Nobel Prizes in Literature 2019 Speculation
- Thread starter redhead
- Start date
- Status
Since there'll be a bit of a change in who decides the winners this years. What can we expect?
- Might two people who've been on the list for a long time finally get their award? Thinking of Adunis or Ngugi wa Thiong'o?
- Maybe two very known authors? Like Margaret Atwood and/or Joyce Carol Oates?
- Maybe two "obscure" (sorry for my choice of words here) female writers Helene Cixous and/or Julia Kristeva?
- Maybe some kind of journalist? What about Günther Walraff?
Maybe we could be really controversial and hope for a filmscript-writer? Since Ingmar Bergman is dead, maybe Werner Herzog, Woody Allen (won't get it because of current situations) or Lav Diaz.
Do we have any masterful librettist? Robert Wilson/Philip Glass?
- Maybe two female authors. Would guess Olga Tokarczuk and Anne Carson.
Some real wildcards... Laszlo Krasznahorkai, Pierre Guyotat, Gary Snyder, Pentti Linkola, Jürgen Habermas...
No american post-modernist writers will have any chance I guess... no DeLillo, Pynchon, Cormac McCarthy etc.
- Might two people who've been on the list for a long time finally get their award? Thinking of Adunis or Ngugi wa Thiong'o?
- Maybe two very known authors? Like Margaret Atwood and/or Joyce Carol Oates?
- Maybe two "obscure" (sorry for my choice of words here) female writers Helene Cixous and/or Julia Kristeva?
- Maybe some kind of journalist? What about Günther Walraff?
Maybe we could be really controversial and hope for a filmscript-writer? Since Ingmar Bergman is dead, maybe Werner Herzog, Woody Allen (won't get it because of current situations) or Lav Diaz.
Do we have any masterful librettist? Robert Wilson/Philip Glass?
- Maybe two female authors. Would guess Olga Tokarczuk and Anne Carson.
Some real wildcards... Laszlo Krasznahorkai, Pierre Guyotat, Gary Snyder, Pentti Linkola, Jürgen Habermas...
No american post-modernist writers will have any chance I guess... no DeLillo, Pynchon, Cormac McCarthy etc.
The Common Reader
Well-known member
Bei Dao is the author of a remarkable body of lyric poetry, beautifully translated by Eliot Weinberg and others (The Rose of Time). I just finished his memoir of childhood and youth in Mao-era Beijing, City Gate, Open Up. It is an extraordinary evocation of life in a great city, full of small but riveting details of everyday life from just before the privations of the Great Leap Forward through the whirlwind of the Cultural Revolution. And all throughout an account of the origins of the poet's way of looking at the world.
Looking at some past threads here, I read about an interview with Academy member Göran Malmkvist (95 years old). Also read an recent interview with him. He looks frail, but seems to still be active. Since he is the only sinologist maybe he tries one last push for any chinese author.
In the older interview he mentions authors: Su Tong, Yu Hua, Wang Anyi, Han Shaogong and Cao Naiqian. In another interview he also mentions Jia Pingwa, Feng Jicai, Yan Lianke and Can Xue.
During his time in the academy he translated two past winners to swedish: Gao Xingjian and Mo Yen, and one swedish, Tomas Tranströmer, to english and chinese language. Looking at his past translations he've also translated, still living, authors Yang Mu and many works of Bei Dao.
In the older interview he mentions authors: Su Tong, Yu Hua, Wang Anyi, Han Shaogong and Cao Naiqian. In another interview he also mentions Jia Pingwa, Feng Jicai, Yan Lianke and Can Xue.
During his time in the academy he translated two past winners to swedish: Gao Xingjian and Mo Yen, and one swedish, Tomas Tranströmer, to english and chinese language. Looking at his past translations he've also translated, still living, authors Yang Mu and many works of Bei Dao.
Last edited:
Daniel del Real
Moderator
I've only read Yu Hua, but I agree these are the three more likely chinese contenders. I read a single novel by Yan Lianke and didn't like it.
Still I think the Mo Yan award (which I didn't like either) is too close.
redhead
Blahblahblah
Eh, Modiano won it 6 years after Le Clezio and Lessing won it two years after Pinter. It's been seven since Mo Yan won, so if they find the right Chinese writer I could see them awarding them.
