Ayda Ontaç GÜNER

At the point of studying novels such as Fatih-Harbiye in which a thesis is allegedly advocated in literary research, novel protagonists are often discussed in the type plane, which has become a tradition. However, given the possibilities of the developments in terms of type, character issues, it can be argued that type understanding stands at a weak point in determining the value of both novelist and persons of the novel. Within the framework of this issue in our literature, this study discussed what type and character mean in the context of novel persons, examined possible reasons for the traditionalization of type readings, and emphasized the importance of the need for novel persons to be "vibrant, variable, free and open" in the context of both creation and reading. Historical transformations of type and character concepts were studied, traces of the journey from “given” and “lived” type thinking to character were traced. The final chapters of the article questioned the positive meanings imposed on the type in our literature and discussed the relationship between realism and sociology with type understanding. The general purpose of writing is to argue that often reading novels that can be thought of as both character and type over just type is an obstacle to expanding the novel's layers of meaning. But it should not be concluded that the purpose of writing is to reject type readings altogether. Type is also a fact of the novel genre. That's acceptable. The main problem is that some novel characters, which are thought to show both type and character traits, are read only through type, and the features that make them characters are ignored. Accordingly, Fatih-Harbiye novel persons who show both type and character traits were evaluated from a new perspective as a practical example of the thesis generally defended in this study.

Keywords: Type, Character, Interpretation, Tradition, Transformation, Fatih-Harbiye.