Nobel Questions

[Liam]

Doris Lessing... I found her writing boring

Yeah, I couldn't get through The Golden Notebook. Did you try The Grass Is Singing, her first novel? It reads quickly and fairly smoothly.

I don't dislike Lessing's public persona though. She always had a no-nonsense approach to life, and wouldn't take shit even from her fellow feminists. She was always honest about her opinions.

 

[Liam]

underrated: Elfriede Jelinek (I have a feeling that her detractors have hardly read her work. I have loved every book).

Well, I have (so far) read three of her novels: I'm not sure if that's too much or too little. I recently ordered a fourth one (the book that is allegedly considered her masterpiece), so maybe it'll change my opinion of her after all.

 

[tiganeasca]

Lessing's The Grass is Singing is what went through my mind as well. I found it easy reading and enjoyed it quite bit.

 

[Stiffelio]

I recommend two very enjoyable books by Lessing: The Good Terrorist and The Fifth Child.

 

[kpjayan]

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.

Thank you, I have checked it out yesterday and it sounds interesting. I will try reading it in the next few days...

 

[Liam]

Thank you, I have checked it out yesterday and it sounds interesting. I will try reading it in the next few days...

Let it wash over you, Jayan: read it slowly and savor every page. It's a fairly short book, and many passages read like music.

 

[hayden]

Let it wash over you, Jayan: read it slowly and savor every page. It's a fairly short book, and many passages read like music.

Yeah, that turned out to be a phenomenal read. I'm going to say the first half was slightly better than the second, but for the most part it just reads like butter. Happy to have finally given something by him a read.

 

[DouglasM]

If anyone wants to give it a read, here.

Thank you very much. I'm posting just to say that I am completely mesmerized and delighted by the beauty of that first paragraph. There is something in me that is reluctant to move on, and wants to read it again, again and again...

 

[Liam]

I am so happy to hear that you've loved the book!

 

[redhead]

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.

Thanks so much for sharing, I’ll be dipping into it in the near future

 

[hayden]

I'm posting just to say that I am completely mesmerized and delighted by the beauty of that first paragraph. There is something in me that is reluctant to move on, and wants to read it again, again and again...

Yeah, that entire first chapter hooked me. Brilliant composition. Not going to lie, I copied it out and took a few notes on it... some neat things in there.

 

[DouglasM]

6# Osamu Dazai, though I understand he died tragically too young. Or Roberto Bolaño.

On second thought, I would replace Dazai with Graham Greene.

 

[Cleanthess]

Welcome back Isa, you were missed.

In Dylan's case, the only question I have is whether or not his lyrics work without the music. I'd say yes, but, since de gustibus non est disputandum, others might say no. In Pindar's case, arguably the greatest of lyrical poets, we have lost the music to his poems: for all we know he was a greater musician than Bach, Mozart, Schubert and Dylan put together. Judging by the volume of Pindar's reported works, performances of his work were in great demand, and the complexity of his surviving lyrics suggests that they could not have been the whole basis of this popularity. And yet, Pindar's poems, music-less as they stand, are still extraordinary.

ἐπάμεροι· τί δέ τις; τί δ᾿ οὔ τις; σκιᾶς ὄναρ
ἄνθρωπος. ἀλλ᾿ ὅταν αἴγλα διόσδοτος ἔλθῃ,
λαμπρὸν φέγγος ἔπεστιν ἀνδρῶν καὶ μείλιχος αἰών.

Ephemeral beings, humans, are they a be or a not be? ; dreams shadows
And yet, when god-sent splendor comes upon them
Brilliant lights shine, and so do their lives, serene.

As for Churchill, while admitting his literary merits, he not only held some "detestable views", he enacted detestable policies based upon those views. In general I don't have a big problem with writers having disgusting and/or prejudiced opinions, as long as those opinions don't provide active support for evil actions.

