Forgotten Nobel Laureates

[Ben Jackson]

Collected Poems* ?

(He's too good for selected)

Hamishe, if you also wanted to start with his volume 'Cuttlefish Bones', that would get my full recommendation. It's usually what's cited as what won him the Nobel.

Agree with you, my friend. I mentioned Montale's Selected Poems because that's the one I've read. I haven't seen his Collected Poems yet.

I think that having a poet's Collected Poems is really an amazing experience. You get to see the poet's growth from his/her genesis up till his final moment (that's if he/she's dead), the poet's range and visionary power and insight and broad-minded poetics, e.t.c.

Once I see Montale's Collected Poems, I will not only read it, I'll present my thoughts in the Book Review section.

 

[Ben Jackson]

I'm still waiting for an English translation of his collected poems ? (a proper one, like Montale's, etc). Think I've read everything by him that I can at this point though. Allegria is phenomenal.

Had he been nominated in 1959, I think he would have split the award with Quasimodo.

Ungaretti was nominated in 1959, but wasn't shortlisted. The Italian writers shortlisted was Alberto Moravia, Silone and Quasimodo, the eventual Laureate. The others shortlisted was Blixen and Ezra Pound. Ungaretti still got international recognition for his works though, winning the inaugural Neustadt Prize in 1970.

Agree with you on Allegria, fantastic work.

 

[Ben Jackson]

I read it over the summer after finding a link to it somewhere on the forum. A beautiful novel about simple people.

Would be possible if you post the link, I think this will be a chance for me to finally read him.

 

[Ben Jackson]

As I am scarcely original in pointing out, that generation of Italian poets - Saba (1883), Campana (1885), Ungaretti (1888), Montale (1896), Quasimodo (1901) - is as gifted a group as has ever appeared so close together in world literature.

Agree with you, Pat.

One thing I love 20th Century poetry is the quality of the poetic generations it produced. In Italian Poetry, you've the generation of poets you just mentioned: Montale, Quasimodo, Saba, Ungaretti, Campana, called the Hermetic school because of modernist poetics, you've in Russia Poetry the generation of Akhmatova, Blok, Yesenin, Pasternak, Tsvaeteva, Mayakovksy, I think called Silver Age of Russia Poetry, you've generation of 1927: Lorca, Aleixandre, Salinas, Alberti, Damoso Alonso, Cernuda, in America you've Beats (Ginsberg, Kerouac), New York School (Ashbery, Frank O'Hara), Modernist: Pound, Eliot, Hilda Doolittle, Wallace Stevens, Carlos Williams, Amy Lowell, Confessional School: Anne Sexton, Plath, Robert Lowell, John Berryman, Objectivists: Charles Olson, George Oppen, French Modernist/Surrealist: Eluard, Perse, Brenton, Aragon, Soppault, Char, Apollinaire, Max Jacob, Tzara, British Poets: Auden, Graves, Larkin, Stephen Spender, Dylan Thomas, Thomas Hardy, Irish Poets: Yeats, Heaney, Derek Mahon, Kavangh, German Expressionist/Surrealist: Tarkl, Gottfried Benn, Celan, Greek Modernist/Surrealist: Cavafy, Sikelianos, Elytis, Seferis, Ristos, Polish: Szymborksa, Zbigniew Herbert, Rozewicz, Milosz, Carribean Modernist/Surrealist: Walcott, Glissant, Cesaire, Latin America Modernist/Surrealist: Neruda, Paz, Gabriela Mistral, Carlos Drummond, Lezama Lima, Nicanor Parra, Borges, Asia/Australia: Adonis, Gibran, Gu Cheng, Tagore, Tanikawa, Farrokzhad, Les Murray, Africa Modernist/Surrealist: Okigbo, Soyinka, Breytenbach, Marechara, Senghor, Clark, Okara, U'Tamsi, Awoonor, Rabarievelo, Arthur Nortje, Brutus, David Rubadiri, Jack Mpanje, Lenrie Peters. There was intellectual affluence from everywhere to learn from. It was an amazing, exhilarating century full of artistic giants indeed.

 

[hayden]

Ungaretti was nominated in 1959, but wasn't shortlisted.

Nope. He didn't land a nomination between '58 and '63. The real push for him to win seemed to be in '69.

Interestingly, Carlo Bo nominated all three Quasimodo (who won with the nomination), Ungaretti and Montale. I... erm... am going to assume he didn't nominate Fo though.

I've never been able to find a collection by Carlo Bo, but I'd be very keen on it.

Anywho— if you can find a copy of Montale's complete work, definitely do. The 1925-1977 one. Good staple for a bookshelf.

 

[Ben Jackson]

And here's my picks for some of the others on your list—

Ivan Bunin — Collected Stories
Frans Eemil Sillanpää — People in the Summer Night
Halldór Laxness — Independent People, The Fish Can Sing, World Light, & Under The Glacier
Saint-John Perse — Anabasis
Ivo Andrić — The Damned Yard
Jaroslav Seifert — The Poetry of Jaroslav Seifert

You don't need to listen to me by any means, but I've also read the collected poems of Erik Axel Karlfeldt, and the dude was kinda boring. If you skipped him, no big loss. Jacinto Benavente's plays really aren't that interesting either. He's probably one of the weakest laureates.

