Hello Gentle Reader
In the coming spring of the New Year, there are some long awaited novels. The double Booker Prize winner and Nobel Prize for Literature Laureate, JM Coetzee’s long awaited novel, “The Childhood of Jesus,” is one of the first titles and names to pop up. About a man and child, who have crossed oceans to come to their new home. There they are given the names Simon and David; and their new life begins.
A former Orange Prize winner will be releasing her new book, “Americanah,” which follows teenage lovers from the authors (Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie) homeland of Nigeria. Their attempts at making a new life, are dashed by Homeland Security. Personally speaking there is a feeling of political intrigue with this novel.
A surprising author who made it onto the Booker Prizes shortlist for two-thousand and twelve, with her novel “The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry,” is coming around again in twenty-thirteen with her new novel “Perfect.” In this novel Rachel Joyce meditates on fate, and with her lyrical precision, depicts the lives of two young boys marked by the same catastrophe; yet take different paths in life.
Patrick McGrath the author of “Spider – which was turned into a lovely film by David Cronenberg, staring Ralph Fiennes as the titular character ‘Spider,’; is coming out with a new psychological novel of extremes, with a thriller twist. Titled “Constance,” it is a novel about a marriage unfolded and falling because of the past.
There are many more novels yet to be mentioned to come two the lime of light of twenty-thirteen. There will be authors who have slipped under the radar, and others literary prizes will notice and surprise; hopefully with delight.
Speaking of the Nobel Prize for Literature, a controversy has been dug up from the past. John Steinback the Nobel Laureate for Literature in nineteen-sixty two, is now displayed alongside his competitors. On January second The Swedish Academy opened its records up to the world of nineteen-sixty two. In its nominations of that year, authors such as Robert Graves, Lawrence Durrell, Jean Anouilh and Karen Blixen among other authors – it depicts John Steinback now a American classic author, as nothing more than mediocre author, and whose win was just the best of a batch of bad eggs.
Robert Graves did not win the Prize because he was seen as more of a poet then he was a prose writer. The Swedish Academy member Henry Olsson; who served the Swedish academy from nineteen-fifty two till nineteen-eighty five, had made it apparent that there was reluctance to award the Prize to a poet of Anglo-Saxon origin or language while Ezra Pound was alive. Ezra Pound did not receive the award because of his obvious controversial political stance. Karen Blixen had died that September. Henry Olsson was then left to be moan and elegize the lack of noteworthy contenders that year. Durrell was passed over, for lack of sufficient body; and a aftertaste, caused by his preoccupations with complicated affairs of an erotic nature. Jean Anouilh was ruled out because of poor timing at best – or so is theorized. The French diplomat and Poet Saint-John Perse was awarded the Nobel in nineteen-sixty and Jean Paul Sartre, who would win the prize in nineteen-sixty four, was already been seriously considered at the time. Which left Steinback, who many felt had lost his former glory, and whose prime had since past. Though the Swedish Academy’s then Permeate Secretary at the time Anders Österling, had thought differently with the publication of the nineteen-sixty one novel “The Winter of Our Discontent,” in which Steinback picked up the reigns of his previous works, and became a social critic by his fictions exposing the realities of the social world of the time; which Anders Österling, compared to the writings of Sinclair Lewis and Ernest Hemmingway.
The decision however was highly critical. Even Steinback was in arrogance with the critics, feeling that his awarding of the prize was not on par with previous Nobel Laureates in Literature. Perhaps it would have been a better choice to have given it to Graves; regardless of his lack of profile, age or lack of popular recognition.
In the end however, the past cannot be undone. No matter of apologies, well-wishes, wishful thinking, or regretful and at times tearful look in the rear-view mirror of a fading past. The smoldering or ashen ruins of the past can never be reconciled. The decisions; the actions; the words; all of it is set in stone. Steinback’s win was at best; from the point of view of many – both past and present (including the author) may have been a blunder; and as the award just begin to mature into its current understanding of how to award, it shows an example of mistakes that people make; and will continue to make. Though in some eyes Steinback’s award is not a blunder or a mistake. He’s not Tolstoy or Joyce or Woolf; but he’s a special brand and breed of American author in the early twentieth century; before the Pychon, Updikes, Roth’s, Auster’s, of the future. He presents a different kind form of America; before its pop culture fluff began to invade and smoother out any shred of raw literary talent (or any talent for that matter). Perhaps perception and historical context and contemporary context are key, when evaluating the worth of Steinback and his Nobel.
Two-thousand and thirteen is here. It’ll be a new and exciting year. One can’t wait to see some of the great new books to published and the new translated and published works.
Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read
*And Remember: Downloading Books Illegally is Thievery and Wrong.*
M. Mary