To take this point to its extreme, consider Mao: a handful of his poems (read in English translation, so I might be wrong) are a lot better than Churchill's speeches. If Mao really wrote those, he was a great, great poet. The little red book of Chairman Mao's quotes, was possibly the most printed secular book of all time. Millions were coerced to learn it by heart. And yet, considering some of Mao's actions and policies, had he been awarded a Literature Nobel Prize (don't laugh, weirder things have happened, I mean, Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize), it would have been a terrible mistake.

 

[Verkhovensky]

Main problem with rewarding songwriters is the dominance of English language popular music. There is absolutelly zero chance any non-English speaking songwriter even comes into the conversation. Song lyrics are just not widely translated. I always look on from my country's perspective - could Croatian novelist win the Nobel? I mean, surely yes (Dubravka Ugrešić is probably a contender). Could Croatian songwriter, or songwriter from any other small language ever win? No, he couldn't. If Dylan was for an example a Slovak singer-songwriter writing in Slovakian, nobody outside that country would know his name. But he is an American writing in English, so everybody heard about him because of Anglo-American dominance in pop music. Same thing about Churchill. Could Slovak orator win the literature Nobel for his speeches in Slovakian about Slovakian themes?

 

[Ater Lividus Ruber & V]

3. Who do you think is the most overrated winner?

Munro maybe? I mean if we’re talking overrated as in like bigger authors who haven’t been forgotten. Most of her works read like something grandmas would buy and read at an airport. She has numerous short stories that verge on like murder-mystery genre fiction.

Which stories are you referring to? I haven't read much of Munro and would be intrigued to see her take on the genre. A cursory google search of "murder Munro" yielded the following:

"The Love of a Good Woman"

"Fits"

"The Peace of Utrecht"

"The Time of Death"

"Runaway"

 

[Liam]

^I'm not a big fan of Munro myself (though I do admire her craft), but her stories are NOT something that "grandmas would buy and read at an airport."

I've read "Runaway" before (the story, not the whole collection) and the only murder/disappearance I can remember is that of the main character's pet goat.

 

[hayden]

her stories are NOT something that "grandmas would buy and read at an airport."

Well, perhaps very cool grandmas.

 

[Stevie B]

I despise Harold Pinter. While I acknowledge his influence I just hate all of his plays and his poetry is trash. His plays are basically just a desperate cry for attention: “look at me!” I don’t think I’ve given any of his works more than 2 stars when scored. I’ve read all of his plays. I’ve seen recordings of many of them too. His poetry reads like the ran of a teenager trying to be cheeky.

Toni Morrison. Nearly everything she wrote after winning was not only garbage but displayed such an appalling lack of awareness of the real world that I have to assume she lived an isolated lifestyle and never did or saw anything. Her last book literally reads like something a high schooler may have written. Had she not been Toni Morrison most her matter works wouldn’t have even been published.

Pearl Buck. More on her later.

Handke. A very uneven oeuvre. Detestable views.

Coetzee. Many of his major works I find underwritten, lazy, sexist, and just of low quality. In 2020 most of his writing as his female alter ego just comes off as cringey.

Naipaul. Basically the same reasons as above: racist, sexist, many of his best known works are poorly written garbage.


3. Who do you think is the most overrated winner?

Munro maybe? I mean if we’re talking overrated as in like bigger authors who haven’t been forgotten. Most of her works read like something grandmas would buy and read at an airport. She has numerous short stories that verge on like murder-mystery genre fiction. Her individual collections are not onsistent As far as being “overrated” though it’s really hard to say she is. I don’t enjoy her works but she’s certainly influential and a giant of the short story genre.

4. Who do you think is the most underrated winner?

Mo Yan. From a Western perspective nearly all criticisms of him are quite clearly written by those haven’t read anything he’s published. The lack of insight into his writings and his personal history given in these criticisms is glaring. Some of his longer works have been heavily condensed in translation so westerners aren’t even reading the full product as it was meant to be read. It seems that he’s underrated because of the typical racism that equates “China = bad” and because numerous mediocre has-beens (Rushdie) have whined about his Nobel win without having read him. The hypocritical behavior of condemning Asians who work within totalitarian regimes when it’s seemingly their only way to make a meaningful impact has been widely expressed in the artxworld

5. Who is the one author you would remove from the list (if you could)?

Unlike most of the replies I’ve seen here I’d use this on authors who failed to meet the reasons their Nobels were awarded or those who have almost literally been forgotten to history.

