Nobel Questions

[Bagharu]

I would have had found peace in mind if the Nobel committees' motivation behind a Dylan award were, " for his lyrics of the great American song tradition opened a new vista in the realm of poetry," instead of "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition." The motivation behind, if one reads carefully, sounds like a motivation for Grammy.
I do not hate or dislike Bob Dylan, and I can see why one might say he is a poet, and I agree with that. He is a poet. But my problem is, is he a poet great enough to be a Nobel laureate? And I believe that's where all the contentions surrounding Dylan lie.

I absolutely agree with the idea that literature would find new modes of expression, in blogs, in screenplays, in comics, in mangas, and in newer forms that would come in the future, but they would always add to the tradition, they would shine where a novel, a poem or a play fails, that's what I believe. When novels first appeared, the literary world sneered at it as the lesser kind, but what novel achieves can never be replicated by poetry, the opposite is true as well. I don't like the Dylan award because my judgment says, there are far many poets who have done for poetry more than what Dylan has added to it. This is not a question of whether Dylans' lyrics are poetry, rather this is about his contribution to literature, whether in his work literature finds a new meaning.

Edit: probably I should have posted it in the Dylan thread, but well, since the point here is to defend why I would remove Dylan from Nobel prize, I suppose you won't mind, Liam?

 

[Liam]

^Of course not, like I said, we can take this thread in any direction we want,

I was just trying to remind myself (and others) what the original purpose of this thread was, and it wasn't to argue about people's choices, but simply to find out how they answer those questions.

Maybe at the end we can count all the answers to see if Dylan wins the "Most Unpopular Nobel Winner of All Time" award,

 

[tiganeasca]

First, I am dismayed to see how many I have never really heard of: Bjørnson; Echegaray y Eizaguirre; Eucken; von Heyse; von Heidenstam; Gjellerup; Pontoppidan; Karlfeldt; Spitteler; Benavente y Martínez; Reymont; Karlfeldt; Sillanpää; Jensen; Johnson; Martinson; Aleixandre. (Isn’t it fascinating to see how many of them are Scandinavian? Jus’ sayin’.) Yes, I’ve heard their names here and there—usually in the context of a discussion just like this where someone says, “who ARE these people?” Some of them may well be quite deserving (I’ll give Sillanpää the benefit of the doubt given Liam’s endorsement.) But I know nothing about any of them, much less their work. Who knows? Maybe that says more about me than about them.

I won’t even talk about how many I know a fair amount about but have never read—not even a single work. That’s downright embarrassing. With that preamble out of the way:

1. Personal favorite? Hesse or LeClezio
2. Least favorite winner? Too many I haven’t read to really intelligently.
3. Most overrated? Buck
4. Most underrated? Kipling or Deledda
5. Who would you remove? Buck or Solzhenitsyn
6. Who would you add list? Dead, probably Woolf. Living, probably Kadare
7. Your favorite Nobel "decade"? Probably the 1920s…followed by 1946-56.

 

[JCamilo]

@JCamilo:

I appreciate all of your above-listed points, but I think we should end it here,

Of course no, Liam. We must duel until our blood is wasted for the right to wear green and yellow avatars.

I for once did not mind when people question Churchill inclusion in the lists. It is easier even to clarify it is not about genre, but the person and the political implication (not because it is political, but because what meant as politics go) of his prize. The questions of the limit of what the nobel should award as literature (which should be a different question as if that is literature or not) was here for him, Russell, Dylan and I recall, Svetlana.

But I didn't question when people named Dylan, I questioned the idea of the limits of literature not being fluid and the nobel not having to adapt to it and I wasnt the one briging it. And it was neither my choice.

Byt the way, I think the genre discussion is quite interesting, not sure how would be in another topic, but I think Dylan notority robbed the oportunity of such discussion for the entire world. And your avatar has to go.

 

[Liam]

I’ll give Sillanpää the benefit of the doubt given Liam’s endorsement

He's not for everybody. I would describe him as the Finnish Hardy: lengthy descriptions of the natural world, slow/unhurried storytelling, occasional bursts of violence, etc. The Maid Silja, in particular, reminded me of Hardy's Tess.