Planning to embark on Bunin's Collected Stories and Dark Avenues, Andric's Damned Yard, Bridge on the Drina, Bosnia Chronicle and Woman from Sarajevo sometime next year. I read occasional poems of Karlfeldt and, just like you said, it was boring. Haven't seen Benevente plays yet. I read Seifert's Poems on Nobel Prize website, I wouldn't say I like them all, but I'm happy with what he wrote. Same can be said of Perse, occasional poems that I read are very beautiful, especially the poem about Crusoe.

 

[Ben Jackson]

Nope. He didn't land a nomination between '58 and '63. The real push for him to win seemed to be in '69.

Interestingly, Carlo Bo nominated all three Quasimodo (who won with the nomination), Ungaretti and Montale. I... erm... am going to assume he didn't nominate Fo though.

I've never been able to find a collection by Carlo Bo, but I'd be very keen on it.

Anywho— if you can find a copy of Montale's complete work, definitely do. The 1925-1977 one. Good staple for a bookshelf.

Just checked it out now on Nobel Database, you're right. I mistook him for Silone. Thanks for the correction, hayden.

I'll try and look for the work of Montale you just mentioned. And who's Carlo Bo? Haven't heard of him.

 

[hayden]

And who's Carlo Bo? Haven't heard of him.

Italian literary critic, translator and author. He also did some poetry here and there, but I think it's just untranslated, uncollected and wildly underpublished. You're more likely to see him credited as a contributor than an author. He did a lot of those novel forewords/intros/prefaces, etc we all skip over. Tonnes of big-name poetry translations too (into Italian). He was a very well-regarded ambassador to modern Italian arts.

He also became an Italian 'senator for life', which is a somewhat big deal. Trilussa, Montale and Muzi were also given the distinction.

 

[ministerpumpkin]

Would be possible if you post the link, I think this will be a chance for me to finally read him.

Here you go, my friend:

‎People in the summer night : an epic suite - UWDC - UW-Madison Libraries

search.library.wisc.edu

I have to say that they changed the look of the site from August when I read it, but it seems fine. I know that you aren't in the US, so if you can't access the site for some reason I'm happy to email the text to you!

 

[Verkhovensky]

He did a lot of those novel forewords/intros/prefaces, etc we all skip over.

Am I the only one who likes that stuff and always reads it?

 

[ministerpumpkin]

Am I the only one who likes that stuff and always reads it?

For me it depends. When it's written by the author themselves, definitely. When it's Rachel Kushner writing about Ingeborg Bachmann's Malina, no thanks.

 

[Americanreader]

Am I the only one who likes that stuff and always reads it?

I like forwards/intros/prefaces! They're fun and give a unique perspective on the work you are about to read.

 

[Leemo]

I like forwards/intros/prefaces! They're fun and give a unique perspective on the work you are about to read.

They're great when not interspersed with spoiler after spoiler! It seems many of them are written for an audience that has already read the book.

 

[Hamishe22]

Hayden, thanks for the recommendations.

 

[hayden]

Hayden, thanks for the recommendations.

Not a problem

They're great when not interspersed with spoiler after spoiler! It seems many of them are written for an audience that has already read the book.

Exactly. In that respect, they're actually quite odd. Imagine if films began with a 5 minute conversation disecting all the plot points + how/what/why they mean what they do, all explained by someone who has absolutely nothing to do with the film, but they... watched it before you did.

I mean, at least put them at the end.

Am I the only one who likes that stuff and always reads it?

Maybe it's just me ?‍

Give me a synopsis, sure, but I prefer to dive right in. I'll go for the linear notes from time-to-time of course, but 90% of the time I skip forewords.

 

[Verkhovensky]

Imagine if films began with a 5 minute conversation disecting all the plot points + how/what/why they mean what they do, all explained by someone who has absolutely nothing to do with the film, but they... watched it before you did.

Haha interesting, as the 3rd channel of Croatian Public Television (HRT3), which is for art stuff (classical music, documentaries about art etc. including non-commercial, classic films, like Gold Age, French New Wave etc.) does exactly that - both before and after their prime-time broadcasts you have short clips of film historians and critics talking about the movie we are watching.

I also prefer afterwards. I like more those written in a positivistic manner - some info about the writer's life, how this work connects with the rest of their ouvre etc.

 

[Ben Jackson]

Not a problem



Exactly. In that respect, they're actually quite odd. Imagine if films began with a 5 minute conversation disecting all the plot points + how/what/why they mean what they do, all explained by someone who has absolutely nothing to do with the film, but they... watched it before you did.

I mean, at least put them at the end.



Maybe it's just me ?‍

Give me a synopsis, sure, but I prefer to dive right in. I'll go for the linear notes from time-to-time of course, but 90% of the time I skip forewords.

Same for me too. I don't really pay attention to forewords or afterwards or prefaces. Once I find the synopsis of the work appealing, I just go straight to the book.

 

[Leseratte]

Am I the only one who likes that stuff and always reads it?

I love good prefaces. They were more usual in times when one didn't have internet for research and they usually are written by scholars. I usually read them after the book to avoid the spoilers.