Hello Gentle Reader
Amos Oz, Israel’s most well-known writer, has just won the international award literary prize, The Kafka Award. Won by Nobel Laureates in Literature Elfriede Jelinek and Harold Pinter; along with other big name authors in literature like Peter Handke of Austria, Péter Nádas of Hungary, Haruki Murkami a perennial Nobel favourite from Japan, as well as Václav Havel a writer and former president of the Czech Republic.
The award amount is ten thousand dollars, and it has been confirmed that Amos Oz is expected to go to an October ceremony in Prague with his wife. Amos Oz has been a perennial favourite and often talked about nominee for the Nobel Prize for Literature. His literary merit that will most likely be noticed more than political reasons. His work is known to be able to transcended the cultural barriers, and speak universal truths of the human condition, from an Israeli point of view.
Amos Oz is also known to being an outspoken intellectual in Israel. He supports a two-state agreement between Israel and Palestine – calling the conflict not a war of religions or traditions/culture, but rather “a real estate dispute,” that will only be resolved by “painful compromise.”
Congratulations though are in order for Amos Oz, on this achievement.
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
Tuesday, 28 May 2013
Wednesday, 22 May 2013
Man Booker International Prize 2013 Winner
Hello Gentle Reader
A surprise or the idea of a surprise is double sided concept. There is the surprise of doing something completely out of expectations; and then there is the surprise of doing something that has already been done. By simply recycling the content, one is able to say they are ground breaking – in similar ways; with differences in the superficialities. Literary awards often do this. Each of them falls into this pattern—from the Booker Prize to the Nobel Prize for Literature. Prime examples would be: Hilary Mantel winning the Booker Prize a second time for the second novel in her trilogy about the Tudor era and King Henry the VII and Thomas Cromwell. While the Nobel Prize for Literature recently fell into the pit hole by awarding the Nobel Prize for Literature recently to Mo Yan a hack Chinese magical realist writer; and ninety-seven with Dario Fo, who is at times, simply a high class political clown. Sometimes this works, and can be considered a great achievement, despite its predictability and other times it’s just a sad shake of the head.
There is no doubt in my mind that Lydia Davis is a spectacular writer. Her short stories – are sometimes compared to prose poems; and she translates French writers like Marcel Proust and Flaubert into English. She won this year’s Man Booker International Prize. The Man Booker International Prize has awarded the prize to numerous great authors over its short time: Ismail Kadare, the late Chinua Achebe, and Alice Munro. Controversy struck in two-thousand and eleven with the award going to Philip Roth. One judge resigned in protest. It was a literary dramatic soap opera. With Philip Roth didn’t even go to accept the award in person, but instead communicated in skype – as if to add insult to injury. For the second year though in a row, an American author wins the Man Booker International Prize. Nothing against Lydia Davis; but if a prize says it can take on the Nobel Prize for Literature, and is more transparent it must do better than rewarding the same old western countries in a row – for three years in a row a Canadian and now two American authors have won simultaneously. That is not showing an ‘international,’ reputation. It’s more of an embarrassment really. What makes the Nobel Prize for Literature so amazing and frustrating is that it can bring obscure or unknown authors to the forefront; as well as rewarding it to well-known authors.
Quite frankly one of the greatest problems with the Man Booker International prize is that the chair of this year’s award Professor Sir Christopher Ricks had thought of many of the authors as being obscure. That is insulting not only to the author’s publishers the authors themselves, or to their readers; but it is also rather embarrassing to the western literary institutions who have been criticised for their lack of translations – and this just further proves how English speaking countries are to isolated and insular in language in literature. Attempts have and are being made against it; but the general consensus from the literary establishment is still very behind in the times. Only a few authors truly were unknown to me in this list: Marie NDiaye of France; UR Ananthamurthy from India and Intizar Husain of Pakistan. All the others I have had working knowledge of them. I had actually hoped for Swiss, German speaking author Peter Stamm to win the prize personally.
Congratulations to Lydia Davis are of course in order. Though hopefully the Man Booker International Prize in the coming years will continue to mature and become a contender and competitor to the Nobel Prize for Literature.
On a side note:
Nobel fever is heating up, with a tweet from the Swedish Academy – or rather about the Swedish Academy, that the Prize has been narrowed down to five contenders.
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
A surprise or the idea of a surprise is double sided concept. There is the surprise of doing something completely out of expectations; and then there is the surprise of doing something that has already been done. By simply recycling the content, one is able to say they are ground breaking – in similar ways; with differences in the superficialities. Literary awards often do this. Each of them falls into this pattern—from the Booker Prize to the Nobel Prize for Literature. Prime examples would be: Hilary Mantel winning the Booker Prize a second time for the second novel in her trilogy about the Tudor era and King Henry the VII and Thomas Cromwell. While the Nobel Prize for Literature recently fell into the pit hole by awarding the Nobel Prize for Literature recently to Mo Yan a hack Chinese magical realist writer; and ninety-seven with Dario Fo, who is at times, simply a high class political clown. Sometimes this works, and can be considered a great achievement, despite its predictability and other times it’s just a sad shake of the head.
There is no doubt in my mind that Lydia Davis is a spectacular writer. Her short stories – are sometimes compared to prose poems; and she translates French writers like Marcel Proust and Flaubert into English. She won this year’s Man Booker International Prize. The Man Booker International Prize has awarded the prize to numerous great authors over its short time: Ismail Kadare, the late Chinua Achebe, and Alice Munro. Controversy struck in two-thousand and eleven with the award going to Philip Roth. One judge resigned in protest. It was a literary dramatic soap opera. With Philip Roth didn’t even go to accept the award in person, but instead communicated in skype – as if to add insult to injury. For the second year though in a row, an American author wins the Man Booker International Prize. Nothing against Lydia Davis; but if a prize says it can take on the Nobel Prize for Literature, and is more transparent it must do better than rewarding the same old western countries in a row – for three years in a row a Canadian and now two American authors have won simultaneously. That is not showing an ‘international,’ reputation. It’s more of an embarrassment really. What makes the Nobel Prize for Literature so amazing and frustrating is that it can bring obscure or unknown authors to the forefront; as well as rewarding it to well-known authors.
Quite frankly one of the greatest problems with the Man Booker International prize is that the chair of this year’s award Professor Sir Christopher Ricks had thought of many of the authors as being obscure. That is insulting not only to the author’s publishers the authors themselves, or to their readers; but it is also rather embarrassing to the western literary institutions who have been criticised for their lack of translations – and this just further proves how English speaking countries are to isolated and insular in language in literature. Attempts have and are being made against it; but the general consensus from the literary establishment is still very behind in the times. Only a few authors truly were unknown to me in this list: Marie NDiaye of France; UR Ananthamurthy from India and Intizar Husain of Pakistan. All the others I have had working knowledge of them. I had actually hoped for Swiss, German speaking author Peter Stamm to win the prize personally.
Congratulations to Lydia Davis are of course in order. Though hopefully the Man Booker International Prize in the coming years will continue to mature and become a contender and competitor to the Nobel Prize for Literature.
