I wanted to break up the narration, not to be a wise guy, a show guy, but to make the film dramatically better that way. . . . A novelist would think nothing about starting in the middle. And if characters in a novel go back and tell past things, it's not a flashback, it's just telling a story. I think movies should benefit from the novel's freedoms.— Quentin Tarantino1I wrote a prosopography twenty years ago. I published a biography two years ago. In the first case, I offered the collective biography of 282 servants of the late Ottoman period (1839–1909).2 In the second case, I presented the monograph of a grand vizier from the second half of the 18th century, Halil Hamid Pasha (1736–85).3 In the former, I delivered an academic work (stemming from a PhD dissertation) focused on the study of the careers of central and territorial administrators. In the latter, I recounted the rise and fall of the head of the Sublime Porte. A priori, these two books had nothing in common, except that they dealt with pashas. If I mention them together here, it is not to describe the personal evolution of my research. It is to shed some light on an observation that is regularly made, that is, of the inadequacies of the biographical genre in Ottoman history.4 It is to reflect on how to remedy this situation.

中文翻译：

---

塔伦蒂诺在奥斯曼帝国：光荣的维齐尔、低俗小说和混乱的叙事

我想打破旁白，不是为了成为一个聪明人、一个表演者，而是为了让这部电影戏剧性地变得更好。 。 。 。小说家不会考虑从中间开始。如果小说中的人物回到过去并讲述过去的事情，那不是闪回，而是在讲述一个故事。我认为电影应该受益于小说的自由。— 昆汀·塔伦蒂诺1二十年前我写了一本口语学。两年前我出版了一本传记。在第一个案例中，我提供了奥斯曼帝国晚期（1839-1909）282 名仆人的集体传记。2在第二个案例中，我展示了 18 世纪下半叶一位大维齐尔哈利勒·哈米德帕夏（Halil Hamid Pasha，1736-85 年）的专着。3在前者中，我发表了一篇学术著作（源自博士论文），重点研究中央和地方行政人员的职业生涯。在后者中，我讲述了崇高门首部的兴衰。这两本书除了讨论帕夏之外，没有任何共同点。如果我在这里将它们一起提及，并不是为了描述我的研究的个人演变。它是为了阐明一个经常提出的观察，即奥斯曼历史中传记体裁的不足。4反思如何补救这种情况。