The International Booker Prize Longlist, 2025

Hello Gentle Reader,

The International Booker Prize Shortlist for 2025 has released this year’s longlist of thirteen titles each competing for a coveted spot on the shortlist, which will be announced in early April. This year’s longlist shows a penchant for concision and precision in length of the novels listed, with only one novel being described as a doorstop. The longlist also showcases the judges intentional or otherwise obvious curative decisions in crafting it, by specifically bypassing and omitting previous winners and now Nobel Laureates Nobel Laureates Olga Tokarczuk and Hang Kang, with their recently translated novels: “The Empusium: A Health Resort Horror Story,” and “We Do Not Part.” 

This years International Booker Prize Longlist is as follows in no particular order:

            Mircea Cărtărescu – Romania – “Solenoid,”
            Solvej Balle – Denmark – “On the Calculation of Volume 1,”
            Vincenzo Latronico – Italy – “Perfection,”
            Anne Serre – France – “A Leopard-Skin Hat,”
            Christian Kracht – Switzerland – “Eurotrash,”
            Astrid Roemer - the Netherlands, “On a Woman's Madness,”
            Vincent Delacroix – France – “Small Boat,”
            Hiromi Kawakami – Japan – “Under the Eye of the Big Bird,”
            Dahlia de la Cerda – Mexico – “Reservoir Bitches,”
            Banu Mushtaq – India – “Heart Lamp,”
            Saou Ichikawa – Japan – “Hunchback,”
            Gaëlle Bélem – France, department Réunion – “There’s a Monster Behind the Door
            Ibtisam Azem – Palestine – “The Book of Disappearance,”

The longlist is certainly an interesting take, with an emphasis on the pithy. There is no surprise to see Mircea Cărtărescu on the longlist with his novel “Solenoid,” which won last years International Dublin Literary Award. It is also the longest novel on this year’s longlist. “Solenoid,” is a dense, complex, imagistic novel by Mircea Cărtărescu, maximalist and expansive, the novel delights in sinking into the depths of the subconscious and surreal. “Solenoid,” showcases Mircea Cărtărescu as a true marvel and master of international literature, and no lightweight when credited as a potential contender for the Nobel Prize in Literature. It is delightful to see Solvej Balle included on the longlist as well with her novel “On the Calculation of Volume 1.” The premise is eccentric, with an antiquarian bookseller reliving the same day on loop, but it is a triumphant and stellar return of Solvej Balle to the literary scene, after her explosive and acclaimed debut: “According To The law: Four Accounts of Mankind,” which autopsied the world through a slanted perspective. “On the Calculation of Volume 1,” only confirms, Solvej Balle, is one of the most original writers of her generation, an absolute singular talent.

This isn’t the first time Anne Serre has been included on a translated book award list. In the now unfortunately absent Best Translated Book Award, Anne Serre was nominated back in 2019, Anne Serre was shortlisted with her novel “The Governesses.” Now Anne Serre is longlisted with her more emotionally intimate and psychologically probing novel “A Leopard-Skin Hat,” which sketches the doomed relationship between an unnamed narrator and his childhood friend Fanny, who suffers from an array of psychological problems and conditions. The novel is a tango moving between the maniacal highs and joys of their friendships to the plunging polar points of despair. The novel celebrates these competing extremes, while with literary fashion critiquing the novels forms. “A Leopard-Skin Hat,” is described as personal in context, but masterfully executed, it’s a celebration of an intense and shortened life, sustained by a brilliant friendship. Saou Ichikawa’s novel “Hunchback,” in comparison to Mircea Cărtărescu’s novel “Solenoid,” is the shortest novel on this year’s longlist. “Hunchback,” aims towards the unconventionality praised by this year’s judges, as the novel humorously and unapologetically recounts the world of Shaka a woman born with a congenital muscle disorder, who lives in a care home and relies on an electric wheelchair for mobility and ventilator to breathe. What sounds like a recipe for a narrative of resilience and the unfair lottery of life, is instead contorted into a narrative that is daringly unconventional, unexpected, and twistedly funny, which includes the Shaka writing explicit fantasies on websites and disseminating outlandish (for lack of better term ‘tweets,’) online, including one in which she offers an enormous sum of money for a sperm donor. Facetiousness is tossed aside when her nurse accepts the dare, which opens up a new world for Shaka. “Hunchback,” won the Akutagawa prize in Japan, and its reception in translation has been equally warm. It is by far one of the more interesting titles on this year’s longlist.

Described as a promising talent, Vincenzo Latronico’s debut in English with his fourth novel, “Perfection,” models and reimagines the French experimental writer, Georges Perec’s novel “Things: A Story of the Sixties.” Where Perec’s novel detailed the material inventory of a mid-century couple’s apartment as a critique of consumerist culture, Vincenzo Latronico’s novel “Perfection,” is a deeply pessimistic account of the continuation of consumerism which has since evolved, now hollowing out existence, whereby material reality is no longer necessary, rather it is the curation of images and Instagram posts, complete with likes, comments, and hashtags. Rather than fortifying ones with objects and possessions, its now about designing and upholding the quixotic illusion of perfection. In “Perfection,” the objects and things detailed in Perec’s novel have all been uploaded and become apparitions, haunting ghosts of our increasingly technologically infused nihilistic existences.  