On a side note:
Nobel fever is heating up, with a tweet from the Swedish Academy – or rather about the Swedish Academy, that the Prize has been narrowed down to five contenders.
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
Monday, 20 May 2013
Wole Soyinka on Chinua Achebe and his Unachieved Nobel
Hello Gentle Reader
Wole Soyinka is a Nobel Laureate. Receiving the award in nineteen-eighty six, Wole Soyinka has been the first African writer to win the Nobel Prize for Literature. Wole Soyinka along with Chinua Achebe is from Nigeria. Where Achebe excelled in prose work, Wole Soyinka thrived more in language and speech – both in the forms of theatrical playwriting and poetry; but has also written two novels. Chinua Achebe has been a perennial contender for the Nobel Prize for Literature. Often cited as the Father of African Literature, Chinua Achebe vehemently refused the title; and Wole Soyinka goes into the reasons why; in a recent interview:
“those who seriously believe or promote this must be asked: have you the sheerest acquaintance with the literatures of other African nations, in both indigenous and adopted colonial languages? What must the francophone, lusophone, Zulu, Xhosa, Ewe etc etc literary scholars and consumers think of those who persist in such a historic absurdity? It's as ridiculous as calling WS [Wole Soyinka] father of contemporary African drama! Or Mazisi Kunene father of African epic poetry. Or Kofi Awoonor father of African poetry. Education is lacking in most of those who pontificate.”
When I first read the sensational lines, of the newspapers, that Soyinka had made it clear how he felt about Achebe not winning the Nobel Prize, and the comments and desire that a Nobel Prize for Literature be handed over to the author posthumously, as being both ludicrous and ‘undeserved,’ (as was the first impression given) I was a bit shocked. Rest assured Gentle Reader that is not the case. Wole Soyinka is defending a friend and a fellow great author.
“This conduct is gross disservice to Chinua Achebe and disrespectful of the life-engrossing occupation known as literature. How did creative valuation descend to such banality? Do these people know what they're doing – they are inscribing Chinua's epitaph in the negative mode of thwarted expectations. I find that disgusting.”
Soyinka further makes this point clear in the interview with the followings statement:
“Chinua is entitled to better than being escorted to his grave with that monotonous, hypocritical aria of deprivation's lament, orchestrated by those who, as we say in my part of the world, 'dye their mourning weeds a deeper indigo than those of the bereaved'. He deserves his peace. Me too! And right now, not posthumously.”
Hopefully Mister Soyinka can find that peace. As should the dearly departed classic, Achebe.
But Soyinka makes a good point. If an author does not win the Nobel Prize for Literature, has their entire career as an author been a complete failure? Achebe was a great writer. No denying that. So were many authors. From Ezra Pound (politics aside), Anton Chekhov (in the Academy’s defense he died young) Georg Trakl, Rainer Maria Rilke, Marcel Proust (again died a bit prematurely), Bertolt Brecht, Jorge Luis Borges, Virginia Woolf – and so many authors. They did not win the Nobel Prize, that does not make them relevant. How many authors who did win the Nobel Prize for Literature are no longer relevant? Nancy Sachs, or Pearl S Buck, or François Mauriac. That is not an attack at the Swedish Academy some authors just do not survive the test of time; and the winds of change are cruel and unforgiving. Though the Swedish Academy has made some very big mistakes in its hand out – Dario Fo and Mo Yan the most recent. Yet with authors like Derek Walcott, Wisława Szymborska, Herta Müller, and Kenzaburo Oe – it more than makes up for mistakes. That all being said though, an author does not need the Nobel Prize for Literature to say they are successful or have made it. So perhaps some authors and their fanatical cheerleading critic friends and book reviewing friends, could take a step back and be proud of the bride once and stop pathetically trying to cheer the brides maid up; about how good (s)he is; it’s not their day or in this case their year – and maybe never will be. In that case Soyinka makes an adequate case: since when did Literature matter only about the Prizes and the highest accolades one could win like some horse race? Literature is about artistic integrity and literary merit; those commercial/pop writers (Dan Brown and Nora Roberts) need to take a hike and go back to the MFA program, in creative writing.
May, Chinua Achebe get some rest and always be remembered for the Great Author he was and will be; and may Wole Soyinka get some peace of mind and rest.
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
For the link to the article about, please see “The Guardian,” in the following link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/20/chinua-achebe-nobel-prize-wole-soyinka
Wole Soyinka is a Nobel Laureate. Receiving the award in nineteen-eighty six, Wole Soyinka has been the first African writer to win the Nobel Prize for Literature. Wole Soyinka along with Chinua Achebe is from Nigeria. Where Achebe excelled in prose work, Wole Soyinka thrived more in language and speech – both in the forms of theatrical playwriting and poetry; but has also written two novels. Chinua Achebe has been a perennial contender for the Nobel Prize for Literature. Often cited as the Father of African Literature, Chinua Achebe vehemently refused the title; and Wole Soyinka goes into the reasons why; in a recent interview:
“those who seriously believe or promote this must be asked: have you the sheerest acquaintance with the literatures of other African nations, in both indigenous and adopted colonial languages? What must the francophone, lusophone, Zulu, Xhosa, Ewe etc etc literary scholars and consumers think of those who persist in such a historic absurdity? It's as ridiculous as calling WS [Wole Soyinka] father of contemporary African drama! Or Mazisi Kunene father of African epic poetry. Or Kofi Awoonor father of African poetry. Education is lacking in most of those who pontificate.”
When I first read the sensational lines, of the newspapers, that Soyinka had made it clear how he felt about Achebe not winning the Nobel Prize, and the comments and desire that a Nobel Prize for Literature be handed over to the author posthumously, as being both ludicrous and ‘undeserved,’ (as was the first impression given) I was a bit shocked. Rest assured Gentle Reader that is not the case. Wole Soyinka is defending a friend and a fellow great author.
“This conduct is gross disservice to Chinua Achebe and disrespectful of the life-engrossing occupation known as literature. How did creative valuation descend to such banality? Do these people know what they're doing – they are inscribing Chinua's epitaph in the negative mode of thwarted expectations. I find that disgusting.”
Soyinka further makes this point clear in the interview with the followings statement:
“Chinua is entitled to better than being escorted to his grave with that monotonous, hypocritical aria of deprivation's lament, orchestrated by those who, as we say in my part of the world, 'dye their mourning weeds a deeper indigo than those of the bereaved'. He deserves his peace. Me too! And right now, not posthumously.”
Hopefully Mister Soyinka can find that peace. As should the dearly departed classic, Achebe.
