Otob=otobiyografi

What is otob, is a literary form not genre. İn this story told by fleur tablot most problematic problem
is the otobs of members, this works are not otobs, sir Quentin insisst to call this otobs, fleur is not
fool she knows what she doing, she knows she violets, breaks rules, sth illegal. First she needs money,
sometimes she enjoys, she is changing the nature. what is the reason violation otobs, she rewrites,
fictionalizes, she changes the nature of otobs which means she becomes the writers, fictional stories,
she plays with reality, sir erics otob is example, she created funny scene, this story was created, why
sir eric partly agrees!!!! Altough fleur just invented a story sir eric says it really happened, why he says
this, how can you expalin. First, pure coincide what happened in the past and what fleur wrtoe is
coincide. Perhaps he like the story, he enojyoed. Another explanation writers wisdom or ability to
see. Fiction is not histyory it didnt happen but it might have happen, third expalanation is fleur as a
writer has a wisdom to see into fact, this is alternative. She has an ability to see future and the past
maybe, all ideas are acceptable, one option is not superior or more beliavable. if it is coincidence it is
a historical fact. The problem still goes on beacuse on every new page otobs get more complex,
everybody addes something. Quentin ask one thing to add to otobs, if necessary she will writes she
can easliy mofify, change these pieces. Fleurs manipulation makes otobs complicated. Six members
hears sir eric and sir quentins argument, they hear what sir eric says. Mr wilks is oneof the members,

A noble lady in mid fifties one of the six members, she makes some comments on what she heard

“‘If I might voice an opinion,’ said Mrs Wilks, ‘I thought Sir Eric’s piece very readable” but because of
her comments sir eric reacts,

“My nanny was not actually evil,’ murmured Sir Eric. ‘In fact—’ ‘Oh, she was utterly evil,’ Mrs Wilks
said. I quite agree,’said Sir Quentin. ‘She was plainly a sinister person.’”

Quentin becomes another commentator. We have different layers , as we talks we go deeper. They
are commenting on fleurs writing, not eric, this is what fleur edited, she writed nanny as evil
character, she agrees with fleur not with eric. Different layers of complications. Fleur is a manipulator.
They are talking about fleurs fictional caharcters, fleur made nanny sinister charctre. Fiction becomes
more important and more real than reality, kurgu karakterleri sanki gerçekmiş gibi tartışıyorlar, gerçek
tarihten bahsetmiyorlar bile. Plianly fictional storeis are more interesting, than sir erics historical past.

Another member father Delaney a priest. “‘I wasn’t there. It wasn’t I.’ This was Father Egbert Delaney
speaking up.” He protests, sir Quentin and fleur orchestrated all this sins, bu karaktere de farklı şeyler
yazdı fleur. “‘There is a mistake here that needs rectifying. that I am not the Father Delaney described
in Lady Bernice’s opening scene.”

“‘My dear Father,’ said Sir Quentin, ‘we need not be too literal” but this is otob, he doesn’t have any
respect. He promised to fleur about only truth!!!!! siq quentin gelecekte blackmail yapıyor
memberlara!! Sir quentin forgot what he promised truth. truth is weakest notion is the story.

Chapter 3

“it strikes me how much easier it is with characters in a novel than in real life”

She makes comparison, fiction is easier than real life. In fiction there are some rules writer obeys ve
sen bu kurallara göre işini yapıyorsun ama gerçek hayatta bu yok. Kurgu karakter olmak gerçekten
daha zor. Real life open to surprises it is unpredictable. Kurguyu tahmin edebilirsin, this is the
comparison. She can easily write. Some times fictiona and facts are missed blurred, Sir quentin
imitates warredner chase, who is fictional, sie quentin is real character but he put himself in fictional
world, he accepts fictional identity. We are in between we don’t know how to separate. Life is
external reality, art imitates it but sometimes life imitates art. Oscar wildes works is an example. Here
we have another example. “Now the story of Warrender Chase was in reality already formed, and by
no means influenced by the affairs of the Autobiographical Association.” She says concince us there is
no associaton between real life and warrender chase no connection. “Interesting thing was it seemed
rather revere to me at the time” she confesses something we don’t know yet, “I saw before my eyes
how Sir Quentin was revealing himself chapter by chapter to be a type and consummation of
Warrender Chase, my character.” Suddenly quentin behaves acts and speakes like warrender chase,
somehow he imitates. How could that be a real character, other hand fictional entity. Life imitates
art. Birisi işvereni diğeri ise ana karakteri.”I could see that the members of the Autobiographical
Association were about to become his victims,” because he blackmails them. She kills warrender
chase, hikayenin sonunda warrender araba kazasında ölüyor.

Fleur dottie ye warrender chase hakkında konuşuyor, “It was at this point Dottie said, ‘I don’t know
what you’re getting at. Is Warrender Chase a hero or is he not?’”

“Then Marjorie is evil.’ ‘How can you say that? Marjorie is fiction, she doesn’t exist.’” They are talking
about nature of fictional character. They know fictional life is not real but still we spend time and
energy to talk about., even feel and have empathy. Hot it happens because they imitates life. If
imitate is not succesful story fails. Burada protagonist fleur, fleur kim fictional entity, but why do you
feel for her, because she is a successful imitation of real life, we feel empathy. Question is If imitation
is successful or problematic. Fleur sees some problem in warredner chase, she didn’t see but
someone else sees that. “Dottie was no fool. I knew I wasn’t helping the readers to know whose side
they were supposed to be on”