Pearl Buck for instance. In her own country of origin she is not widely read, only has one novel still in continuous publication, and isn’t read or studied by most. Her win occurred within less than ten years of the start of her writing career so there was little time to judge her works or assess their impact (the Academy itself has stated on the Nobel site that their newer method of creating shortlists would have prevented her from winning. Her citation for winning literally states that several biographies of her parents she wrote “will endure and be remembered” (paraphrasing) and they literally haven’t. They aren’t in publication and aren’t even close to being discussed when her works are brought up.

Brodsky. His time came and went... quickly. As a dual language writer the American (English language) side of his works are nearly forgotten. In public discourse he’s basically forgotten in the West. His reputation is much higher in Russia. His relatively young death (at 55) seems to contribute to this for me. Maybe had he lived longer he’d be more of a “figure” and he’d have endured.

There’s a plethora of authors spanning from the 1900s through the 1990s who are now unpublished in their native languages and are never discussed in their home countries. Many of the poets had little known reputations at the time of winning and that still remains the case. Many of them have been out of print for decades.

Paul Von Heyse was a supposed giant of German literature when he won. He’s now unread in Germany and isn’t in print

6. Who is the one author, living or dead, whom you would add to the list?

One? Not sure I could pick just one. I suppose if we want to go for the biggest/most influential then Tolstoy. That being said his lack of a prize isn’t surprising. He literally said he didn’t want the award.

7. What is your favorite Nobel "decade"? (i.e. you are mostly happy with the winners)--

2010s

Your posts continue to baffle me. You say Morrison and Pinter write like high-schoolers, Rushdie is a mediocre has-been, Coetzee is a low-quality writer, and Naipaul's works are poorly written garbage, but then you go to bat for Churchill and Dylan. Of course you're entitled to your opinions, but I'll never understand your vitriolic way of stating them. Words like "hate" and "despise" seem to frequent your posts. I worry you're a very unhappy person, and I'm not saying that to be snarky. In the end, I guess I don't understand how your passion for reading seems to bring you so little joy.

 

[Bartleby]

I couldn’t tell you the specific story titles because it’s been years since I’ve read her work. As an example: In one of them an old lady makes poisonous tea and has a younger man who stops at her house drink it and he dies. He was trying to rob her or something.

You seem to focus too much on the what, and dismiss a piece of Literature because of that, instead of the how. And while I haven’t read this story, it only left me curious now as to how she handles this plot, for from the stories I’ve read by her her seemingly invisible ability to shift the stories into unexpected directions in order to create a desired emotional effect is what elevates the whole thing... I mean, if one were to try to tell the plot of, say, a Flannery O’Connor story, speaking only of what happens on the surface, it could sound pretty shallow, crude and tasteless.

edit: googling some key words it appears the story in question is Free Radicals from Too Much Happiness?

 

[Uemarasan]

You seem to focus too much on the what, and dismiss a piece of Literature because of that, instead of the how. And while I haven’t read this story, it only left me curious now as to how she handles this plot, for from the stories I’ve read by her her seemingly invisible ability to shift the stories into unexpected directions in order to create a desired emotional effect is what elevates the whole thing... I mean, if one were to try to tell the plot of, say, a Flannery O’Connor story, speaking only of what happens on the surface, it could sound pretty shallow, crude and tasteless.

edit: googling some key words it appears the story in question is Free Radicals from Too Much Happiness?

Indeed. What reader of literature does not take into account all of its elements? Personally, plot is the least interesting among a story’s aspects. Any story can transcend its circumscriptions by virtue of the writer’s skill. Munro is very good at this, as is Flannery O’Connor. Faulkner’s A Rose for Emily becomes a pulpy potboiler if only its plot is considered.