Other novels on the longlist veer towards an attempt at polemics with their narratives highlighting social and political issues, but lacking the required engagement and depth, resulting in nothing more then a high polished glaze of topical news heading discussion without any substantial thought. The writers attempt to explore concepts of privilege, guilt and atonement, migration, postcolonialism and other buzz words of an increasing demand for superficial discourse. Reviewing the longlist and some of the titles included does leave one wondering who was omitted? I had thought personally Ogawa Yōko would have made an appearance on the longlist with her recently published novel “Mina’s March,” after she was considered the favourite to win in 2020 with her dystopian parable, “The Memory Police,”; but it seems the judges this year would not be wooed over with a slice of life narrative of a Japanese girl living with her eccentric relatives in the 1970’s. While the longlist may leave plenty to desire in some respects, where the judges did hit their marks, they hit it well, with a handful of novels worthy of being included. In addition to this, I was a bit surprised to see a short story collection longlisted for the award. Perhaps I was or am mistaken in the past, but I was under the impression that the International Booker Prize required the product to be a novel, just as in the case of the Booker Prize, which means its interesting to see the inclusion of "Heart Lamp," by Banu Mushtaq included on this years longlist, but not necessarily unwelcome. 

While the longlist would not be considered dazzling overall, it’s an honest list, put together with noticeable fissures revealing what I hope to be compromise choices. It’ll be interesting to see how those choices are evaluated and assessed in making the shortlist. Here’s hoping those true diamonds are indeed shine through to the shortlist.  

Thank-you for Reading Gentle Reader 
Take Care 
And As Always 
Stay Well Read 
  
M. Mary 

– XXXVII –

The art of eating is ritual infused with sustenance, accompanied by dear friends and spiced with riveting conversation.  

Frankétienne Dies Aged 88

Hello Gentle Reader,

Haiti is a Caribbean country that summons notions of chaos, violence, voodoo, and a history of slavery and revolution. This complexity of history, African diasporic perspective, and contemporary chaos were refracted continuously through artistic, literary and dramatic expression by the nations foremost master of letters, Frankétienn, whose debut novel (“Dézafi,”) was written exclusively in Haitian Creole, and has since died at 88 years old at his home in Port-au-Prince. Frankétienne was a prolific writer, poet, and painter, and three often intertwined themselves within a single work, which often embraced and made shape to the chaos of the small tumultuous Caribbean nation, whose defining atmosphere is often described as violence, disorder, and anarchy. Yet, when discussing the notion of chaos, Frankétienne took a poet turned philosopher perspective, waxing on chaos being the progenitor of light, but aired caution to the Haitian problem, whereby the chaos reported by the world, was not necessarily chaos in its primordial form, but a lack of management which was ultimately the problem. While not well known within the English language, Frankétienne was a renowned figure in French and Creole readers. Frankétienne’s debut novel “Dézafi,” which is translated as “Cockfight,” proved to be monumental in capsulating Haitian Creole as a codified literary language. The novel is experimental, spiraling, and looping in form, taking inspiration and practice from the 1960’s Haitian literary movement, Spiralism, which was founded and promoted by fellow Haitian writers René Philoctète and Jean-Claude Fignolé. The goal of Spiralism was to orchestrate and self-perpetuate a sense of personal chaos to ignite and reignite a sense of creativity. Additionally, the novel incorporated elements of magical realism and oral storytelling. “Dézafi,” remains a milestone for Haitian literature for capturing Haitian Creole, but also for its political and allegorical dimensions, and practice of Spiralism, which informs the culture and political attitudes of Haiti. The play “Pelin Tet,” was a biting critique of Haitian dictator Baby Doc. Despite political authoritarianism and natural disasters which pommeled the nation, Frankétienne remained as Haiti was both muse and home, and in a self-prophesying manner, Frankétienne understood his work were to complex and Baroque to both or get the attention of the autocratic government. Readings, interviews, and events involving Frankétienne were equally regarded for their sporadic and performative nature, which further expanded and exemplified the writer’s interest in channeling personal chaos and redirecting it to a new creative expression. Frankétienne was also viewed as a dark horse candidate for the Nobel Prize in Literature, often whispered about as an obscure writer which the Swedish Academy had a certain proclivity to award and recognize, much to the chagrin of others. Frankétienn’s death will inevitably leave a large gap within the Haitian literary community, but the writers work—both in literary and artistic mediums—will continue to inspire a new generation.

Rest in Peace Frankétienne. 

Thank you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read
 
M. Mary

The Wood: The Life & Times of Cockshutt Wood

Hello Gentle Reader,

Pan is the rustic Greek god of wild woods, pastures, shepherds and their flocks, and is often associated with the season of spring. In addition to his role as patron and deity, Pan is associated with vitality, fertility, and of course virility; in addition to being a philanderer and chaser of the Nymphs, who in turn delighted in running away from the unencumbered lustful advances. In the pantheon and hierarchy of Greek mythology, Pan is a lesser god. The twelve Olympians rule supreme. Furthermore, the patron of wild woods, pastures, shepherds and their flocks, in addition to the persona of virile and hedonistic spring, is not depicted as a chiseled specimen of the human figure, in all its perfection, free of blemish or bruise. Instead, Pan is described as satyr or faun in appearance. A chimeric creature. The bottom half composed of hairy goat or Cervidae legs ending in cloven hooves, then topped with a human torso, and a face which flickers between caprine and human, which is crowned with a set of goat or ram horns. This wild god of lust, the untamed wilderness of the natural world, and the shepherds of lambs and goats, never truly fell into relative obscurity. Despite being a minor god, the character of Pan persevered as a character and symbol. Rather in fashion similar to Zeus, the mighty King of the Olympians, God of the heavens and thunder who has since become the stock image of the Christian depiction of God, wizened and bearded sitting on a cloud looking down at the earth below with judgement, ready to smite with a bolt from the blue. Pan regained prominence during the 18^th and 19^th centuries, becoming a characteristic figure of the Romantic movement with its pastoral allures and rising neopagan movements and other spiritualistic concepts. Consequently, the image of Pan was also appropriated and reconfigured to be the popular and recognizable image of Satan as a goat headed being. Regardless, there is a pastoral and bucolic element to Pan, which inevitably sees his image endure. For the Romantics, Pan represented the Arcadian ideal. The utopian vision of pastoralism and harmony with nature. For those of a more Judaeo-Christian inclination, it’s a return to the garden of Eden. Inevitably those of a romantic sensibility rebelled against the prevailing attitudes caused by the Industrial Revolution, with its coal powered factories and an increased urbanization, which saw the countryside all but abandoned for the promise of the spoils of industry and the gamble of a better future. Oh, how the romantics lamented the abandonment of the pasture, the purity of the air, the simplicity of a good day’s toil in the fields. Of course, they elevated the rural harshness to more romantic and softer image then it was in reality, glossing over the cruelty and harshness of such a life. Still, Pan with pipes in hand frolicked forward and became ingrained into the public consciousness, a symbol of the uncontrolled wilds of the world; harkening back to the over romanticized values of an agrarian society, burrowing and reconnecting with one’s roots.