But Soyinka makes a good point. If an author does not win the Nobel Prize for Literature, has their entire career as an author been a complete failure? Achebe was a great writer. No denying that. So were many authors. From Ezra Pound (politics aside), Anton Chekhov (in the Academy’s defense he died young) Georg Trakl, Rainer Maria Rilke, Marcel Proust (again died a bit prematurely), Bertolt Brecht, Jorge Luis Borges, Virginia Woolf – and so many authors. They did not win the Nobel Prize, that does not make them relevant. How many authors who did win the Nobel Prize for Literature are no longer relevant? Nancy Sachs, or Pearl S Buck, or François Mauriac. That is not an attack at the Swedish Academy some authors just do not survive the test of time; and the winds of change are cruel and unforgiving. Though the Swedish Academy has made some very big mistakes in its hand out – Dario Fo and Mo Yan the most recent. Yet with authors like Derek Walcott, Wisława Szymborska, Herta Müller, and Kenzaburo Oe – it more than makes up for mistakes. That all being said though, an author does not need the Nobel Prize for Literature to say they are successful or have made it. So perhaps some authors and their fanatical cheerleading critic friends and book reviewing friends, could take a step back and be proud of the bride once and stop pathetically trying to cheer the brides maid up; about how good (s)he is; it’s not their day or in this case their year – and maybe never will be. In that case Soyinka makes an adequate case: since when did Literature matter only about the Prizes and the highest accolades one could win like some horse race? Literature is about artistic integrity and literary merit; those commercial/pop writers (Dan Brown and Nora Roberts) need to take a hike and go back to the MFA program, in creative writing.
May, Chinua Achebe get some rest and always be remembered for the Great Author he was and will be; and may Wole Soyinka get some peace of mind and rest.
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
For the link to the article about, please see “The Guardian,” in the following link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/20/chinua-achebe-nobel-prize-wole-soyinka
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Woman as Lovers
Hello Gentle Reader
The title of Elfriede Jelinek’s social commentary novel is a deceivingly charming and yet fitting for a satirical novel. When people read the title, they expect some erotically charged romance novel; perhaps they think that it is like D.H. Lawrence’s novel “Sons and Lovers,” or perhaps even “Women in Love.” Though this is all a deceptive ploy by Elfriede Jelinek, whose novels and plays can be placed into three different categories: women’s place in society; Austria’s Nazi past, and the politically engaged or social commentary works, which will at times exercise the author’s authoritarian voice in a postmodern sensibility. “Woman as Lovers,” is of the first category. In the article about Elfriede Jelinek’s work, from the Nobel Prize website, titled “Provocation as the Breath of Life,” the author Sture Packalén elegantly describes this kind of work:
“Jelinek depicts those with whom she empathises the most in society: women without prospects, who are economically dependent and on the lowest rungs of the social ladder. These ordinary women find themselves literally in the shadow of their men and see themselves through men's eyes. Only rarely do they dare to express their own wishes, their opinions or desires. They give birth to children, cook, dress themselves and live, as it were, in a glass show-case of femininity without the capacity to engage in transforming contact with the outside world. Any desire for education fades in the face of the social pressure to get married [. . .] These oppressed women suffer both from the physical violence to which they are exposed with their men and from the submissiveness which they impose upon themselves in their women's role. But none of the women in Jelinek's novels and plays are to be regarded as purely passive figures, as objects of men's lust and oppression. All are in fact active agents. Yet, they have been broken from within in that they have both accepted their submission and at the same time tried to tear off the mask of womanliness which has been forced upon them. A Woman's life is an inferno and Jelinek pierces to its core.”
When trying to explain the novel in such terms, many people – especially woman; regard it as completely not true. They get defensive that someone – especially a woman; would write such a piece of work, and then publish it, and have the gall to call herself a feminist. What these people do not understand though is Jelinek is not poking fun at the women in these situations. Jelinek is a social scientist, and has often described herself as a scientist who, who constantly pears into the petri dish, of society and dissects; one social norm at a time. This makes Jelinek a very controversial writer with both men and women—the reading public in general. There is no middle ground with Jelinek. She is an extreme writer; who deals with social issues – especially those of women; with a keen objective eye. Violence – sexual or not; is casual in these works, and is not always metaphorical or rhetorical. Regardless many misunderstand the plots of Jelinek’s work. When I described the work as a dissection of the struggle of a woman to live independent; many reacted in verbal violence; or in complete abhorrence. Marriage is not a man’s domination of a woman; nor is a house a womans calling, and kingdom, where she is both slave and queen. Many stated that men nowadays choose to stay at home; and some women are refusing to get married. In the end though they have failed at understanding what Jelinek has to say about the situation.
On a personal note; I have decided to read Jelinek once again, because of her use of language. It’s experimental and yet completely original. Repetitive, and poetic, with moments of true brilliance. “Woman as Lovers,” is not as intimate as “The Piano Teacher,” was; which is at times both its fault and its greatest strength. What made “The Piano Teacher,” so absolutely horrifying was the fact that one was dragged down to the deepest darkest pits of the human psyche and there was no relief. Bombarded of images and actions and images of degradation and violence, it was a horrifying portrait of a woman deprived of all sense of humanity – and all that remained was a husk of artistic and musical genius, poisoned by vengeance and bitterness. In “Woman as Lovers,” Jelinek does not have a lot of good to say about life, or marriage, or being a woman; which in itself is a trap, of a life of servitude:
“so over the years a natural cycle has come into being: birth and starting work and getting married and leaving again and getting the daughter, who is the housewife or sales assistant, usually housewife, daughter starts work, mother kicks the bucket, daughter is married, leaves, jumps down from the running board, herself gets the next daughter, the co-op shop is the turn table of the natural cycle of nature, the seasons and human life in all its many forms of expression are reflected in its fruit and veg. in its single display window are reflected the attentive faces of its sales assistants, who have come together here to wait for marriage and for life. but marriage always comes alone, without life. hardly or seriously injured. he’s always an alcoholic.”
In the end the women (in this case Brigitte and Paula) do not even have the time or the breath to ask themselves “is this it?” in the end though they are doomed to fall into the same pit falls that their mothers and their mothers before them, have fallen into. A life of marriage and then all that is left is to become a biological factory that can only produce living things. From working in a factory that sews brassieres to the factory production of squealing children; who know doubt will repeat the same cycle.
This is what separates Brigitte and Paula. Both are dreamers; both dream of a better life, and both are willing to put in the work to get that better life. Brigitte is realistic about the limitations that she is faced with, based on her gender. Enter Heinz. Heinz becomes the name for life itself. Heinz is a journeyman electrician, and has plans of opening an electrical appliance shop. This plan for future earnings, a stable life; make Heinz a prize husband. Paula on the other hand is a dreamer whose feelings and dreams get easily confused. Paula is disgusted by the monotony of the daily life in which she has been oppressed by for the most part of her life. She escapes in the world of films; dreams of traveling the world; and even fights for the right to take classes and learn the trade of dressmaking. That would therefore let her live on her own:
“in paula's head there appears a little bud, might not dressmaking after all have been better than erich. the bud is immediately torn out and trampled underfoot.”
In Jelinek’s this story of two young women trying to find love and happiness, becomes a tale of consumerisms infection, and its destruction of any good will or possible attempt at an actual loving relationship. Within a patriarchy society, Jelinek theorizes that woman will always be placed under the thumb of men. Owned, and stuck in a monotonous life of housekeeping, child birth, raising children, and serving their husband.
