In Istanbul, Orhan Pamuk often explores the line between person and place. He clearly believes living in Istanbul has deeply impacted who he is and how he writes:

Conrad, Nabokov, Naipaul — these are writers known for having managed to migrate between languages, cultures, countries, continents, and even civilizations. Their imaginations were fed by exile, a nourishment not drawn through roots but through rootlessness. My imagination, however, requires that I stay in the same city, on the same street, in the same house, gazing at the same view. Istanbul’s fate is my fate. I am attached to this city because it made me who I am.

–Istanbul by Orhan Pamuk, page 6

It seems to me that there is both advantage and disadvantage to a native versus a foreign perspective. The native often understands the subtlety and complexities of their culture and language. From what I can tell thus far of Istanbul, Pamuk has analyzed every spec of dust in his native city. V.S. Naipaul - who Pamuk mentions in the quote above - is the perfect counter example. He was born in Trinidad to an Indian-Trinidadian family, but writes with an arm’s length perspective, as an outsider looking in on India, Pakistan and Europe.

There might also be a third type, the expatriate analyzing his homeland. James Joyce comes to mind. I haven’t really read enough of Joyce to really comment intelligently.