This is becoming a more entrenched perspective. The idea of simple living is but a new lifestyle fad. During the pandemic, it seems people began to occupy themselves with daydreams and curations of country living. Charming old cottages, wildflower meadow like yards, baking sourdough bread, and participating in needlework and embroidery. There’s nothing wrong with these pursuits. Though there is concern with the heightened idealization of them. While it is pleasant to envision wholesome notions of country living, its not all pies cooling on the windowsill, or effortless beautiful gardens blooming throughout the spring and into the summer, the envy of all one’s neighbours. There’s drudgery and hard work. There is suffering and financial costs and expenses. It is, however, understandable how people begin to idealise this notion of living. Its back to basics with home made, home raised, homespun, home backed, home grown, home canned, the acceptance and endorsement of self-sufficiency. With the threat of economic dispersity and uncertainty, a continual contentious and unstable political environment. Then of course the rising existential threat of Artificial Intelligence. This inevitably does drive the notion and dream for people to tunnel in and hunker down in order to pursue an unencumbered self-sufficient sustainable life. It doesn’t hurt, however, with the likes of Beatrix Potter and the “Tales of Peter Rabbit & Co,” with their beautiful watercolour drawings of anthropomorphic characters does ignite one’s imagination. The same can be said of, “The Wind in the Willows,” another nostalgic read from one’s childhood; where incidentally, a certain god of the wilds, woods, and pastures makes an appearance, and was featured on the original cover of the publication. While country living is harsh and hardscrabble, it is perhaps not without reward; but those flights of fantasy are best conjured to occupy and fill the vacuous moments and times of the day. They are perfect if only because the exist in the ethereal realm of dreaming, devoid of the contusions and bruises and all the other inconveniences of reality. They are beautiful if only because they are a dream.

The cottier lifestyle is synonymously applied and attributed to the English countryside, which as a broad term, employed as a catchall to ensnare the geographical characteristics of not only the United Kingdom but also Ireland. This is a landscape which has been cultured and cultivated by human activity and society for centuries, to the point it is primed and pruned, whereby its wild elements have all been eradicated to distant memories, leaving behind a pedestrian park. In all, nothing more then an insinuation of the wild. While Pan is the deity and guardian of the untamed wilds, his attribution as the frolicsome spirit of the English countryside is not unsurprising. This landscape with its cotter charm, carved out with the serpentine stonewalls, spiced with ancient trees, and enduring cottages, castles, and towns; in addition to lacking formidable predators be it wolves, lions, or bears. The rolling hills of the Yorkshire dales, for example, bring to mind the pastoral utopia of Arcadia in which Pan heralds from. Inevitably this is what is so appealing about the English countryside, whose green shadow has been a wellspring of inspiration and contributing influence on countless writers through the ages, who have celebrated and venerated this special landscape in turn, turning it into legend and character. The English countryside has occupied the imagination of children across the world, with it being the backdrop of a variety of arts, culture, and literary products. In the case of Jamaica Kincaid, daffodils from Wordsworth’s poem “I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud,” represent an oppressive colonial visage and education. While Penelope Lively described, how Beatrix Potter’s books were verdant and exotic when compared to her childhood growing up outside of Cairo.

The literary form of nature writing suits the continued propagation and celebration of the English countryside and landscape. A mercurial genre which celebrates the bounty of nature and examines it. The form exists on the spectrum of scientific study, zoological narrative, ecological exploration, to personal memoir and reflection on the natural world. Nature and environment are subject, but also provide the staging ground for more philosophical and personal oriented digressions. This is perhaps what makes nature writing as a genre a pleasurable read. Its akin to watching a nature documentary, whereby one can admire and appreciate a distant landscape via more economic means. The English countryside in turn, has no shortage of legend or folklore or history for writers to unearth or wander down in some tangent; while providing some thoughtful glance or acknowledgement at the natural fauna or flora in bloom. In contrast, the Canadian backwoods remain the polar opposite of the English countryside with its pastoral idyll and parkland elements. Perhaps due to the scale of the geography, the diversity in topography and terrain, and extreme unforgiving climate, Canada remains in many ways an unspoilt, unexplored, final frontier. It’s the untamed wilds in all their primeval glory and danger. If a Canadian were to take up the mantal of nature writing, it is less about cultivation and natural stewardship and instead is a survival guide with wilderness tips. It’s a practical guide to homesteading. A celebration of the indominable spirit of the Canadian character. The tenacity to persevere in the face of impossible odds. An appreciation for a landscape which remains unchanging and stalwart, while giving the impression of being impossible to conquer. An exploration of the wild nature of man, which remains dormant, hibernating within the pits of the human soul, sated to sleep by societal niceties and conveniences. Pan may be the god of untamed wilderness and unspoilt meadows, he is inevitably absent within the harshness of the Canadian landscape, which eschews the harmony of Arcadian values and endorsed the Darwinian natural laws and principles.

