The short story “Rüyalar” [Dreams], authored by Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar, was initially published in 1952 and later became a part of his 1955 collection, Yaz Yağmuru [Summer Rain]. The short story’s narrative centers around the intricate psychological tribulations entwining the protagonist, Cemil. A spectral presence named Selma haunts his dreams, and her identity gradually unfolds through the narrative’s denouement. Cemil, a writer, moves into a summer residence with his family in early April. He is writing a novel retelling of a calamity enfolding around an unnamed young woman’s demise and the subsequent suicide of his familiar acquaintance, Şakir Bey. However, as the plot progresses, the dreams insidiously infiltrate Cemil’s daily existence and cognitive faculties, impeding his literary pursuit. The story follows a chronological sequence of events, leading to a culminating juncture that serves as both the narrative apex and resolution. Elaborate insights into séances conducted by Cemil’s neighbors and conveyed through a friend encountered on a ferry eventually unveil the phantom’s identity. This revelation simultaneously signifies the culmination of Cemil’s transformative journey as he navigates the concluding stage of his metamorphosis.

While inheriting certain gothic motifs and recurring themes from Tanpınar’s body of work, the narrative deviates from his signature style characterized by his poetics stylistics and modernist composition. Primarily focused on the finale, the story maintains a taut sense of suspense akin to Cemil’s own experience, revolving around the pivotal question of what happens next. This deviation eschews complex enplotment, favoring a linear narrative structure that progressively unfolds in chronological order. In this context, this article undertakes a narratological examination by delving into the structural framework of the narrative, thus distinguishing it from Tanpınar’s conventional literary works. This analysis employs Boris Tomasevski’s differentiation between fabula (i.e., raw material of a story) and syuzhet (i.e., the way a story is organized) and is supplemented by Aristotle’s Poetics and Paul Ricoeur’s conceptualization of mythos (i.e., enplotment) in Time and Narrative: Volume I. Through this approach, the analysis exposes the narrative’s reliance on a linear chronology enhanced by dream sequences interwoven into the story to inexorably guide readers toward an almost foreseeable yet resolute climax. These dream vignettes, intrinsic to Tanpınar’s modernist proclivity characterized by thematic ambiguity and formal intricacy, cultivate an aura of enigma that pervades the entire tale. Unveiling fresh explications with each iteration, these dream episodes generate a pervasive sense of ambiguity, profoundly influencing the progression of the narrative arc. Noteworthy for deferring the resolution of ambiguities seeded by dreams, the narrative’s foundational causal progression remains a harbinger of its overarching strategy: a gradual unraveling of the enigma.

Despite adopting a narrative perspective in the third-person singular, the narrative lens consistently resides within the psyche of Cemil, the central protagonist. This literary technique, reminiscent of the narrative strategies evident in Franz Kafka’s seminal works, such as The Trial and The Metamorphosis, sustains Cemil’s internal turmoil as a potential source for a modernist narrative trajectory. This storytelling approach adeptly builds anticipation, reaching its crescendo at the narrative’s zenith. The protagonist’s quotidian existence occupies a marginal role in the story, with its occurrences carrying minimal significance within the larger framework of the plot. However, decisive moments and daily life scenes trigger the protagonist’s abrupt daydreams. This narrative approach is rooted in the third-person singular perspective, which, though ostensibly distant and impartial, is confined to Cemil’s vantage point. The narrative voice remains tethered to Cemil’s turbulent consciousness, progressively veering toward his surrender to dreams as the story unfolds—a complex dual engagement. The reader, distanced from the character by the narrator’s discourse, is subjected to the third person’s definitive (i.e., past tense) authority, which is counterbalanced by an inherent susceptibility. This authority, however, is vested in the intricate narrative established by the character undergoing crisis, interwoven with uncertainties (i.e., past perfect tense) through a modernist maneuver. The narrator’s conclusive tone accelerates toward the story’s denouement in the final paragraph, intricately bound to the protagonist’s deepening journey as he confronts his crisis.

A remarkable synergy between the story’s overarching narrative (fabula) and its constructed progression (syuzhet) is evident. This harmonious interplay sustains an air of ambiguity surrounding the nature of Cemil’s crisis—whether it is rooted in psychological turmoil (internal) or if it manifests as a consequence of supernatural intervention (external)—a question that remains poised until the climactic final scene. This storytelling approach adeptly builds anticipation, reaching its crescendo at the narrative’s zenith. However, the story’s anagnorisis, which entails the presence of Cemil’s verbose yet profoundly mundane confidant in the finale, along with the abrupt manifestation of the sea-bound specter, ultimately curtails the burgeoning modernist elements intricately woven into the narrative’s fabric. Consequently, the reader’s interpretative compass aligns with perceiving “Rüyalar” as a narrative akin to Kafka’s stylistic inclinations.