Nobel Prize in Literature 2020

[OverTheMountains]

Jamaica Kincaid, for instance, who was mentioned in news articles more than once in the last week before the Nobel or so, yet several people in here doubted her work was Nobel prize worthy.

I think several people in here might doubt Jamaica's worthiness to receive the award because they haven't read her work, and that many people in here haven't read it because very few people here really prioritize reading literature written by either black authors or women authors, let alone black women authors. Based on what I have read of her work, a few novels, I would say that in her best moments it is of a very high quality and it wouldn't be out of place being recognized by the Nobel. She is an exceptional storyteller and prose writer. I also wouldn't suggest that most of her writing is terribly "woke". Unless we are considering something as simple as "feminism" as "woke" these days? I certainly hope not. If so, your mysogyny is showing. If it is because something as simple as telling a story about black culture makes somebody "woke", then your racism is showing. "Wokeness" has nothing to do with de-centering whiteness or patriarchy as the norm in a world wher neither of those are truly, actually, the norm.

There certainly are authors out there that you could acuse of being woke - some of whom were being promoted as future Nobel winners five to ten years ago. None of them have won the prize. None of them are named Jamaica.

But that's an aside, and better placed in a future speculations thread.

I've thought a bit about Louise's poetry over the past couple weeks. I remember reading one of her collections and quite admiring some parts of it. But I recently reviewed my reading journal, and then my review of it, and it also reminded me of her inconsistency. She can be truly exceptional in certain moments, but in some poems you I often feel it is missing an opportunity for one more edit. That said, I should go back and read more of her work now. I think that my reading preferences have shifted yet again, and I might appreciate her directness of tone and sound much more than I used to.

What I remember really impressing me about her work was her commitment to a full concept. She writes collections of poetry as though they talk to each other (not entirely unlike Anne Carson, though I think Carson is more driven by narrative and Gluck more by concepts or themes or images). She'll borrow phrases and sounds from one poem and repopulate them in another, meaning her work feels like a composition and not a collection - and I think she is remarkably successful in doing so.

A worthy winner? Sure. Why not. I put less value in the Nobel than I used to, but I still appreciate the unique frenzy and attention that it can bring to an artist. Based on what I've read, Louise could use some more attention. Learning, through this thread, that she is so poorly translated to other langauges is a clear indication that she deserves a bit more attention elsewhere.

 

[Corswandt]

very few people here really prioritize reading literature written by either black authors or women authors, let alone black women authors

And why would anyone do so?

I mean, prioritise reading literature written by any specific group of people: people with degrees in medicine, people with no formal education, people who live in Namibia, birdwatchers, war nerds, Swiss citizens, FC Porto stans (despite the intelligence and uprightness that characterises every single one of them), pastry chefs, Australasian writers, whatever.

Why? This is not a rhetorical question.

 

[namelesshere]

And why would anyone do so?

I mean, prioritise reading literature written by any specific group of people: people with degrees in medicine, people with no formal education, people who live in Namibia, birdwatchers, war nerds, Swiss citizens, FC Porto stans (despite the intelligence and uprightness that characterises every single one of them), pastry chefs, Australasian writers, whatever.

Why? This is not a rhetorical question.

I could answer this in more detail if required but the basic answer in this context comes down to: you are on the World Literature Forum.

 

[nagisa]

And why would anyone do so?

I mean, prioritise reading literature written by any specific group of people: people with degrees in medicine, people with no formal education, people who live in Namibia, birdwatchers, war nerds, Swiss citizens, FC Porto stans (despite the intelligence and uprightness that characterises every single one of them), pastry chefs, Australasian writers, whatever.

Why? This is not a rhetorical question.

Your comparisons are absurd. For the case of women in particular, because the disparity is so glaring: they represent 50% of humanity, as opposed to a miniscule fraction of canonised literature. Your question is akin to "why should I open my left eye, my right eye can swivel in all directions".

Why would anyone go out of their way to stay within a blinkered, impoverished subsection of literature?

 

[Cleanthess]

I've thought a bit about Louise's poetry over the past couple weeks. I remember reading one of her collections and quite admiring some parts of it. But I recently reviewed my reading journal, and then my review of it, and it also reminded me of her inconsistency. She can be truly exceptional in certain moments, but in some poems you I often feel it is missing an opportunity for one more edit. That said, I should go back and read more of her work now. I think that my reading preferences have shifted yet again, and I might appreciate her directness of tone and sound much more than I used to.