“if a pain in the abdomen does nevertheless stick out its head like a worm out of the apple, then its too late, the old proverb says, women are born to suffer, men are born to work: someone has go to stuck into the body of the other and is laying waste inside it, living, feeding off it, that is called symbiosis.”
Consumerism – is Jelinek’s greatest enemy. Being part of the communist party for seventeen years, I think Jelinek will always be on the left. That being said, Jelinek is not a simple idealist who writes social realism. She does not praise the worker, overthrowing the sole dictator who keeps all the wealth for himself, while the others or the workers are forced to slave away inhumanely doing mule work. Instead Jelinek is a very cynical realist. She understands that everyone is fueled by their own self-interest. Sexual politics; the use of one’s own body to succumb and to succeed in the solidification of ones one future – this is the world Jelinek presents. A world tainted, and meaningless. Where no sense of companionship exists in a pure form. Paula and Brigitte are two halves of the same situation. One extreme to the next. Brigitte accepts her fate; yet is more cunning than, it at first appears. Heinz is odious and obnoxious. Yet he proves to have the one thing that Brigitte wants: a sustainable future. Brigitte can only think of ruling her own house. Heinz’s house. She pictures everything in terms of ownership – her ownership. The china would be hers, the stove, the mix master, everything would be hers; the children would be hers. Whereas Paula is vehemently seeking a future, ruled and guided by her own hands. However Paula is always trapped in the workings of the present. In which Eirch enters. The handsome and dimwitted moped loving and riding, woodcutter; who favours alcohol over Paula. Yet Paula, is ruled by her own feelings, and has no foresight.
In this short novel, Jelinek plays with the concepts of womanhood, and the subjugating control of Austria’s patriarchy society. Jelinek is a fierce social critic, and in this novel, criticises the effects of a burgeoning consumerist society. Just look at Brigitte, her constant desire for ownership – something to call her own; she is the epitome of consumerist cruelty; whereas Paula is unable to survive in a world that demands one to critically think, and place her own feelings on hold. However this is only secondary for Jelinek’s experimental linguistic skills, which will be unable to be translated perfectly into English. However, the taste that is provided is well enough on its own, to keep one on reading. Though there are warnings for readers. The subject matter is controversial, and explicit. It’s vicious and at times can be very visceral. Yet true moments of brilliance do shine through the prose, which keeps one, on-going. Persistence in some cases does pay off. Just don’t expect to walk away feeling good. The works of Jelinek themselves true to their own purpose of being, vicious in its exposures of the hypocrisy of the social norms, the systematic degradation of women; hiding or refusing to recognize one’s own past, and a world that is full of such a bizarre and absurd use of language, that it takes these low language examples and polishes them to a refined prose and word play to reveal their own hidden power; and how they affect us all as individuals.
“don’t propose and let god propose, rather let others prose, but dispose oneself.”
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
The title of Elfriede Jelinek’s social commentary novel is a deceivingly charming and yet fitting for a satirical novel. When people read the title, they expect some erotically charged romance novel; perhaps they think that it is like D.H. Lawrence’s novel “Sons and Lovers,” or perhaps even “Women in Love.” Though this is all a deceptive ploy by Elfriede Jelinek, whose novels and plays can be placed into three different categories: women’s place in society; Austria’s Nazi past, and the politically engaged or social commentary works, which will at times exercise the author’s authoritarian voice in a postmodern sensibility. “Woman as Lovers,” is of the first category. In the article about Elfriede Jelinek’s work, from the Nobel Prize website, titled “Provocation as the Breath of Life,” the author Sture Packalén elegantly describes this kind of work:
“Jelinek depicts those with whom she empathises the most in society: women without prospects, who are economically dependent and on the lowest rungs of the social ladder. These ordinary women find themselves literally in the shadow of their men and see themselves through men's eyes. Only rarely do they dare to express their own wishes, their opinions or desires. They give birth to children, cook, dress themselves and live, as it were, in a glass show-case of femininity without the capacity to engage in transforming contact with the outside world. Any desire for education fades in the face of the social pressure to get married [. . .] These oppressed women suffer both from the physical violence to which they are exposed with their men and from the submissiveness which they impose upon themselves in their women's role. But none of the women in Jelinek's novels and plays are to be regarded as purely passive figures, as objects of men's lust and oppression. All are in fact active agents. Yet, they have been broken from within in that they have both accepted their submission and at the same time tried to tear off the mask of womanliness which has been forced upon them. A Woman's life is an inferno and Jelinek pierces to its core.”
When trying to explain the novel in such terms, many people – especially woman; regard it as completely not true. They get defensive that someone – especially a woman; would write such a piece of work, and then publish it, and have the gall to call herself a feminist. What these people do not understand though is Jelinek is not poking fun at the women in these situations. Jelinek is a social scientist, and has often described herself as a scientist who, who constantly pears into the petri dish, of society and dissects; one social norm at a time. This makes Jelinek a very controversial writer with both men and women—the reading public in general. There is no middle ground with Jelinek. She is an extreme writer; who deals with social issues – especially those of women; with a keen objective eye. Violence – sexual or not; is casual in these works, and is not always metaphorical or rhetorical. Regardless many misunderstand the plots of Jelinek’s work. When I described the work as a dissection of the struggle of a woman to live independent; many reacted in verbal violence; or in complete abhorrence. Marriage is not a man’s domination of a woman; nor is a house a womans calling, and kingdom, where she is both slave and queen. Many stated that men nowadays choose to stay at home; and some women are refusing to get married. In the end though they have failed at understanding what Jelinek has to say about the situation.
On a personal note; I have decided to read Jelinek once again, because of her use of language. It’s experimental and yet completely original. Repetitive, and poetic, with moments of true brilliance. “Woman as Lovers,” is not as intimate as “The Piano Teacher,” was; which is at times both its fault and its greatest strength. What made “The Piano Teacher,” so absolutely horrifying was the fact that one was dragged down to the deepest darkest pits of the human psyche and there was no relief. Bombarded of images and actions and images of degradation and violence, it was a horrifying portrait of a woman deprived of all sense of humanity – and all that remained was a husk of artistic and musical genius, poisoned by vengeance and bitterness. In “Woman as Lovers,” Jelinek does not have a lot of good to say about life, or marriage, or being a woman; which in itself is a trap, of a life of servitude:
“so over the years a natural cycle has come into being: birth and starting work and getting married and leaving again and getting the daughter, who is the housewife or sales assistant, usually housewife, daughter starts work, mother kicks the bucket, daughter is married, leaves, jumps down from the running board, herself gets the next daughter, the co-op shop is the turn table of the natural cycle of nature, the seasons and human life in all its many forms of expression are reflected in its fruit and veg. in its single display window are reflected the attentive faces of its sales assistants, who have come together here to wait for marriage and for life. but marriage always comes alone, without life. hardly or seriously injured. he’s always an alcoholic.”
In the end the women (in this case Brigitte and Paula) do not even have the time or the breath to ask themselves “is this it?” in the end though they are doomed to fall into the same pit falls that their mothers and their mothers before them, have fallen into. A life of marriage and then all that is left is to become a biological factory that can only produce living things. From working in a factory that sews brassieres to the factory production of squealing children; who know doubt will repeat the same cycle.
