversial issues constitutes an ambiguous treatment of vital issues. Alone the reference to a Muslim headscarf in the Turkish context is misleading as well as over-generalizing, for there is no single form it takes, nor is there a singular intent behind the different female coverings in the case of Turkish women in Germany or elsewhere. As for honor killings, they are not Turkish in origin, or even tradition-specific for any population of Germany, Turkey, or any other country. Regardless of its shortcomings, this chapter, too, underlines Adelson’s knowledge of and attentiveness to relevant theories, as well as her insight into most recent scholarly and academic discussions on the topic. But this book’s overly ambitious narrative theory makes it incapable of representing the material history of the cultures involved. Hence, this otherwise fine scholarly work still leaves us with lots of room for exploring new ways of putting this literary tradition in its correct context. The Pennsylvania State University Hülya Yilmaz