A worthy winner? Sure. Why not. I put less value in the Nobel than I used to, but I still appreciate the unique frenzy and attention that it can bring to an artist. Based on what I've read, Louise could use some more attention. Learning, through this thread, that she is so poorly translated to other langauges is a clear indication that she deserves a bit more attention elsewhere.

Ms. Glück's poetry, like Tranströmer's or Gary Snyder's poems circa Axe Handles, leaves me cold. The poet who impresses me the most while writing austerely is Basho during his "clear water" period.

So far, only the Apostle Paul has succeeded in being all things for all people, so I'll concede that Glück's poems are not for me, and abstain from passing judgement regarding merits I cannot perceive.

 

[Liam]

"Wokeness" has nothing to do with de-centering whiteness or patriarchy as the norm in a world wher neither of those are truly, actually, the norm.

Remind me where in the world patriarchy isn't the "norm," because I would certainly like to go there, ?

 

[Liam]

The poet who impresses me the most while writing austerely is Basho during his "clear water" period.

I like Basho as well (in my case, sadly, in translation), but who are some of the modern (i.e. living) poets whose work you happen to like?

 

[Cleanthess]

I like Basho as well (in my case, sadly, in translation), but who are some of the modern (i.e. living) poets whose work you happen to like?

Thank you for asking Liam.

Let me start with those deceased in the last decade, Wisława Szymborska, Tadeusz Różewicz, Julia Hartwig, Stanisław Barańczak, Ferenc Juhasz, Sandor Csoori, Yves Bonnefoy, Claude Vigée, Les Murray, Derek Mahon, Geoffrey Hill, Seamus Heaney, Louis Simpson, Leopoldo Maria Panero, Jose Emilio Pacheco, Ali Chumacero and Nicanor Parra.

Then the very old guard, Friederique Mayrocker, Reiner Kunze and Philippe Jaccottet.

Christian Bobin, Lydie Dattas, Jacques Roubaud, Volker Braun, Adélia Prado, Anne Carson, Abdellatif Laâbi, Ko Un, Olvido García Valdés, Luis Alberto de Cuenca.

As the names of Ana Blandiana, Ivan Wernisch, Adam Zagajewski and Ewa Lipska suggest, Eastern European poetry is where it's at for reading poems in translation. Even after you take away the music, rhythm and semantic allusions, their poems are still rich enough in imagery, ideas, cultural content and emotion to make their translations enjoyable.

 

[OverTheMountains]

Remind me where in the world patriarchy isn't the "norm," because I would certainly like to go there, ?

Communication breakdown. Thanks for pointing that out.

Patriarchy is the norm. It exists to ensconce the power of a particular type of men over the power that others have, and as a result, largely systematizes oppression against people who are not men or whose masculinity is "questionable". That's fair. My comment was intended to point out that the people who benefit from patriarchy do not constitute the "average" human being; the "norm" is not to have one's personal identity or politics reflected in patriarchy but to be oppressed by it.

Thank you, Nagisa, for pointing out the absurdity of Corswandt's point.

Thank you, Cleanthess, for the list of poets. I wonder, where would you toss Adonis into this list? He is often listed as a world poet of serious acclaim. I've read one book by him, and was mostly puzzled by it - perhaps because of the cultural knowledge and quality of the translation.

I'm hoping to buy another of Gluck's books soon so that I can give another one of her concept collections a run through. I think your response to austerity in writing is similar to mine, but then I remember a few of the books I've ready by Marguerite Duras - whom I would certainly characterize as austere - and I wonder if it is something different... I'm willing to give Gluck another week or two of my time so that I can come away with a better sense of where she sits in my personal cannon of poets.

 

[Liam]

@Cleanthess:

Some of these names are completely new to me (Ewa Lipska, Sandor Csoori, Claude Vigée), but what excellent choices in regard to the others!

Szymborska is probably my favorite Nobel winner of all time, so I'm always happy to see someone else enjoy her work as much as I do.

Juhasz, Heaney and Hill are all-time favorites as well; Bonnefoy, Murray and Zagajewski I like, but need to read more of to form an opinion.

Coincidentally, I just bought a slim book of Jaccottet's poetic musings called Seedtime: prose and poetry interspersed, it looks interesting.

 

[Cleanthess]

I'm glad you liked it Liam. I must confess that i chickened out and replaced a poet I love but whose poems might not translate all that well, Guy Goffette, with a more prestigious one, Jacques Roubaud, whose poetry translates better.

While checking out the recently dead poets society list, I learned that W. S. Merwin had died during 2019 and that looked like a potential clue regarding why Louise Glück and Charles Simic putatively became the top candidates for the 2020 Nobel prize.