On the topic of Chinese writers, I've been going through a Can Xue phase recently. I reread her collection Vertical Motion and am now on Frontier. In the past, with the exception of The Last Lover, I had mixed thoughts about her work. They were weird and unfocused and shapeless in terms of story arcs. At times thought I liked the idea of her avant-garde work and persona more than her actual works, but now something's clicked. I picked up Vertical Motion with the intent to reread a story or two from there since she has a bunch of books out at the SA library and ended up getting through the book in a day. Not sure what changed; it was almost like I had to unlearn what to expect with stories--traditional characters, rising and falling action, etc--and just let what was happening in her books wash over me instead of trying to nail it down with traditional logic. But now something about her surrealism just scratches an itch I didn't even know I had. I'd recommend anyone interested in her also look up some Chinese history, specifically things like the Cultural Revolution. Helps contextualize some of her characters' odd quirks.
As for others, I'm also not sold on Yan Lianke after 2 novels. Need to read some more Yu Hua and Bei Dao--I've read minor works by both and while I wasn't super impressed, I was somewhat intrigued. I've also read a fair amount of Su Tong's work; don't think he'll ever win. Something about his work just reminds me of Mo Yan--the at times bizarre narration, the sense of folklore, etc--and, in the same way some have speculated Updike and Roth were skipped at least partially because Bellow already won, they might skip him too. And (in translation at least) he's pretty uneven. I really enjoyed Raise the Red Lantern, recall thinking Rice was well done albeit not to my tastes, but Binu and the Great Wall and The Boat to Redemption were both lackluster. The former was a rewrite of an old Chinese folktale and Su Tong reworked it a bit. I could appreciate what he seemed to be doing but the story as a whole wasn't executed well; the latter just seemed bland.
On the topic of Chinese writers, I've been going through a Can Xue phase recently. I reread her collection Vertical Motion and am now on Frontier. In the past, with the exception of The Last Lover, I had mixed thoughts about her work. They were weird and unfocused and shapeless in terms of story arcs. At times thought I liked the idea of her avant-garde work and persona more than her actual works, but now something's clicked. I picked up Vertical Motion with the intent to reread a story or two from there since she has a bunch of books out at the SA library and ended up getting through the book in a day. Not sure what changed; it was almost like I had to unlearn what to expect with stories--traditional characters, rising and falling action, etc--and just let what was happening in her books wash over me instead of trying to nail it down with traditional logic. But now something about her surrealism just scratches an itch I didn't even know I had. I'd recommend anyone interested in her also look up some Chinese history, specifically things like the Cultural Revolution. Helps contextualize some of her characters' odd quirks.
As for others, I'm also not sold on Yan Lianke after 2 novels. Need to read some more Yu Hua and Bei Dao--I've read minor works by both and while I wasn't super impressed, I was somewhat intrigued. I've also read a fair amount of Su Tong's work; don't think he'll ever win. Something about his work just reminds me of Mo Yan--the at times bizarre narration, the sense of folklore, etc--and, in the same way some have speculated Updike and Roth were skipped at least partially because Bellow already won, they might skip him too. And (in translation at least) he's pretty uneven. I really enjoyed Raise the Red Lantern, recall thinking Rice was well done albeit not to my tastes, but Binu and the Great Wall and The Boat to Redemption were both lackluster. The former was a rewrite of an old Chinese folktale and Su Tong reworked it a bit. I could appreciate what he seemed to be doing but the story as a whole wasn't executed well; the latter just seemed bland.
Last edited:
Daniel del Real
Moderator
It's no secret to anyone the Swedish Academy loves to award Brits & Frenchies. Chinese was first awarded with Mo Yan and there are several languages with great writers out there that have never been recognized; I'd love to see dutch, hungarian or albanian finally walk out with a prize this year.
pinkunicorn
Reader
Gao Xingjian was awarded in 2000 as well. Admittedly while in exile, but he's still Chinese.
tiganeasca
Moderator
Thank you for that paragraph. I tried to read her a few months ago and failed miserably for all the reasons you cited. Maybe it's a little like reading Faulkner; you can't read it for the literal sense of the words. You have to plough through, let it wash over you, and let it make its own sense. Great explanation of her writing style and great advice. I'll try again. Thanks!
Corswandt
FAFO
Daniel del Real
Moderator
Correct, I was thinking in Cartarescu as a matter of fact.
redhead
Blahblahblah
I presume you were thinking of Nooteboom and Kandare for the other two?