This is what separates Brigitte and Paula. Both are dreamers; both dream of a better life, and both are willing to put in the work to get that better life. Brigitte is realistic about the limitations that she is faced with, based on her gender. Enter Heinz. Heinz becomes the name for life itself. Heinz is a journeyman electrician, and has plans of opening an electrical appliance shop. This plan for future earnings, a stable life; make Heinz a prize husband. Paula on the other hand is a dreamer whose feelings and dreams get easily confused. Paula is disgusted by the monotony of the daily life in which she has been oppressed by for the most part of her life. She escapes in the world of films; dreams of traveling the world; and even fights for the right to take classes and learn the trade of dressmaking. That would therefore let her live on her own:
“in paula's head there appears a little bud, might not dressmaking after all have been better than erich. the bud is immediately torn out and trampled underfoot.”
In Jelinek’s this story of two young women trying to find love and happiness, becomes a tale of consumerisms infection, and its destruction of any good will or possible attempt at an actual loving relationship. Within a patriarchy society, Jelinek theorizes that woman will always be placed under the thumb of men. Owned, and stuck in a monotonous life of housekeeping, child birth, raising children, and serving their husband.
“if a pain in the abdomen does nevertheless stick out its head like a worm out of the apple, then its too late, the old proverb says, women are born to suffer, men are born to work: someone has go to stuck into the body of the other and is laying waste inside it, living, feeding off it, that is called symbiosis.”
Consumerism – is Jelinek’s greatest enemy. Being part of the communist party for seventeen years, I think Jelinek will always be on the left. That being said, Jelinek is not a simple idealist who writes social realism. She does not praise the worker, overthrowing the sole dictator who keeps all the wealth for himself, while the others or the workers are forced to slave away inhumanely doing mule work. Instead Jelinek is a very cynical realist. She understands that everyone is fueled by their own self-interest. Sexual politics; the use of one’s own body to succumb and to succeed in the solidification of ones one future – this is the world Jelinek presents. A world tainted, and meaningless. Where no sense of companionship exists in a pure form. Paula and Brigitte are two halves of the same situation. One extreme to the next. Brigitte accepts her fate; yet is more cunning than, it at first appears. Heinz is odious and obnoxious. Yet he proves to have the one thing that Brigitte wants: a sustainable future. Brigitte can only think of ruling her own house. Heinz’s house. She pictures everything in terms of ownership – her ownership. The china would be hers, the stove, the mix master, everything would be hers; the children would be hers. Whereas Paula is vehemently seeking a future, ruled and guided by her own hands. However Paula is always trapped in the workings of the present. In which Eirch enters. The handsome and dimwitted moped loving and riding, woodcutter; who favours alcohol over Paula. Yet Paula, is ruled by her own feelings, and has no foresight.
In this short novel, Jelinek plays with the concepts of womanhood, and the subjugating control of Austria’s patriarchy society. Jelinek is a fierce social critic, and in this novel, criticises the effects of a burgeoning consumerist society. Just look at Brigitte, her constant desire for ownership – something to call her own; she is the epitome of consumerist cruelty; whereas Paula is unable to survive in a world that demands one to critically think, and place her own feelings on hold. However this is only secondary for Jelinek’s experimental linguistic skills, which will be unable to be translated perfectly into English. However, the taste that is provided is well enough on its own, to keep one on reading. Though there are warnings for readers. The subject matter is controversial, and explicit. It’s vicious and at times can be very visceral. Yet true moments of brilliance do shine through the prose, which keeps one, on-going. Persistence in some cases does pay off. Just don’t expect to walk away feeling good. The works of Jelinek themselves true to their own purpose of being, vicious in its exposures of the hypocrisy of the social norms, the systematic degradation of women; hiding or refusing to recognize one’s own past, and a world that is full of such a bizarre and absurd use of language, that it takes these low language examples and polishes them to a refined prose and word play to reveal their own hidden power; and how they affect us all as individuals.
“don’t propose and let god propose, rather let others prose, but dispose oneself.”
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
Tuesday, 7 May 2013
In Literary News
Hello Gentle Reader
In Michigan there is a lot of hype and controversy over, what one mother has called “pornographic passages,” from one of the most read and well known books in the world today, which deal with the tragedies of World War II and the eventual discovery of the Holocaust – the one and only Anne Frank Diary. In the recently updated and uncensored edition of the diary, there are passages in which Anne Frank begins to remark on the eventual changes of her body. Going so far as to make anatomical observations of her female organs; in a sense this gives Anne more character. She is not just some Jewish girl hiding away. She’s a girl heading into adolescents; and with no one to discuss these changes about, she turns to the diary. These personal moments of self-discovery of one’s own body, set on the backdrop of the horrors of the world around her, make the moments all that more sympathetic and empathetic, for the young readers who have been assigned the book. It is in these cases that one can understand that Anne Frank is not just some martyr or victim but truly a human being. The following in Anne recorded her observations of her body, have been called “pornographic,” by one student’s mother:
“Until I was 11 or 12, I didn't realise there was a second set of labia on the inside, since you couldn't see them. What's even funnier is that I thought urine came out of the clitoris," wrote Frank. "When you're standing up, all you see from the front is hair. Between your legs there are two soft, cushiony things, also covered with hair, which press together when you're standing, so you can't see what's inside. They separate when you sit down and they're very red and quite fleshy on the inside. In the upper part, between the outer labia, there's a fold of skin that, on second thought, looks like a kind of blister. That's the clitoris.”
Pornographic writing is usually obscene and sometimes, embellished and saturated in the most sexually frank of details. Think of the Marquis de Sade. Eroticism is pleasurable or a little more, on the sly side in its suggestive symbolism. Though in today’s world of “sex sells,” and the complete bombardment of sexual imagery from all directions: from perfume commercials, to bill board advertising – airbrushed and picture perfect models stare blankly trying to intrigue one into buying the product. So to call the above observation “pornographic,” is wrong. The above observation is anything but an adolescent trying to comprehend and understand the changes that are happening to her body. There is nothing obscene or erotically charged about it. Anne simply discusses, like a scientist take inventory of the body; the anatomical construct of her own gender.
Now the mother has stated she is not for a witch hunt on this book; nor is she is an advocate of censorship; but she certainly is coddling her child a bit too much. The passage could be described as “uncomfortable,” but by all means some of the greatest work out there is uncomfortable. Uncomfortable in its frank descriptions of the horrors of war; or perhaps its uncomfortable when we discuss what, we are capable of doing as human beings. If it makes you squirm it means you’re facing some form of truth. For example women have labia. That is not up for debate. Adolescent’s is, going to hit us all when we are young. Our children are going to grow up. These are all hard truths. Is discussing labia and clitoris’s uncomfortable – perhaps it is uncomfortable to discuss the anatomical structures reproductive area; but this does not mean it does not exist. Though the concerned parent may find it a bit too early to discuss these topics, I don’t think it’s too early at all. In my day and age young ladies went to their doctors because when they had their first period, they thought there was some gynecological problem with them. When in reality there isn’t. Discussing it puts the feelings, of shame that we instill in our children to rest. It’s natural, and it is if anything a very difficult situation one should tackle sensitively; not shut in the closet and say it doesn’t happen. Anne Frank is more than just a person of history. She is more than just a victim. More than just a saint that preaches example of humanities inherited goodness. More than just a statistical number of the Holocaust. She was a young girl going into adolescents. She was human. This further exemplifies that fact. That poor Anne Frank was not just some person who tragically lost her life in World War II, among countless others. She was a young girl, who had problems much like the youth do today – and the youth of tomorrow will have.
