<p>Even before he earned the Nobel Prize, there was a common recognition that Orhan Pamuk, well-known Turkish author, belonged to the canon of world literature. Despite the fact that certain topics addressed in his novels are profoundly particular to Turkey and Turkish culture, he captured the attention of readers and literary circles throughout the world somehow? But how? According to the concept of untranslatability, it is challenging to properly translate a literary work into a foreign language due to cultural, linguistic, or semantic differences. Does the fact that “writers like Pamuk” have established a place in global literary market through their translated works, imply that they are more fortunate or more strategic than their peers in overcoming this presumed challenge? But who are those “writers like Pamuk,” if we may use the stereotypical phrase in the comparative literature discipline to compare, or rather pigeonhole, a vague group of contemporary authors? Pamuk’s reception in the global literary world has often overshadowed his engagement with techniques and traditions intrinsic to Turkish literature such as <i>nazire</i>, as well as his dialogue with earlier Turkish works. In this article, I will investigate the role of transnational and translational politics in framing Pamuk’s works as emblematic of global postmodernism, sometimes at the expense of acknowledging their authentic engagement with Turkish literary traditions. By doing so, I aim to shed light on the challenge of world literature for writers whose cultural and aesthetic roots are misrepresented or overlooked in their journey to reach a broader, global audience.</p>