John Lewis-Stempel does not endorse the term ‘nature writer,’ as its far to imprecise as a term. Instead, Lewis-Stempel appreciates the term working countryside writer, which carries more qualification, then a misery memoirist enthusing the benefits of nature therapy. Throughout the book “The Wood: The Life & Times of Cockshutt Wood,” John Lewis-Stempel chronicles the handful of years in which he was charged with the stewardship of the three and a half acres of woodland in the south-west of Herefordshire. John Lewis-Stempel is a pragmatic woodman as he curates and tends to the woods needs, which in turn provides for the wildlife and livestock which call the few acres home. Composed in a diary format of the final year under Lewis-Stempel’s care, “The Wood: The Life & Times of Cockshutt Wood,” recounts the various forms the titular wood takes through the seasons. Additionally, John Lewis-Stempel seasons the narrative with history, folklore, literary allusions, poetry, self-reflection, recipes, scientific and encyclopedic facts and narrative. This outpost of woodland becomes a sanctuary unto itself as John Lewis-Stempel confirms:

“Cockshutt was a sanctuary for me too; a place of ceaseless seasonal wonder where I withdrew into tranquility. No one comes looking for you in a wood.”

As a practising steward and landman, John Lewis-Stempel is not some elusive green man haunting the woods, Lewis-Stempel takes an active role in feeding the livestock and managing the woodland; what is known as agroforestry. In the summer Lewis-Stempel harvests ‘tree hay,’ a accumulation of leaf fodder which is later mixed in with the livestock feed, providing added vitamins for the livestock. The wood in turns provides a few meals of its own for the writer, and logs for the fireplace in winter. This custodianship also entails being the swift executioner of invading Canadian Geese and providing a mercy killing for a sheep which has fallen and broken its legs in a gorge. These details are never lingered on, but presented with the swiftness of fact. This, however, is part and parcel with life in the country. In other moments, John Lewis-Stempel rejoices at the subtle and sure signs and changing nature the season which characterizes the wood, such as the arrival of snowdrops in January:

“If snowdrops are appearing, then the earth must be wakening. Of all our wild flowers the white bells are the purest, the most ethereal, the most chaste… Whatever; the snowdrop says that winter is not forever.”

In due time the snowdrops messages, gives way to carpets of bluebells and a chorus of birdsong rings out in May. The bluebell in particular, maintains a point of pride for John Lewis-Stempel who informs readers that the United Kingdom hosts more then half the worlds population of them. Lewis-Stempel’s description of a blue forested carpet reflecting the sky is particularly lyrical and beautiful; while also envious for those of us who have never witnessed it. The same can be said with snowdrops, beautiful delicate little white blossoms, which signal the end of winter. I have yet to see such delicate flowers in the brisk and bracing winters of a Canadian winter.

“The Wood: The Life & Times of Cockshutt Wood,” is a marvelous seasonal journal and daybook of a working countryside writer. John Lewis-Stempel provides a palpable anatomy of a rarity: a natural wood, which is now a bastion against encroaching development and the facelessness of industrial farming, which has all but bulldozed the good old family farm, reducing it to marketing campaigns and packaging. “The Wood: The Life & Times of Cockshutt Wood,” evades slipping into the didactic and dry academic essay, by combining both narrative and overview of what agroforestry is, its importance not only in maintaining tradition and heritage, but also its ecological benefits, all the while providing personal and lyrical touches throughout, in addition to indulging in literary allusion and reflection, surveying history, and sharing recipes and facts in equal turn. “The Wood: The Life & Times of Cockshutt Wood,” becomes its own literary woodland ecosystem, which is only vaguely described as nature writing. Of course, the entire book thrives on John Lewis-Stempel’s prose which maneuvers between sure footed earthen diction and softened impressionism flights of flourish; though I would not go so far as to describe John Lewis-Stempel as a writer who follows in the tracks of the Romantics. The English countryside remains subject, muse, and piece of fascination, and this in turn is shared by readers, who are looking for a book which can be mediative and casual in reading. “The Wood: The Life & Times of Cockshutt Wood,” is a true pleasure to read, further affirming the enduring appeal and legacy of the English countryside as the pastoral ideal.

 

Thank you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read
 
M. Mary

– XXXVI –

Only the young are assured they know everything.  

Michael Longley Dies Aged 85

Hello Gentle Reader,

Michael Longley was one of the great poets of an informal triumvirate, which consisted of fellow Northern Irish poets, Seamus Heaney and Derek Mahon. The three were a particular blend of Irish poetry, recognizing its ancient roots, traditions, and customs, while being acutely aware of the struggle and conflict between the Catholic Irish and the Protestant British. Like his compatriots, Heaney and Mahon, in addition to his fellow disparate of immense reputation and poetic spirit, Paul Muldoon and Ciaran Carson, Michael Longley was a poet of international reputation and reach. One of Longley’s most famous poems “Ceasefire,” was serendipitously published the day before a ceasefire was announced in 1994, between the waring factions in Northern Ireland. As a poet within the borderland which demanded allegiance of either Irish Green or Protestant Orange, Michael Longley transcended such concerns, and enveloped readers within his contemplative and humorous warmth, which was far more concerned with the matter of humanity, then it was the delineation of national identity. Throughout his lengthy career, Michael Longley’s poetry received not only praise but accolades. The collection “The Weather in Japan,” reviewed the gravitas of conflict, mediating on the battles of pre-Civil War in America, the Great War, and the Holocaust and horrors of the Second World War, won the T.S. Eliot Prize. In 2001, Longley received the Queens Gold Medal for Poetry, and honour shared with Derek Walcott, Fleur Adcock, Paul Muldoon, and David Constantine. The personal and intimate poetry collection “The Stairwell,” won the International Griffin Poetry Prize in 2015. In 2017 Longley won the PEN Pinter Prize, with the Scottish poet Don Paterson and chair of the prize committee, praising the particular humanism of Michael Longley’s work: “For decades now his effortlessly lyric and fluent poetry has been wholly suffused with the qualities of humanity, humility and compassion, never shying away from the moral complexity that comes from seeing both sides of an argument.” In a world entrenched in the silos of solipsism, Michael Longley’s measured and thoughtful approach will sorely be missed. Yet, the wisdom of poets is rarely seen as public currency or in their best interest. Dismissed as frivolity or a flaneurs fancy, its dismissed. Michael Longley will be remembered as one of the great Irish poets of the of the 20^th and early 21^st century. A poet whose work was tempered with technical brilliance, but softened with a sardonic sense of wit. Topics ranged from the civil unrest, the human capacity for atrocity and brutality, but also the overwhelming and inextinguishable ability for redemption and love, and an appreciation for nature. Michael Longley was a poet of enriching and quiet wisdom.