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
A link to the original “The Guardian,” article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/07/anne-frank-diary-us-schools-censorship
In Michigan there is a lot of hype and controversy over, what one mother has called “pornographic passages,” from one of the most read and well known books in the world today, which deal with the tragedies of World War II and the eventual discovery of the Holocaust – the one and only Anne Frank Diary. In the recently updated and uncensored edition of the diary, there are passages in which Anne Frank begins to remark on the eventual changes of her body. Going so far as to make anatomical observations of her female organs; in a sense this gives Anne more character. She is not just some Jewish girl hiding away. She’s a girl heading into adolescents; and with no one to discuss these changes about, she turns to the diary. These personal moments of self-discovery of one’s own body, set on the backdrop of the horrors of the world around her, make the moments all that more sympathetic and empathetic, for the young readers who have been assigned the book. It is in these cases that one can understand that Anne Frank is not just some martyr or victim but truly a human being. The following in Anne recorded her observations of her body, have been called “pornographic,” by one student’s mother:
“Until I was 11 or 12, I didn't realise there was a second set of labia on the inside, since you couldn't see them. What's even funnier is that I thought urine came out of the clitoris," wrote Frank. "When you're standing up, all you see from the front is hair. Between your legs there are two soft, cushiony things, also covered with hair, which press together when you're standing, so you can't see what's inside. They separate when you sit down and they're very red and quite fleshy on the inside. In the upper part, between the outer labia, there's a fold of skin that, on second thought, looks like a kind of blister. That's the clitoris.”
Pornographic writing is usually obscene and sometimes, embellished and saturated in the most sexually frank of details. Think of the Marquis de Sade. Eroticism is pleasurable or a little more, on the sly side in its suggestive symbolism. Though in today’s world of “sex sells,” and the complete bombardment of sexual imagery from all directions: from perfume commercials, to bill board advertising – airbrushed and picture perfect models stare blankly trying to intrigue one into buying the product. So to call the above observation “pornographic,” is wrong. The above observation is anything but an adolescent trying to comprehend and understand the changes that are happening to her body. There is nothing obscene or erotically charged about it. Anne simply discusses, like a scientist take inventory of the body; the anatomical construct of her own gender.
Now the mother has stated she is not for a witch hunt on this book; nor is she is an advocate of censorship; but she certainly is coddling her child a bit too much. The passage could be described as “uncomfortable,” but by all means some of the greatest work out there is uncomfortable. Uncomfortable in its frank descriptions of the horrors of war; or perhaps its uncomfortable when we discuss what, we are capable of doing as human beings. If it makes you squirm it means you’re facing some form of truth. For example women have labia. That is not up for debate. Adolescent’s is, going to hit us all when we are young. Our children are going to grow up. These are all hard truths. Is discussing labia and clitoris’s uncomfortable – perhaps it is uncomfortable to discuss the anatomical structures reproductive area; but this does not mean it does not exist. Though the concerned parent may find it a bit too early to discuss these topics, I don’t think it’s too early at all. In my day and age young ladies went to their doctors because when they had their first period, they thought there was some gynecological problem with them. When in reality there isn’t. Discussing it puts the feelings, of shame that we instill in our children to rest. It’s natural, and it is if anything a very difficult situation one should tackle sensitively; not shut in the closet and say it doesn’t happen. Anne Frank is more than just a person of history. She is more than just a victim. More than just a saint that preaches example of humanities inherited goodness. More than just a statistical number of the Holocaust. She was a young girl going into adolescents. She was human. This further exemplifies that fact. That poor Anne Frank was not just some person who tragically lost her life in World War II, among countless others. She was a young girl, who had problems much like the youth do today – and the youth of tomorrow will have.
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
A link to the original “The Guardian,” article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/07/anne-frank-diary-us-schools-censorship
Saturday, 4 May 2013
The Best Translated Book Award 2013 Winners
Hello Gentle Reader
It has finally been, released publicly, of the winners of this years Best Translated Book Award. For fiction it is none other then the Hungarian author László Krasznahorkai's win with his debut and classic novel "Satantango." Which in my opinion, along with Mikhail Shishkin were the favorites to win this years award. This further proves though that, Hungarian Literature is still not just a fashion statement in literature, but has true merits on its own. Congrats to László Krasznahorkai, and his translator George Szirtes on this win. The poetry winner for this years Best Translated Book Award, goes to the Romanian poet, Nichita Stănescu for his poetry collection "Wheel with a Single Spoke," translated by Sean Cotter. Though Nichita Stănescu died relatively young his work, was important during the post-war period in Romanian Literature. This is both a surprising win and also a very understanding win as well for the poetry award. I thought that the Swedish poet Aase Berg with her collection "Transfer Fat," had a good chance as did the Macedonian poet Lidija Dimkovska -- wild cars was certainly the avant-garde and certainly formally experimental works of the Austrian poet Elfriede Czurda. In the end though,Nichita Stănescu's promisingly approachable and intelligent poems, won.
Congratulations to both authors and their translators.
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
It has finally been, released publicly, of the winners of this years Best Translated Book Award. For fiction it is none other then the Hungarian author László Krasznahorkai's win with his debut and classic novel "Satantango." Which in my opinion, along with Mikhail Shishkin were the favorites to win this years award. This further proves though that, Hungarian Literature is still not just a fashion statement in literature, but has true merits on its own. Congrats to László Krasznahorkai, and his translator George Szirtes on this win. The poetry winner for this years Best Translated Book Award, goes to the Romanian poet, Nichita Stănescu for his poetry collection "Wheel with a Single Spoke," translated by Sean Cotter. Though Nichita Stănescu died relatively young his work, was important during the post-war period in Romanian Literature. This is both a surprising win and also a very understanding win as well for the poetry award. I thought that the Swedish poet Aase Berg with her collection "Transfer Fat," had a good chance as did the Macedonian poet Lidija Dimkovska -- wild cars was certainly the avant-garde and certainly formally experimental works of the Austrian poet Elfriede Czurda. In the end though,Nichita Stănescu's promisingly approachable and intelligent poems, won.
Congratulations to both authors and their translators.