His early book Meek Heritage is on the shorter side, and has a heartbreaking ending (all the more astonishing because the main character is not very likable).

Many people believe that his winning the Nobel in 1939 was in itself a political gesture because it was the year the USSR had invaded Finland; but here's the thing: the Winter War began after Sillanpää had received his award.

And wouldn't he have had to be nominated in the years prior, anyhow? Although, who knows. He remains the only Finnish winner (in this category) to date.

*And yes, there are many more winners I haven't read, than the ones I have read, ?

 

[tiganeasca]

The Finnish Hardy works for me...I'm a fan of Thomas Hardy. Indeed, I suspect I now need to see what I can find. I will take the works you listed as recommendations. If there are others (or cautions), let me know. Thanks for the information!

 

[Liam]

I have only read three books by him: Meek Heritage (1919), The Maid Silja (1931), and People in the Summer Night (1934).

The first two were translated by Alexander Matson (1888-1972): a well-respected translator, in his day, from Finnish and Estonian. He also translated books by Aino Kallas and Aleksis Kivi, which I read and liked.

Sillanpää suffers, and has always suffered, from the endemic disease of under-translation. His bibliography in the original Finnish is tremendous. I think it's pathetic that only a snippet of it is available to English-speaking readers (not sure how much of his stuff is available in other languages).

Of the three novels listed above, I think the earliest (Meek Heritage) is my favorite. There was just so much innocence in the writing, even when describing terrible things, like war and conflict and the execution of human beings. The book is short enough to be read in two or three sittings but it also feels longer because nothing happens for long stretches of time.

In fact, all three books lack what is often referred to as "action."

The Maid Silja is the longest, and also the one I had a lot of trouble with. When nothing much happens in a short book (say, 150 pages), you might feel almost buoyed up by the lack of action: a sense of peace descends as you fall in motion with the unhurried pace of the narrative. But. What if nothing happens for 350 pages? I persevered though, and was happy that I finished the book.

People in the Summer Night, meanwhile, is the most unusual of the three books. It is also Sillanpää at his most experimental, trying on something new. Told in 50+ very short chapters, the book follows the lives of a rich cast of characters during the course of a single summer night. I thought it would feel chopped and almost forced, but no, the narrative is very fluid as it moves from one character to the next. In the original Finnish the novel is given the subtitle of "an epic suite," which is appropriate given its almost melodic quality.

All three translations can often feel somewhat dated (true of Meek Heritage in particular): what we need are current, up-to-date translations of these and other novels by Sillanpää. There is somebody at my Uni currently working on a new translation of one of the books, but it's a labor of love so I have no idea when it will be completed (let alone published).

If I could read Finnish, I would do it all myself

 

[dre_conian]

I had a feminist professor in college (back at my old alma mater) who once told me that much as she wanted to read Hemingway and admire him for craft alone, she could never get past the fact that he was, and I quote, "a heterofascist," ?

I wasn't old enough to argue with her at that point, but I remember reading The Old Man and the Sea afterwards and thinking it had no machismo in it at all--just a beautifully told story about an old man's battle with Life (there was something almost Sisyphean about Santiago's struggle).

It's so funny how this changes with time. I've seen the case more and more that hold Hem through a queer lens. Somewhat reliant on his biographical details (mother dressed him in women's clothes, had his wives cut their hair or dress in an androgynous fashion, etc), but The Sun Also Rises, in particular, screams for a feminist or queer reading.

 

[SpaceCadet]

Interesting topic, Liam. But really, so far I've only read a few books from a few Nobel winners. A lot of them are still unknown to me. So I can't answer those questions.

 

[Corswandt]

Just out of curiosity, what are the template marks that you happen to rail against?

Every year I trolled the Nobel speculation thread bitching about how the Nobel literature prize tended to favour authors with outspoken political views, often exiles and victims of persecution, who wrote earnest, humourless, middlebrow oppression pr0n with humanistic undertones. This is what I saw as the "Nobel template".

