|The text is not being provocative; it’s not missing the versions of history stemming from the Turkish perspective. The inhabitants of Constantinople were Romans, they rightly called themselves Romans, but Umit forgets that they were Christians and were speaking Greek from the 6th century. So the historian coined term 'Byzantine' which the Turkish writer intentionally (?) do not mentions. And on the other hand, Eugenia, who has fallen in love with the policeman, is obviously Greek, but she believes that she comes from the Romans (p. 265)! Of course the term "Romios" uses to mean exactly that, but it has ceased centuries now to carry such an old historic load. No Greek from Istanbul would speak like that. Therefore Phillipou is and the same time isn’t right to say: "Ahmet Umit is a distinguished philhellenism of some kind (he notes that most tourists visiting the city are Greek and does not hesitate to emphasize the existence of a legend that wants the Greeks, led by a King Constantine, to get the city back and to resurrect again Christianity), and does not fail to remind the glory of Istanbul.» ("To Vima", 8/26/2012).|
This coupling of the historical past and the present and this is the line of action of another crime novel, the "Completion" of Peter Markakis, who, because he knows Turkish since he is from Istanbul, suggests that he originally read and was influenced by Umit and wanted to convey the idea to the archaeological sites of Athens. And furthermore he shows the same sympathy for the perpetrators as his fellow Turk, as acted by hand but revenge is accompanied by tenderness, anger and wounded idealism.