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
Friday, 3 May 2013
Finnegan's List 2013 (Awaiting the announcement, for the Best Translated Book Award)
Hello Gentle Reader
As we wait for the announcement for the Best Translated Book Award, it had come to my attention that there is a list, of yet to be translated books, that are underappreciated in the English speaking world. It’s called Finnegan’s list. It was created by the European Society of Authors (SEA) who are trying to create a European Union based on cultural values and exchanges; not just the exchange and trade of economic priorities. It was founded in two-thousand and eight, to promote alliances between translators, authors and publishers. Finnegan’s List is a list composed of ten well known authors from ten different countries. The authors are then tasked with naming and reasoning, why the authors they chose and their work, should be better translated and appreciated in other cultures. In two-thousand and ten, the debut of this project was published; last year (two-thousand and twelve) the list was presented at the Frankfurt Book Fair. Finnegan’s list is interesting it has no particular language or source in mind, when the list is made. It is more of a dialogue of culture and literature. For quite some time this list was presented without my knowledge. Now that I hear its purpose, and have come to know that it exists, I am far more interested in the list, and the authors presented on it. The only regret is, not knowing about it sooner.
The following is this year’s list and the authors who named: [For the reason please see the link]
(I will post a link to the original at the end)
The Ten Authors (all of which are new names to me)
Alberto Manguel – is a Argentinian bibliophile (of 30, 000 books) and has written numerous non-fiction works, some of them being: “The Library at Night,” and “A History of Reading,” as well as novels. He has also been a anthologist, working in creating diverse anthologies from different themes and genre’s like erotica to gay themes; to the fantastical and mystery. As a young man he read to the blind Jorge Luis Borges, at his home.
Ilma Rakusa – is a poet, translator, essayist and short story writer. She has translated well-known names from France, Russia and Hungary into German; some of the authors are: Imre Kertész, Marina Tsvetaeva, and Péter Nádas. She has won numerous awards for her translations, essays, short prose and poetry.
Samar Yazbek – comes from the now turbulent land of Syria. She fled her home country in two-thousand and elven; living in exile in France. Her most recent work “A Woman
in the Crossfire: Diaries of the Syrian Revolution,” won English PEN Writers in Translation award. She has written novels, short prose, and numerous poetry collections along with film scripts. She has tackled taboo subjects like the rights of woman in Syria – and is a prominent human rights advocate.
Etgar Keret – is one of the most popular and prominent Israeli author. He has been published in “The New Yorker,” “The Guardian,” “The New York Times,” and “The Paris Review,” just to name a few of his English language publications. His work has been published in thirty one languages abroad.
Tariq Ali – is a well revered British-Pakistani author. One who understands the delicate dispute between east and west – as well as the conflict between Islam and the developed or rather the western world. Ali is known as a commentator on numerous political issues, and his articles have appeared in numerous international publications. He is currently working on a five novel cycle about Islam. The first novel being “Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree,” has been his literary breakthrough.
Oksana Zabuzhko – is not a new name to me. The prominent Ukrainian poet, first came to my attention from the website “Poetry International,” where I read a few of her poems. She has been translated into numerous languages; which includes her most recent novel: “The Museum of Abandoned Secrets,” as well as her non-fiction book “Field Work in Ukrainian Sex.”
Arnon Grunberg – his novel “Blue Monday,” became a bestseller in Europe. Grunberg is a Dutch writer, and journalist. His work has been translated into twenty one languages, and is a columnist for numerous international magazine publications, as well as having his own blog.
Georgi Gospodinov – is one of the most translated Bulgarian authors. He is a contributor to “The Best European Fiction,” the year of 2010. His novel “Natural Novel,” has been translated into nineteen different languages. His poetry collections have been awarded national literary prizes. His latest book is titled “The Physics of Sorrow.”
Gabriela Adameşteanu – is a contemporary Romanian writer. Her novels “The Equal Way of Every,” and “Wasted Morning,” are her most famous work. She has won international and stately literary prizes. She is also a translator, essayist, and journalist.
Jaroslav Rudiš – is a Czech authors of novels and graphic novels; as well as short prose and plays for stage and the radio. His novel “The Sky under Berlin,” won the Jiří Orten Award for
young writers in 2002. His graphic novel trilogy that was co-authored with Jaromír 99 has been adapted into a film.
The authors and their individual lists:
Alberto Manguel:
Eduardo Berti, Todos los Funes, (“All of the Funes,”)
Marina Warner, “From the Beast to the Blonde: On Fairy Tales and their Tellers,”
Amparo Dávila, Cuentos Reunidos, (“Collected Short Stories,”)
Ilma Rakusa:
Bohdan Ihor Antonych, “Poems,”
Miroslav Krleža, “Izlet u Rusiju,” (“Voyage to Russia,”)
Radomir Konstantinović, Filosofija palanke, (“Philosophy of a Backwater Town,”)
Samar Yazbek:
Mamdūh Azzām, (Arabic name) “Ascension to Death,”
Mustafa Khalifa, (Arabic title) “The Shell,”
Hānī al-Rāhib, (Arabic title) “The Epidemic,”
[ Please note Gentle Reader, I am not being impudent when I stated “Arabic Title,” – for some reason I was unable to copy the Arabic words./symbols, and because I do not speak Arabic, let alone read or write it, I was forced to put ‘Arabic Title,’ no offense is meant]
Etgar Keret:
Orly Castel-Bloom, דוליסיטי, (“Dolly City,”)
Gadi Taub, אלנבי, (“Allenby Street,”)
Hila Blum, הביקור,(“The Visit,”)
Tariq Ali:
Eka Kurniawan, Cantik itu Luka, (“Beautiful, a Wound,”)
Andreas Embiricos, ΟΜέγαςΑνατολικός (“The Great Eastern,”)
Saadat Hasan Manto, “Collections of Short Stories,”
Oksana Zabuzhko:
Lesya Ukrainka, Каміннийгосподар (“Stone Master,”)
Mykola Kulish, , Drugie zabicie psa (“Killing the Second Dog,”)
Frans Kellendonk, Mystiek lichaam (“Mystical Body,”)
Georgi Gospodinov:
Vera Mutafchieva,Летопис на смутното време (“Chronicle of the Time of
Unrest,”)
Ivan Teofilov,Инфинитив (“Infinitive,”)
Ani Ilkov, Изворът на грознохубавите (“The Spring of the Ugly-Beautiful,”)
Gabriela Adameşteanu:
Camil Petrescu, Patul lui Procust (“The Bed of Procustes,”)
Jan Koneffke, Eine Liebe am Tiber (“A Love on the Tiber,”)
Lídia Jorge, O Vale da Paixão (“The Valley of Passion,”)
There you have it Gentle Reader, the Finnegan’s list of two-thousand and thirteen. Some very interesting authors and books have been listed. “Philosophy of a Backwater Town,” by Radomir Konstantinović by title alone sounds very interesting. Georgi Gospodinov choice of Ivan Teofilov and his collection “Infinitive,” appears interesting based of his comments. I am slightly disappointed that Samar Yazbek’s reasons were not included. I’d like to know more about her choices.