 

[Liam]

^Haha, thank you for your honesty. And btw, I don't necessarily disagree with you. All my favorite Nobel winners are poets, whose political views are, shall we say, less outspoken than most?

 

[hayden]

People in the Summer Night, meanwhile, is the most unusual of the three books.

I decided to pick this up at your mention (I've never read Sillanpää), and so far it's been fantastic. Incredibly strong, lyrical, and even somewhat modern, prose. Only about a third of the way through, but it went pretty fast. Looking forward to getting around to the rest.

 

[Liam]

I am very happy to hear it, Hayden! Where did you manage to find it??

Let us know what you think of the book once you're done. We have a thread on Sillanpää here, although no one has bumped it in 12 (!) years. Additionally, there's a separate thread on his early novel Meek Heritage.

 

[hayden]

I am very happy to hear it, Hayden! Where did you manage to find it??

Well, I suppose I should hardly say 'picked up'. It's in the University of Wisconsin's online literature collection. If anyone wants to give it a read, here. The physical book seems pretty hard to come by, and unfortunately it seems to be the only work they have by him, but regardless, it's there.

The short chapters make it an easy read, should be done sometime this weekend. Definitely recommend it so far.

 

[Johnny]

A bit late to the party and I’m not really answering the questions but:
Personal Favourite: Beckett, Camus and Coetzee.
Add: Sebald and Kafka

I’ve tried to be positive on the assumption you have to be a great writer to have won this, albeit not to everyone’s taste. I think some recent winners are great choices like Handke, Munro, Dylan and Ishiguro so I have great faith in the academy going forward. It’s very interesting how different our choices are though we are clearly love reading books and I respect all our choices. For example Saramago and Marquez have never really done it for me yet but clearly others rate them very highly. Is it time for a top 5 writers of all time poll to have some fun with?

 

[JCamilo]

But how avoiding such usual suspects lists unless we create some crazy game rule. Like: Dante is a great writer, I still read parts of the Comedy from time to time, I recall to be at night, after a brithday party of a friend, to be in the street along with a Poet (Monica de Aquino) who also have been my student and another friend, Maurizo Manzo, a book illustrator, who happen to be alone, and she knew my admiration for the Comedy and she was like "you know, João tell to him why Dante is good", the idea was that Maurizio is italian, and yeah, I went on and he was like "he is more italian than I am" and she "you make me wish to read this one day". I doubt so.

The I name another forum member and conditions for the writer he must select and make up a story with it. So, Johnny, an author that cannot be italian, man or belong to a classical style. You turn, and you name someone with rules for the writer. Otherwise, the lists will be smilr, because time is quite a critical razor.

 

[Johnny]

Ok thank you sir for your quick response! So playing by your rules I am going with Alice Munro. I considered strongly Virginia Woolf, Penelope Fitzgerald and Lydia Davis but Munro is special. She writes beautiful, edgy but somehow comforting stories. I lived in Canada once and her stories to me always evoke that cold winter sunday evening feeling to me. Also the importance of family and tradition but also the importance of adapting to the modern world and all it brings and a certain old fashioned romance feeling to them. I would love to meet her and talk to her about this crazy world we are living through, I have no doubt she would have words of wisdom. So who’s next, I guess it must be a male, not a Canadian and not a writer of modern short stories?

 

[JCamilo]

All up to your rules

 

[SouthEastAsianLit]

Not basing my answers off of general perception or other people's opinion. Only choosing writers for each category from the ones I have read. I am also going to cheat and pick two for each category.

1. favorite: Toni Morrison, Garcia Marquez
2. least: Patrick Modiano (read 4 books, don't remember any), Doris Lessing (I found her writing boring. I am pretty sure its my fault. Will try again)
3. overrated: Coetzee (very unpopular opinion), Naipaul (few major works, laziest travel writing)
4. underrated: Naguib Mahfouz, Elfriede Jelinek (I have a feeling that her detractors have hardly read her work. I have loved every book.)
6. add: W. G. Sebald, Chinua Achebe
7. Nobel decade: 1990s, 2000s

 

[Johnny]

All up to your rules

Sorry this should of course be a different thread!