Merwin's late poetry belongs to the same phylum as Glück's (a reviewer at Amazon drew a parallel between The Shadow of Sirius and The Wild Iris as the two best recent American poetry books). Merwin, like Simic, also was a brilliant translator (I'm very grateful to Merwin for his Buson translations, Yosa Buson being a really tough poet to translate).

I'm not a huge fan of Merwin, but, in some ways, he was twice the poet that Simic or Glück are (his name being mentioned as a potential Nobel candidate for years) and his death last year might have triggered an American poet being awarded the prize this year.

 

[childeroland]

Merwin's Purgatorio is really good.

 

[Americanreader]

I really love his poem Yesterday!

 

[Ater Lividus Ruber & V]

Thank you for asking Liam.

Let me start with those deceased in the last decade, Wisława Szymborska, Tadeusz Różewicz, Julia Hartwig, Stanisław Barańczak, Ferenc Juhasz, Sandor Csoori, Yves Bonnefoy, Claude Vigée, Les Murray, Derek Mahon, Geoffrey Hill, Seamus Heaney, Louis Simpson, Leopoldo Maria Panero, Jose Emilio Pacheco, Ali Chumacero and Nicanor Parra.

Then the very old guard, Friederique Mayrocker, Reiner Kunze and Philippe Jaccottet.

Christian Bobin, Lydie Dattas, Jacques Roubaud, Volker Braun, Adélia Prado, Anne Carson, Abdellatif Laâbi, Ko Un, Olvido García Valdés, Luis Alberto de Cuenca.

As the names of Ana Blandiana, Ivan Wernisch, Adam Zagajewski and Ewa Lipska suggest, Eastern European poetry is where it's at for reading poems in translation. Even after you take away the music, rhythm and semantic allusions, their poems are still rich enough in imagery, ideas, cultural content and emotion to make their translations enjoyable.

Thank you for all of these names!

 

[Cleanthess]

I really love his poem Yesterday!

Thank you very much for that. IIRC, Adélia Prado has a poem in the same vein. It's about how having to visit her parents used to be a bother to her, and how, now that they're gone, she'd trade half the world for a chance to see them again once.

There's no denying that the undercurrent of plain spoken verse in American poetry runs deep and strong. You can feel it in Whitman (from time to time), William Carlos Williams, Edgar Lee Masters, Elizabeth Bishop, Robert Frost, Gary Snider, Robert Creeley, W. S. Merwin and Louise Glück.

 

[Bartleby]

Now this is interesting

Teaching the complexities of the Nobel Prize in Literature

Rochester English professor Bette London introduces students to Nobel-winning authors and the controversies surrounding the prize.

www.rochester.edu

 

[namelesshere]

Now this is interesting

Teaching the complexities of the Nobel Prize in Literature

Rochester English professor Bette London introduces students to Nobel-winning authors and the controversies surrounding the prize.

www.rochester.edu

Interesting. I have found the Nobel Prize a great springboard into other literatures from around the world.

 

[Liam]

I'll concede that Glück's poems are not for me, and abstain from passing judgement regarding merits I cannot perceive.

Unfortunately, I am having the exact same reaction to her poetry at the moment. She is undoubtedly a tremendously gifted poet, but her poems leave me cold despite the simple precision with which she composes them (usually I fall for that, as evidenced by my devotion to Mary Oliver).

So far I've read through two complete collections--The Wild Iris (1992) and Averno (2006)--and different as the two collections are, I had the same gut reaction to both (admiration without excitement).

I'll give her one more chance with Faithful and Virtuous Night (2014), which is not included in my Collected Poems volume, before drawing the same conclusion as Cleanthess--that as talented as Louise Glück undoubtedly is, she is, simply put, just not "my kind of poet."

 

[lucasdiniz]

I got halfway through Faithful and Virtuous Night, my goal was to read one poem a day. I would've given up if reading a poetry book this year wasn't one of my goals. Besides Wislawa Szymborska, I'm not very familiar with any poet, be it Brazilian or foreign. Because of that, I also feel like I can't make any judgment about Glück's poetry too.

 

[Liam]

Lucas, have you ever taken a look at Mary Oliver? Her language is very simple but her message is profound, and her poetry, I sometimes think, is just one of those things that helps me live.

A comprehensive volume of her collected poems, Devotions, is available in hardback but is coming out in a couple of weeks as a more affordable paperback (same cover)! If you want to read more poetry but remain unsure which poet to pick up next, I humbly suggest that you at least take a look at Mary Oliver!

Let me know how you end up liking her (or not), hehe.