Any How Gentle Reader the jury has picked some interesting works. To see the original list, and the reasons the authors chose their books please visit the following link:
http://www.seua.org/wp-content/uploads/Finnegan_2013.pdf
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
As we wait for the announcement for the Best Translated Book Award, it had come to my attention that there is a list, of yet to be translated books, that are underappreciated in the English speaking world. It’s called Finnegan’s list. It was created by the European Society of Authors (SEA) who are trying to create a European Union based on cultural values and exchanges; not just the exchange and trade of economic priorities. It was founded in two-thousand and eight, to promote alliances between translators, authors and publishers. Finnegan’s List is a list composed of ten well known authors from ten different countries. The authors are then tasked with naming and reasoning, why the authors they chose and their work, should be better translated and appreciated in other cultures. In two-thousand and ten, the debut of this project was published; last year (two-thousand and twelve) the list was presented at the Frankfurt Book Fair. Finnegan’s list is interesting it has no particular language or source in mind, when the list is made. It is more of a dialogue of culture and literature. For quite some time this list was presented without my knowledge. Now that I hear its purpose, and have come to know that it exists, I am far more interested in the list, and the authors presented on it. The only regret is, not knowing about it sooner.
The following is this year’s list and the authors who named: [For the reason please see the link]
(I will post a link to the original at the end)
The Ten Authors (all of which are new names to me)
Alberto Manguel – is a Argentinian bibliophile (of 30, 000 books) and has written numerous non-fiction works, some of them being: “The Library at Night,” and “A History of Reading,” as well as novels. He has also been a anthologist, working in creating diverse anthologies from different themes and genre’s like erotica to gay themes; to the fantastical and mystery. As a young man he read to the blind Jorge Luis Borges, at his home.
Ilma Rakusa – is a poet, translator, essayist and short story writer. She has translated well-known names from France, Russia and Hungary into German; some of the authors are: Imre Kertész, Marina Tsvetaeva, and Péter Nádas. She has won numerous awards for her translations, essays, short prose and poetry.
Samar Yazbek – comes from the now turbulent land of Syria. She fled her home country in two-thousand and elven; living in exile in France. Her most recent work “A Woman
in the Crossfire: Diaries of the Syrian Revolution,” won English PEN Writers in Translation award. She has written novels, short prose, and numerous poetry collections along with film scripts. She has tackled taboo subjects like the rights of woman in Syria – and is a prominent human rights advocate.
Etgar Keret – is one of the most popular and prominent Israeli author. He has been published in “The New Yorker,” “The Guardian,” “The New York Times,” and “The Paris Review,” just to name a few of his English language publications. His work has been published in thirty one languages abroad.
Tariq Ali – is a well revered British-Pakistani author. One who understands the delicate dispute between east and west – as well as the conflict between Islam and the developed or rather the western world. Ali is known as a commentator on numerous political issues, and his articles have appeared in numerous international publications. He is currently working on a five novel cycle about Islam. The first novel being “Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree,” has been his literary breakthrough.
Oksana Zabuzhko – is not a new name to me. The prominent Ukrainian poet, first came to my attention from the website “Poetry International,” where I read a few of her poems. She has been translated into numerous languages; which includes her most recent novel: “The Museum of Abandoned Secrets,” as well as her non-fiction book “Field Work in Ukrainian Sex.”
Arnon Grunberg – his novel “Blue Monday,” became a bestseller in Europe. Grunberg is a Dutch writer, and journalist. His work has been translated into twenty one languages, and is a columnist for numerous international magazine publications, as well as having his own blog.
Georgi Gospodinov – is one of the most translated Bulgarian authors. He is a contributor to “The Best European Fiction,” the year of 2010. His novel “Natural Novel,” has been translated into nineteen different languages. His poetry collections have been awarded national literary prizes. His latest book is titled “The Physics of Sorrow.”
Gabriela Adameşteanu – is a contemporary Romanian writer. Her novels “The Equal Way of Every,” and “Wasted Morning,” are her most famous work. She has won international and stately literary prizes. She is also a translator, essayist, and journalist.
Jaroslav Rudiš – is a Czech authors of novels and graphic novels; as well as short prose and plays for stage and the radio. His novel “The Sky under Berlin,” won the Jiří Orten Award for
young writers in 2002. His graphic novel trilogy that was co-authored with Jaromír 99 has been adapted into a film.
The authors and their individual lists:
Alberto Manguel:
Eduardo Berti, Todos los Funes, (“All of the Funes,”)
Marina Warner, “From the Beast to the Blonde: On Fairy Tales and their Tellers,”
Amparo Dávila, Cuentos Reunidos, (“Collected Short Stories,”)
Ilma Rakusa:
Bohdan Ihor Antonych, “Poems,”
Miroslav Krleža, “Izlet u Rusiju,” (“Voyage to Russia,”)
Radomir Konstantinović, Filosofija palanke, (“Philosophy of a Backwater Town,”)
Samar Yazbek:
Mamdūh Azzām, (Arabic name) “Ascension to Death,”
Mustafa Khalifa, (Arabic title) “The Shell,”
Hānī al-Rāhib, (Arabic title) “The Epidemic,”
[ Please note Gentle Reader, I am not being impudent when I stated “Arabic Title,” – for some reason I was unable to copy the Arabic words./symbols, and because I do not speak Arabic, let alone read or write it, I was forced to put ‘Arabic Title,’ no offense is meant]
Etgar Keret:
Orly Castel-Bloom, דוליסיטי, (“Dolly City,”)
Gadi Taub, אלנבי, (“Allenby Street,”)
Hila Blum, הביקור,(“The Visit,”)
Tariq Ali:
Eka Kurniawan, Cantik itu Luka, (“Beautiful, a Wound,”)
Andreas Embiricos, ΟΜέγαςΑνατολικός (“The Great Eastern,”)
Saadat Hasan Manto, “Collections of Short Stories,”
Oksana Zabuzhko:
Lesya Ukrainka, Каміннийгосподар (“Stone Master,”)
Mykola Kulish, , Drugie zabicie psa (“Killing the Second Dog,”)
Frans Kellendonk, Mystiek lichaam (“Mystical Body,”)
Georgi Gospodinov:
Vera Mutafchieva,Летопис на смутното време (“Chronicle of the Time of
Unrest,”)
Ivan Teofilov,Инфинитив (“Infinitive,”)
Ani Ilkov, Изворът на грознохубавите (“The Spring of the Ugly-Beautiful,”)
Gabriela Adameşteanu:
Camil Petrescu, Patul lui Procust (“The Bed of Procustes,”)
Jan Koneffke, Eine Liebe am Tiber (“A Love on the Tiber,”)
Lídia Jorge, O Vale da Paixão (“The Valley of Passion,”)
There you have it Gentle Reader, the Finnegan’s list of two-thousand and thirteen. Some very interesting authors and books have been listed. “Philosophy of a Backwater Town,” by Radomir Konstantinović by title alone sounds very interesting. Georgi Gospodinov choice of Ivan Teofilov and his collection “Infinitive,” appears interesting based of his comments. I am slightly disappointed that Samar Yazbek’s reasons were not included. I’d like to know more about her choices.
Any How Gentle Reader the jury has picked some interesting works. To see the original list, and the reasons the authors chose their books please visit the following link:
http://www.seua.org/wp-content/uploads/Finnegan_2013.pdf
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)