Rest in Peace, Michael Longley.

 
Thank you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read

M. Mary

 

The Royal Society of Literature’s Year(s) of Ruin

Hello Gentle Reader,

For some time now the Royal Society of Literature has been embroiled internal conflict and controversy. The accusations leveraged against the Royal Society of Literature by its own members, emeritus presidents, and colleagues, have been nothing short of damning. While the iconoclastic leadership of the now outgoing Chair of Council, Daljit Nagra and Director, Molly Rosenberg, are alleged to have fueled a ‘cultural civil war,’ within the society, which has raised concerns about the competing interests of diversity and inclusivity, and the administrations facilitating in restricting, muting, and censoring freedom of speech, in addition to lacking a robust defense and champion of it. The current president of the society, Bernardine Evaristo, has so far made no inclination of her own resignation, or even its being considered at this time.

The entire fiasco has reportedly been simmering for a few years now, but came to a head last February, when the Royal Society of Literature referred itself to the Charity Commission when the publication of its annual magazine “Review,” was postponed and the editor, Maggie Fergusson, dismissed without ceremony. Writers and fellows which includes Ian McEwan, the late Fleur Adcock, Kazuo Ishiguro, and Margaret Atwood expressed concerns over the societies lacking endorsement of freedom of speech, when it was understood that the publication was being withheld due to an article providing commentary on Israel’s actions in the Middle East; while Allan Hollinghurst and Ian McEwan wrote to the society demanding that it refer to itself to the Charity Commission over the accusations of censorship which contravene the fundamental literary values.

Further charges leveraged against the Royal Society of Literature is its loosening criteria for members to be elected, with many current members, past presidents, former chairs and directors, expressing concern over what could be considered a push and expedited drive to full fill diversity quotas and mission statements, at the expense of literary merit, all the while in the process undermines the core principles of the Royal Society of Literature which was founded in 1820 on the grounds to: “reward literary merit and excite literary talent.” In 2020, however, after the catalyst events which led to the monumental racial protests and subsequent social protests around the Western world, Molly Rosenberg sought to introduce efforts to increase writings from ethnic, racial, social and economic backgrounds which were previously without ‘representation,’ within the society. By 2022 with the announcement of the appointment of Bernardine Evaristo as the incoming president of the society, this mandate took precedence, as Evaristo introduced her presidency on well meaning, but perhaps doomed to failed principles as per their ideological backage:

“Literature is not a luxury, but essential to our civilisation. I am so proud, therefore, to be the figurehead of such an august and robust literature organisation that is so actively and urgently committed to being inclusive of the widest range of outstanding writers from every demographic and geographical location in Britain, and to reaching marginalised communities through literature projects, including introducing young people in schools to some of Britain's leading writers who visit, teach and discuss their work with them.”

Since then, there has been significant concerns raised about how literature is no longer considered the essential concern of the society, as more members were inducted on grounds of tokenism. As former president Marina Warner remarked that a fellowship “used to mark an acclaimed career.” In other words, to be elected as a member of the Royal Society of Literature was considered an honour to acknowledge a writer’s career. Not a participation ribbon. Furthermore, the institution only nominated fellows internally, it completely neglected and avoided the populist angle. Yet the brainchild of Rosenberg and further amplified by Evaristo, fellowships are now open for the public to recommend writers for fellowship, which will then assessed and whittled down by an internal panel. Novelist Amanda Craig said it best, while the Royal Society of Literature may have been at one point “a bit too plate, stale and male,” the expedited efforts have besmirched the societies reputation as Craig continues “no longer the kind of distinction that it was.” While Don Paterson is right to point out, under the current system all a writer or poet needs to do is publish a “a single poetry pamphlet,” or the bare minimum to be considered. Regardless, Bernardine Evaristo in hubris and in good intentions persists, defending the current practices for nomination and induction: “Even today, only 4% of the fellowship is under 40, while more than 55% of it is over 65 – and more than 34% is over 75. Sidelined? Clearly not.”

Further accusations of facilitating populist oriented censorship in the method of social media weaponization and cancellation included a lacking support for the controversial writer Kate Clanchy and her memoir “Some Kids I Taught and What They Taught Me.” While the memoir would go on to receive the Orwell Prize, issues were raised regarding the use of uncouth and or offensive language to describe some of the children, which ultimately led her and her publisher to part ways. Philip Pullman ever a spirited classical liberal resigned from the Society of Authors, for his adamant defense. The Royal Society of Literature was criticized for its tone-deaf response or lack thereof, for what could only be called a modernized version of witch hunt and kangaroo court proceedings, which resulted the intensity of public to demand censorship when it offends their sensibilities. Ironically, at the time of these proceedings Clanchy was a fellow of the society. She subsequently resigned her fellowship when in 2023 when her most prominent public social justice prosecutor Sunny Singh was elected to the same institution.