Yes, kind of like that, but with one caveat: Even though Faulkner can be confusing, I feel like there’s some sort of concrete meaning that Faulkner intended, and you can usually figure this out with rereads. With Can Xue, while I’m sure she might be thinking of definite themes and the like as she’s writing, it’s more like the reader needs to come up with their own reading of her texts, her themes, her meanings, etc. I think that’s what Can Xue means when she says her ideal reader needs to be imaginative. Of course, that’s just my interpretation of her work, what’s worked for me while I read her; you and others might find her a very different experience.
Side note: Friederike Mayröcker has 13 or so books out at the SA library. She’s an Austrian poet, and at 94 years old she’s....a lot older than any other winners, but then she’s continued to be active in publishing (she put out a book of poems and a radio play last year). But I hadn’t heard of her before, and the best part of these is learning about new authors, so I thought to add her name here so others could discover her too.
Yes, kind of like that, but with one caveat: Even though Faulkner can be confusing, I feel like there’s some sort of concrete meaning that Faulkner intended, and you can usually figure this out with rereads. With Can Xue, while I’m sure she might be thinking of definite themes and the like as she’s writing, it’s more like the reader needs to come up with their own reading of her texts, her themes, her meanings, etc. I think that’s what Can Xue means when she says her ideal reader needs to be imaginative. Of course, that’s just my interpretation of her work, what’s worked for me while I read her; you and others might find her a very different experience.
Side note: Friederike Mayröcker has 13 or so books out at the SA library. She’s an Austrian poet, and at 94 years old she’s....a lot older than any other winners, but then she’s continued to be active in publishing (she put out a book of poems and a radio play last year). But I hadn’t heard of her before, and the best part of these is learning about new authors, so I thought to add her name here so others could discover her too.
Last edited:
Daniel del Real
Moderator
Yes or Fatos Kongoli who is also a very good albanian writer not as known as Kadare.
Septularisen
Reader
" Discover" ?????
Friederike MAYRÖCKER is one of my favorites poetry.
Unfortunately she's to old for the Nobel Prize, and is first "fan", Mrs Katarina FROSTENSON, is, as you know, not more longer a member of the SA.
I have write a lot of time about, in this forum, please check :
Thread Nobel Prize in Literature Speculation 2012 : Page 17 and 24
Thread Nobel Prize in Literature Speculation 2013 : Page 7
Thread Nobel Prize in Literature Speculation 2015 : Page 2 and 10
Thread Nobel Prize in Literature Speculation 2017 : Page 10
and many more...
redhead
Blahblahblah
Thanks for turning my attention to those write ups, I'll have to check them/her poetry out.
Also, does anyone have any recommendations for Peter Handke? His name has popped up a few times in the library thread. I read Goalie's Anxiety a few years ago, which, while I could appreciate some of the literary mastery there, left me feeling cold and unengaged, and recently finished Don Juan which I had similar thoughts on. Should I try Goalie's Anxiety again? Or is there another of his someone would recommend?
Also, does anyone have any recommendations for Peter Handke? His name has popped up a few times in the library thread. I read Goalie's Anxiety a few years ago, which, while I could appreciate some of the literary mastery there, left me feeling cold and unengaged, and recently finished Don Juan which I had similar thoughts on. Should I try Goalie's Anxiety again? Or is there another of his someone would recommend?
Bartleby
Moderator
I recently read his play Self-accusation and was thoroughly impressed, it keeps you constantly thinking with each sentence you read, it goes on building layer upon layer of meaning.
As far as his prose goes I’ve only read A dream beyond sorrow, It was quite good and short, what I remember is that he took a very personal matter (his mother’s suicide) and was able speak a lot about life itself. But I’d have to read it again...
but from what I read about it, you should definitely try Goalie’s anxiety again (or try the left handed woman, from the few pages I read of that it was so beautiful how he evoked daily life) from what I remember by reading some of his prose he may seem cold but you should dig between the lines to get what he’s after, all the questions of performance in society he raises, it’s more of a cerebral kind of reading than an emotional one, so if you can have that in mind, you should leave satisfied from the readings of his writings.
thing is also his work covers a long period of time, he’s done lots of things, covered lots of grounds. I seem to have read a lot about him, obviously more than Ive actually read of him (which is always the case for me with all writers), and what I know he does (and the little snippets of his prose I read) inspires me... I wouldnt be able to find all the links of these articles Ive read, and it would be tiresome anyway to go through it all in one sitting, so I just link here a very inspiring piece ive just read: http://this-space.blogspot.com/2011/05/three-steps-not-beyond-peter-handkes_25.html
Last edited:
Bartleby
Moderator
As a way of deepening what I said before, since I only lazily mentioned an article I'd posted on the author's thread, I reproduce part of an article on the defense of Handke:
"What sins has Peter Handke committed, according to contemporary academic functionaries?
