The Garip Movement (First New)

The Garip Movement is a literary movement that marked a pivotal turning point in 20th-century Turkish poetry and shaped the direction of modern Turkish poetry by representing Orhan Veli Kanık, Oktay Rifat Horozcu and Melih Cevdet Anday. The movement was formally introduced to the literary world in 1941 with the publication of the collective poetry anthology titled Garip, which gave the movement its name. The Garip Movement came to an end with the death of Orhan Veli on 14 November 1950 and the closure of the journal Yaprak.

Emergence and Background

The founders of the movement, Orhan Veli Kanık, Oktay Rifat Horozcu and Melih Cevdet Anday, studied together at Ankara Boys’ High School and formed a close friendship. They published their earliest works between 1930 and 1934 in the school journal Sesimiz. Later, their poems appeared in the journal Varlık during the final months of 1936 and in 1937. These early poems were generally metrical and rhymed, showing influences from “lyric poets” such as Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar, Necip Fazıl Kısakürek, Ahmet Muhip Dıranas and Ahmet Haşim.

The Garip Book and Its Preface (Manifesto)

The free-verse poems announcing the Garip Movement were first published in Varlık on 15 September 1937. In 1937, through a survey in the newspaper Ulus titled “Is Poetry Dying?”, Orhan Veli, Melih Cevdet and Oktay Rifat were introduced as the “three young poets” defending surrealism and declared their shared poetic vision. In 1941, the Garip book appeared before the literary world with a preface (manifesto) written by Orhan Veli and endorsed by Melih Cevdet and Oktay Rifat.

Garip poets (from left: Orhan Veli Kanık, Şinasi Baray, Oktay Rıfat, Melih Cevdet Anday) (AA)

Core Principles and Characteristics of Garip Poetry

Rejection of Traditional Poetry: The Garip poets sought to liberate poetry from the outdated conventions of traditional verse, regarding meter, rhyme, metaphor, hyperbole and embellishment as unnecessary. They argued that these elements were mere intellectual games, obstacles to natural expression and distortions of reality. They also tended to abandon the formal structures of classical poetic sentences.

Naturalness and Simplicity: They asserted that poetry must be naturalized and simplified, opening itself to the unconscious to capture its purity, childlike innocence and naturalness. They emphasized “purity” and “simplicity” as defining features of their poetry.

Poetry as the Art of Words and Meaning: They maintained that poetry is an art of words and meaning and therefore must not succumb to “inter-art hybridization” such as blending poetry with painting or music. They insisted that poetry consists entirely of meaning.

The Beauty of the Whole: They believed that the beauty of the entire poem should take precedence over the beauty of individual words or lines.

Shift in Taste and Social Commitment: They emphasized that poetry should reflect the tastes of working people rather than the religious, feudal or bourgeois classes. They brought poetry out of closed circles into the streets and sought to portray the struggles of the “ordinary person.” According to Orhan Veli, literature would henceforth belong to the people who earn their living through labor.

Everyday Language and Simplicity: They introduced the everyday language of the people into poetry and did not hesitate to use slang. Their aim was to reach broad audiences through a simple, clear and unadorned language.

Irony and Humor: Their poems occasionally employed irony, wit and humor as products of intellect. These elements can also be interpreted as a stance against the negative aspects of their era and societal stereotypes.

Childlike Sensibility: They expressed a perspective on the world through the innocence of a child or the simple anxieties of an ordinary person.

The Post-Garip Period and the Evolution of the Poets

After the publication of the Garip book, Orhan Veli, Oktay Rifat and Melih Cevdet developed their own poetic styles and began publishing their poems independently. The years of the Second World War, due to military service, prevented them from working together and resulted in limited output.

Orhan Veli Kanık (1914–1950): He maintained this poetic style until his death, diversified his themes and occasionally wrote longer poems (Vazgeçemediğim, Destan Gibi, Yenisi, Karşı). In the journal Yaprak (1949–1950), he reunited with his companions in a socially committed poetic framework.

Oktay Rifat Horozcu (1914–1988): Later distancing himself from Garip poetry, he briefly joined the Second New movement and wrote poems drawing on folk literature and folklore, adhering to socialist and socially committed artistic principles (Aşağı Yukarı, Karga ile Tilki).

Melih Cevdet Anday (b. 1915): He too moved away from Garip poetry toward a socially and intellectually oriented poetry (Telgrafhane, Yan Yana). Years later, Melih Cevdet stated in an interview that he did not fully agree with some of the ideas expressed in Orhan Veli’s preface to Garip and that these ideas did not fully reflect the poems in the book.

Criticism of the Garip Movement

The Garip Movement was one of the most controversial literary phenomena in Turkish poetic history. Criticism began as soon as the poets’ early works were published in Varlık in 1936 and initially manifested as mockery and dismissal.

Rejection of Traditional Form and Aesthetics: The Garip poets considered meter, rhyme, metaphor, hyperbole and embellishment unnecessary and argued that they hindered natural expression. Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar noted that the movement aimed to free Turkish literature from poetic fashions and undermine the musicality that characterized Turkish poetry. This provoked strong reactions in their time. Cemal Süreya stated that Orhan Veli did not begin from poetry itself but from “non-poetry,” with the intent to destroy the old poetry, discredit it and write its opposite.