It wasn’t just Kate Clanchy that the society failed. After the attempted assassination of Salman Rushdie in 2022, the Royal Society of Literature was not only slow to acknowledge the attack but proved to be apprehensive to condemn and offer consolation and support to Salman Rushdie to avoid taking sides on the event or alienating anyone. Evaristo maintained that the Royal Literature Society needed to remain “impartial.” Thankfully Rushdie (a fellow) took to social media to ask if the “Royal Society of Literature is ‘impartial’ about attempted murder?” Only then did Evaristo become more adamant as president that the society continued to support Salman Rushdie as it did before during the initial fatwa and continued to.

There are further administrative issues within the society itself. Allegations of secrecy and weaponization of management to silence any dissidence from the board or trustees. While the public may not be completely aware of what is going on within the societies innerworkings, it has become clear that the organization was imbalanced with an internal culture of unchecked prerogative and executive centralization, which ultimately saw the decay of governance and the alienation of members from society staff and its board. Outgoing Chair of Council, Daljit Nagra is set to table the findings of the governance audit at the next annual general meeting on January 15, which comes at the same time as is effective resignation, while Molly Rosenberg is expected to hang on to her role into the end of March.

Regardless, it appears that the Royal Society of Literature has its work cut out for it. Years of iconoclastic administration and an ideological fervor has ransacked and bankrupt the society and its credibility. With a change in administrative leadership perhaps the society will reel in its well meaning but overly ambitious efforts to incorporate a more ‘inclusive,’ outreach program when it cheapens and diminishes the society, when acclaimed and hard-won careers are abandoned in favour of ill-suited metrics that have no interest in literary merit. Hopefully, the Royal Society of Literature will be able to turn the page and realign its principles and priorities once again in favour of literature and acknowledging great and worthy writers.

Thank-you for Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read

M. Mary

For Further Reading 

Daily Mail: "Royal Society of Literature in chaos as it loses chairman and director amid accusations it lowered standards to have a 'more diverse' membership and failed to support Salman Rushdie after near-fatal stabbing"

The New Statesman: "Inside the Royal Society of Literature’s civil war"

The Spectator: "The demise of the Royal Society of Literature"

The Spectator: "Royal Society of Literature in meltdown over diversity drive"

The Guardian: "Royal Society of Literature rocked by departures of director and chair"

UnHerd: "Is the Royal Society of Literature a lost cause?"

The Nobel Prize in Literature Nominations 1974

Hello Gentle Reader,

There can be no denying that the Nobel Prize in Literature for 1974 was exceptional in the prize’s history for the controversy and outrage it induced and continues to reverberate within the prize’s contemporary history. The 1974 award is routinely unearthed and dusted off by critics and readers alike, to be banded and wielded against the Nobel Prize in Literature and the Swedish Academy with unrestrained fervor. Especially to knock the prize and the academy down a peg, reminding everyone that the Nobel Prize, despite its ceremony and ritual, is just a common literary prize, complete with its own self-assured arrogance that it is the measure and the authority of what qualifies as great and enduring literature. Afterall, in 1974 the Swedish Academy decided to award and share the Nobel Prize in Literature between two of its own members:

Eyvind Johnson (Chair No. 11):

            “for a narrative art, farseeing in lands and ages, in the service of freedom.”

Harry Martinson (Chair No. 15):

            “for writings that catch the dewdrop and reflect the cosmos.”

Now this is not the first time, the Swedish Academy awarded one of its own with the Nobel Prize in Literature. In 1951 the Nobel Prize in Literature was awarded to the Swedish Academy member and moralist Pär Lagerkvist (Chair No. 8), which passed without much mention or controversy. This same courtesy was not applied to either Eyvind Johnson or Harry Martinson. It is slightly ironic, however, that Pär Lagerkvist was one of the serial nominators for both authors to receive the Nobel Prize, both on individual grounds and jointly. 1974 was not the first time that the both writers who considered contenders for the prize. Support for Eyvind Johnson receiving the prize were beginning to intensify by the early 1970’s. Johnson was a member of the Swedish Academy’s Nobel Committee and routinely declined or dismissed to be taken into consideration before stepping down from the Nobel Committee in 1972, which inevitably made his nomination for laureate more tenable. A general consensus emerges whereby Eyvind Johnson is considered by the majority of the Swedish Academy to be the preferential Nobel Laureate, be it by their own literary taste or because of he was the superior craftsman; whereas Harry Martinson is described as being almost conciliatory in measure, to temper and even out the support for Eyvind Johnson.

For literary output, Eyvind Johnson is often described as a proletarian writer. A categorization which sits on the authors with uncomfortable and awkward results. While there are moral, social, and political issues detailed and written about in Johnson’s bibliography, there is no heightened moral pedigree granted to proletarian causes or endorsement of any collectivist ideas, thought processes, philosophies, or ideologies. In fact, Eyvind Johnson was a writer of a strong individualistic bent, who despised the Stalin’s Soviet brand of communism as well as the scorched earth policies and rhetoric of fascism and Nazism which devasted Europe. If, Eyvind Johnson is to be described as proletarian in any capacity it was due to his sociopolitical background more so than his literary output. The “Krilon,” trilogy “Group Krilon,” “Krilon’s journey,” and “Krilon himself,” are often described as Johnson’s masterpiece(s) for their historical acuity and allegorical criticism of the horrors of Hitler’s Nazis and Swedish Neutrality during the Second World War. Prior the publication of “Krilon,” Eyvind Johnson wrote realistic short stories and a series of autobiographical novels.