He is a revisionist: How can he be? Peter Handke has consistently refused to demonize the Serbs from the very moment the tragic dismemberment of Yugoslavia began taking place. He has consistently questioned the genocidal label applied to the Serbs, with a prescient thought process that eventually will be acknowledged by history. He has consistently refused to tag Slobodan Milosevic a "Hitler-like dictator." People have yet to come forth to show that a "dictator" has ever been elected more than once in a multi-party political system with ample opposing parties and media (Milosevic was elected three times, and the fourth time was skewed through the efforts and money of his international foes). He has consistently denounced the ICTY for what it factually has been, a Kangaroo Court that has yet to prove anything.
He is a "negationist": The most slanderous accusation of all. Handke has never ignored the horrors that took place in that civil war. He simply has not accused any one side, and he has kept questioning the rationale and the respective responsibilities. Take Iraq today. There is a civil war going on among Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis. Who's the demon? Handke would say: "I do not know." He would then refuse to single out one party for the whole trauma. Finally, he would ponder the larger, outside responsibilities that created the quagmire. Should the USA, through its illegal invasion of Iraq, be considered responsible for the current mayhem? Igualmente, shouldn't one analyze the respective responsibility of Germany, the U.S., and France as a junior player, in the Yugoslav mayhem? If so, to what extent? Why, he would ask, do we always have to demonize the enemy du jour? Fair questions, no? And not much to do with "negationism"...
But in the feeble-minded universe in which our courtesans operate, the adamant refusal to demonize the Serbs becomes ipso facto an assault against the orthodoxy. To question or challenge the bien-pensants threatens the very conventions based on their twisted logic and is met with the repeated howling accusations of heresy. What's the meaning of freedom of speech, then, when every time one opens one's mouth in contradiction of conventional wisdom, one is pilloried, sees one's career threatened, and finds oneself ostracized to the point of becoming an outcast? What's the point really of freedom of speech, if nobody hears you, or hears you and tars and feathers you?
Society of the spectacle, indeed."
From: http://www.swans.com/library/art12/ga210.html
And then there's another one worth checking out: http://www.swans.com/library/art12/ga209.html
"What sins has Peter Handke committed, according to contemporary academic functionaries?
He is a revisionist: How can he be? Peter Handke has consistently refused to demonize the Serbs from the very moment the tragic dismemberment of Yugoslavia began taking place. He has consistently questioned the genocidal label applied to the Serbs, with a prescient thought process that eventually will be acknowledged by history. He has consistently refused to tag Slobodan Milosevic a "Hitler-like dictator." People have yet to come forth to show that a "dictator" has ever been elected more than once in a multi-party political system with ample opposing parties and media (Milosevic was elected three times, and the fourth time was skewed through the efforts and money of his international foes). He has consistently denounced the ICTY for what it factually has been, a Kangaroo Court that has yet to prove anything.
He is a "negationist": The most slanderous accusation of all. Handke has never ignored the horrors that took place in that civil war. He simply has not accused any one side, and he has kept questioning the rationale and the respective responsibilities. Take Iraq today. There is a civil war going on among Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis. Who's the demon? Handke would say: "I do not know." He would then refuse to single out one party for the whole trauma. Finally, he would ponder the larger, outside responsibilities that created the quagmire. Should the USA, through its illegal invasion of Iraq, be considered responsible for the current mayhem? Igualmente, shouldn't one analyze the respective responsibility of Germany, the U.S., and France as a junior player, in the Yugoslav mayhem? If so, to what extent? Why, he would ask, do we always have to demonize the enemy du jour? Fair questions, no? And not much to do with "negationism"...
But in the feeble-minded universe in which our courtesans operate, the adamant refusal to demonize the Serbs becomes ipso facto an assault against the orthodoxy. To question or challenge the bien-pensants threatens the very conventions based on their twisted logic and is met with the repeated howling accusations of heresy. What's the meaning of freedom of speech, then, when every time one opens one's mouth in contradiction of conventional wisdom, one is pilloried, sees one's career threatened, and finds oneself ostracized to the point of becoming an outcast? What's the point really of freedom of speech, if nobody hears you, or hears you and tars and feathers you?
Society of the spectacle, indeed."
From: http://www.swans.com/library/art12/ga210.html
And then there's another one worth checking out: http://www.swans.com/library/art12/ga209.html
- Status