Simplicity and Ordinariness: Garip poetry was criticized for being “simple” and “easy” due to its use of plain, accessible language. The ease of imitation led to a rapid proliferation of similar poems, intensifying criticism. Mehmet Kaplan described the Garip trio’s poems as “the naked exposure of feelings devoid of any imagination or thought.”

Meaninglessness and Superficiality: Alongside criticisms of trivialization, reduction to simplicity and detachment from society, accusations arose that Garip poetry was “meaningless.” Critics such as Mehmet Çınarlı claimed that the “simplicity and repulsiveness” introduced by Garip generated boredom and revulsion in society, pushing subsequent poets toward “abstract” and “meaningless” poetry.

Lack of Social Connection: Some critics argued that the Garip poets were disconnected from the people, noting that historical, ideological, social and religious elements were nearly absent from their poems. Asım Bezirci asserted that the Garip poets did not love the society they lived in and neither sought nor knew how to change it. In response, Orhan Veli stated that poetry did not aim to defend the interests of any class but merely sought pleasure and sought to dominate art.

The “Kitabe-i Seng-i Mezar” Controversy: Orhan Veli’s poem “Kitabe-i Seng-i Mezar” became one of the most controversial poems of its time, turning into gossip material even in barbershops. It was accused of being “indecent,” and Orhan Veli was labeled the “famous poet of the nasır.” The line “If only I were a fish in a bottle of rakı” was compared to Ahmet Haşim’s line “If only I were a reed in these lakes,” sparking debate.

Nurullah Ataç’s Support and Criticism: Nurullah Ataç supported Garip poetry from the beginning and dismissed critics by saying, “Whenever a novelty displeases them or they fail to understand it, they immediately cry ‘bobsitil’.” However, this support made Ataç himself a target of criticism. Contemporary cartoonists and writers believed that the Garip poets were regarded as the poets of National Chief İsmet İnönü and that Ataç was promoting them by decree.

Reactions from Other Literary Groups: Literary groups that emerged after the Garip Movement, such as the Hisar Group (1950) and the Blue Group (1952), arose in reaction to Garip poetry. The Hisar group opposed the rejection of tradition and the use of poetry as a political propaganda tool. Ahmet Oktay of the Blue Group described Orhan Veli as an “incomplete pioneer and an incomplete poet” and found Garip poetry shallow. Attilâ İlhan claimed that Garip poetry had corrupted Turkish poetry.

Cemal Süreyya (Cemil Yüksel)

The Influence of the Garip Movement on the Second New

The Garip Movement is regarded as “a significant breakthrough that, though not producing vast quantities of work, directed the course of modern Turkish poetry through its influence.” By taking Nazım Hikmet’s formal innovations further and introducing the true “free verse,” the movement attracted even the interest of major poets, including Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar and Nazım Hikmet himself, who wrote poems in this style. Although the Second New Movement (1954) emerged as a reaction to Garip poetry, it actually utilized the channel opened by the Garip poets. The emergence of the Second New was driven by the need to restore poetry, which the Garip poets had “trivialized, reduced to simplicity, and distanced from society,” to its former esteemed position.

Form and Language Approach: Garip utilized the freedom of spoken language to write poetry about everyday life and ordinary people. The Second New, however, argued that language had drifted from everyday speech and advocated the deliberate disruption of the balance between word and meaning, using words beyond their conventional applications. Cemal Süreya noted that the Second New “carved words,” “half-pulled them from their places,” and “slightly diverted them from their meanings,” aiming to create new images and lines.

Meaning and Audience: Garip aimed to appeal to the public, specifically to the tastes of the “ordinary person,” turning poetry into a common subject accessible to all. The Second New, however, wrote “closed poems” in which meaning was concealed through images and associations, requiring effort from the reader, and addressed the educated elite. It was stated that the true aim of the Second New was not to write meaningless poetry but to transcend the visible and perceptible boundaries of meaning and transport the reader to entirely different worlds.

Concepts of Tradition and Innovation: Garip rejected everything done in Turkish poetry up to that point and argued for the destruction of all things associated with the past. The Second New also opposed traditional poetry but entered a different epistemological framework, not one of destruction but of “repositioning.” The Second New carried forward Nazım Hikmet’s formal innovations.

Irony and Sensibility: Both movements employed irony. Garip addressed the strangeness of the world and the simple anxieties of ordinary people who were fond of comfort, with childlike innocence or a naive gaze. The Second New embedded the individual’s dilemmas, fears, disappointments and helplessness into the essence of poetry. Second New poets also occasionally employed irony, wit and humor as products of intellect.

Philosophical Influences: Garip poetry was heavily influenced by French literature and the existentialist and surrealist movements. In particular, André Gide’s The Immoralist had a significant impact on the young poets of the era. However, Orhan Veli stated that his own poems bore no resemblance to any modern European poets and were instead more influenced by his own folk artists. The Second New also drew nourishment from Western movements such as existentialism, surrealism, Dadaism and cubism.