Harry Martinson is first renowned as poet, who introduced Asiatic literary modes and thought to Swedish Literature. Martinson’s early life was reflected in many of his work. His unloving and harsh childhood gave rise to his life as a vagrant and later seaman. Harry Martinson was a rejuvenating force of modernism in Swedish Literature, debuting with fellow Swedish Academy member Artur Lundkvist in a poetry anthology. Martinson’s poetry was renowned for the use of complex and original metaphors, in addition to an acute eye for nature and detailed observations. The same preoccupation for the natural world reappeared frequently in Harry Martinson’s prose work, as well as memories of his maritime years and life as a vagabond. The epic poem “Aniara,” which recounts the tragedy of a passenger spacecraft fleeing nuclear disaster of earth and seeking salvation on mars only drift off course amongst the stars and into the void.

In previous deliberations and consideration of the two writers for the Nobel Prize in Literature, Erik Lindegren commented: “They are really the opposite of everything provincial.” Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson remain highly regarded as some of the most exceptional writers of their generations, and generational defining modernists of Swedish literature. Still, the literary production of both Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson remains meager in abroad and in translation. Biographers and historians take careful consideration to both of the writers working class and harsh social backgrounds, highlighting their literary achievements and introducing the supposed ‘proletariat,’ background into their literary productions, which only proves the immense social progresses taken throughout the 20^th century, creating what is often viewed as the social democratic utopias of the world today. Even in the award ceremony speech, Permanent Secretary Karl Ragnar Gierow noted the two authors shared a proletarian background, which in its gradual societal eradication was a testament to social welfare, and in turn their backgrounds and perspectives did not plunder the literary landscape, but instead enriched it.

1974 was a peculiar year for deliberations. Three members of the Swedish Academy had died leaving their seats vacant and both Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson abstained form the prizes deliberations as they were in contention. The Nobel Committee proposed the following options for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1974:

Splitting the award between Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson.

Sharing the award between Nadine Gordimer and Doris Lessing. Nadine Gordimer would later receive the award in 1991 and Doris Lessing in 2007.

Award Saul Bellow singularly, or split the award further with Norman Mailer. Saul Bellow would receive the award in 1976.

Award Eugenio Montale the award solely. Eugenio Montale would receive the award next year in 1975.

Overall, the Swedish Academy was in complete agreeance to split the prize between the two writers. Anders Österling is on record stating that the decision was unanimous. However, Artur Lundkvist who had previously raised concerns about awarding academy members the prize, opposed the notion of splitting the award between Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson, advocating instead to split the award between Nadine Gordimer and Doris Lessing. Artur Lundkvist remained the sole objector to the award and when it was put to a vote the decision was finalized the 1974 Nobel Prize in Literature would be split between Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson, and would later go down as being remembered as “the award that ruined everything.”

Artur Lundkvist is said to have encouraged both Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson to not accepting the award, with concern that the award would only bring the two authors misery. Fellow academy member Lars Gyllensten disagreed with Lundkvist’s rationale to exclude both members from receiving the award, first on technical grounds, nominations for both Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson came from outside of the Swedish Academy. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Swedish Academy was not merely self-congratulatory in its decision and chocking on the excess of its own sense of self-importance. Second, Gyllensten argued that if the Swedish Academy is to deny its own members from being taken into consideration for the prize, then they would only be degrading themselves with self-flagellation by inviting second rate writers to join the academy. Regardless, the 1974 Nobel Prize in Literature caused a storm at home for the Swedish Academy and instituted its first existential crisis.

Sven Delblanc writing in Expressen described the award as: “A disastrous decision,” and further raged that any to all credibility the Nobel Prize in Literature had “would be wiped out with mockery, rolling around the world.” Delblanc further his charges against the Swedish Academy for falling to the mire of corruption with the decision, going so far as to describe the award to two academy members as tantamount to embezzlement. Sven-Eric Liedman described writers as “passé,” in Göteborgs-Tidningen. The rest of the Swedish cultural and literary world concluded and agreed with the critics. The Swedish Academy didn’t just get it wrong, they openly pandered to what could easily been considered nationalistic concerns and provincial grubbing. Despite their renowned in Sweden, neither Eyvind Johnson or Harry Martinson found any international appeal. The popular Swedish poet Karl Vennberg, however, remained one of the few dissenting voices who favoured the award especially in the case of Harry Martinson. Sources accused the Swedish Academy of deliberately choosing writers of meager international appeal and renowned in order to not upstage the Soviet dissident writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who would finally travel to Stockholm to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature, which he was originally awarded in 1970. Overall, the international press paid no mind to the award; only reviving it later to inject cynicism into the academy and the prizes decisions.

As for Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson, their press conference regarding the decision was noted for being muted even dour in tone, with both writers expressing a mixed bag of appreciation for the decision. Harry Martinson attempted to clarify and confirm that the occasion was happy, but ceded that that the criticism had certainly soured the festivities. Eyvind Johnson added: “There can never be just one author who is the world's best.” Both writers also agreed that the lacking translation abroad have seriously impacted their work being available in English. Harry Martinson described the English translation of his poem “Aniara,” as being scandalously poor. While Eyvind Johnson’s acclaimed autobiographical series of novels under the title: “The Novel About Olav,” have never been translated into English. Their lack of international presence remains a continued barrier against both writers. Both writers died only a few years after winning the Nobel Prize in Literature. Harry Martinson was particularly affected by the harsh criticism and committed suicide four years later. Artur Lundkvist speculated that the award expedited both of the writer’s death.

Unfortunately—or perhaps unsurprisingly—there was no debate about awarding two members of the Swedish Academy the Nobel Prize in Literature. In fact, the decision to engage in what is perhaps aptly described as “corruption via camaraderie,” was decided on without controversy or debate. Only one member dissented to the decision, concerned over the optics, while the thirteen other members completely carried on as if it was a normal selection and normal process. Its true the previous year set up some foreshadowing of the deliberations ahead regarding the award to another Swedish writer, as the then Permanent Secretary Karl Ragnar Gierow opened up the discussion, singling out: Eyvind Johnson, Harry Martinson and Vilhelm Moberg, as the greatest Swedish writers currently writing. Vilhelm Moberg sadly died in August of 1973. Regardless of the deliberations or lack thereof, the decision remains scandalously and blight inducing half a century later.

In 1974 the Nobel Committee for the Nobel Prize in Literature received a total of 101 nominated writers. 22 of these writers were new nominees. 9 women were nominated for the prize this year as well, which at the time was the highest record. These 9 women included both future Nobel Laureates: Nadine Gordimer (1991) and Doris Lessing (2007). Astrid Lindgren was also nominated, alongside Marie Under, Louise Weiss, and Victoria Ocampo. Fellow future Nobel Laureates who were nominated included: Eugenio Montale (1975), Saul Bellow (1976), Vicente Aleixandre (1977), Isaac Bashevis Singer (1978), Odysseas Elytis (1979), Czeslaw Milosz (1980), Elias Canetti (1981), William Golding (1983), Jaroslav Seifert (1984), Claude Simon (1985), Camilo Jose Cela (1989), Octavio Paz (1990), Ōe Kenzaburō (1994), Günter Grass (1999), V.S. Naipul (2001), and Harold Pinter (2005). Other notable writers who were nominated in 1974 were Francis Ponge, Stephen Spender, R. K. Narayan, and Elie Wiesel who would later receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. The speculated favourites to win in 1974 were: Graham Greene, Jorge Luis Borges, Vladimir Nabokov, and Saul Bellow. Considering none of them (with the exception of Saul Bellow) considered

It is interesting to see Doris Lessing seriously considered the prize in the 1970’s, sadly when Lessing began to publish more science fiction oriented novels in 1979 and into the 1980’s, the Swedish Academy had grown more sour on her output, viewing it as a considerable decline from her previous socially explorative novels such as “The Grass is Singing,” “The Summer Before the Dark,” and interior explorative novels “The Golden Notebook,” “Briefing for a Descent into Hell.” It wasn’t until the 1990’s with the publication of her autobiographies did Doris Lessing find her ‘second wind,’ and was once again re-evaluated by the Swedish Academy. Even Doris Lessing is on record to have given no thought to the Nobel Prize in Literature. According to the late Lessing, she once encountered a member of the Swedish Academy who informed her that they don’t really like her work and so the decision was all sewn up.

In the end the Nobel Prize in Literature for 1974 was less successful than the Swedish Academy had hoped. It would be another 37 years before another Swedish writer would receive the award, with Tomas Tranströmer receiving the award in 2011. Comparably, Tomas Tranströmer has a more lasting impact and reputation internationally then both Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson, and the decision was not met with controversy at all. Still the scandal and bitter burn from the 1974 award dodged and perhaps hindered Tranströmer from receiving the award earlier. When discussing the 2011 Nobel Prize in Literature, the then Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy Peter Englund, also made a point of confirming with the press that it has been almost forty years since a Swedish writer had received the award. This inevitably means that the Swedish Academy has taken a very cautious steps when evaluating and discussing any Swedish writer for the award. Lesson was certainly learned. Unfortunately, the archives do not provide much insight into the deliberations in the discussions for the award. We are not granted a full contextual understanding of how the Swedish Academy came to their very misguided conclusion, but reviewing old articles certainly provides enough context to understand that the decision went over like a lead balloon.

 

Thank you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read
 
M. Mary

– XXXV –

If I ever wrote an autobiography I would have to add: Fiction, as a subheading; because the possibility of what could have been, rather than the reality as is, is far more compelling. 

Tua Forsström Resigns from the Swedish Academy

Hello Gentle Reader,

During the Swedish Academy’s annual meeting and celebrations held on December 20^th, it was announced that the Finnish-Swedish language poet Tua Forsström of Chair No. 18 would forfeit her seat after previously been elected five years prior in 2019. There is no drama or ill tidings trailing Forsström’s resignation. Since 2018 the Swedish Academy’s members have had the freedom of choice to resign. Prior to that the bylaws stated that all terms of any academy seat were for life. However, during crisis it became necessary for the academy to update it governance protocols in order to allow members to resign and be replaced so the academy could still function. This flexibility according to Tua Forsström was the main contingency of why she accepted the invitation to join the academy, with the understanding that her term within the institution would be for a limited time. Now five years later, Tua Forsström has decided that the term has been met and has formally resigned from the Swedish Academy. The Swedish Academy was appreciative in their acceptance of the resignation with wonderful parting words which express the value that Forsström brought to the Swedish Academy and their deliberations.

While Tua Forsström’s resignation is the first since the Swedish Academy’s crisis six years ago, it is marvelous to see a member part on amicable grounds. As both Tua Forsström and the Swedish Academy maintain and repeated, the decision was made five years prior, and was a contingent point of Forsström accepting the invitation. Once again, the Swedish Academy is not at a full roster, as they will begin the work of finding a new member to fill Chair No. 18.

On a personal note, it is disappointing to see Tua Forsström depart from the Swedish Academy. It was always my own selfish wish that with her position on the academy, Tua Forsström would be able to put forward the candidacy of Finnish writers for the Nobel Prize in Literature. Sadly, that did not happen over the past five years – that I know of. Hopefully in the future though we will finally get a new Finnish laureate, as the language and literature is glaringly overlooked on the world stage, due to linguistic complexities.

While it is disappointing to hear the news of Tua Forsström resignation from the Swedish Academy, her insights within the awarding institution cannot be overlooked, and the Swedish Academy’s own appreciative farewell to the Finnish-Swedish language poet is poignant in its reluctant acceptance and appreciative well wishes.

Thank You for Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read

 

M. Mary

For Further Reference and Reading Please see the following hyperlink:

The Swedish Academy's festive gathering