Hello
Gentle Reader
Introduction –
It’s
that time of year again, with a few months remaining to October, which means
once again to speculate about this year’s possible Nobel Laureate in
Literature. My personalized list will be coming on Monday, August 14th
2017.
Here
are the quick stats of the current speculation list:
A
total of 76 writers have been listed.
51
are male
25
are female
Writers
by Geographical Area:
Africa
– 7
North
Africa & Middle East – 11
Europe
– 32
Australia
& Oceania – 1
Asia
& the Indo-Subcontinent – 17
South
& Latin America; Including the Caribbean – 8
To
see the complete list, and those writers that have made it on the list, please
come back Monday August 14th to review the entire list. Comments, thoughts, and
other suggestions are always welcomed, and I would love to hear from you!
Unusual
Precedents –
Last
year the Nobel Prize for Literature was quite a shock, as it went to the
American musician: Bob Dylan, on the grounds (and understanding) that his songs
and works were best considered poetry. Needless to say, the awards announcement
and the new Nobel Laureate in Literature caused controversy and criticism, and
often divided opinions between support and uproar—there was no middle ground.
My view and opinion of the matter was noted, and I stand by criticism. The
years 2015 and 2016, were unique years for the Nobel Prize for Literature. In
2015, the Nobel went to the Belarussian journalist Svetlana Alexievich. Her
work was noted for being very small, but dense. Yet what made Alexievich unique
in the awards history is she was not what was considered the traditional
precedent candidate. As already noted, Alexievich was a journalist, as a writer
she was a documenter, reporter and cartographer of the soviet and post-soviet
soul and reality; as can be seen in her works: “Wars Unwomanly Face,” “Voices
from Chernobyl,” and her most recent work “Second Hand Time.” Now, prior
laureates were known for dabbling in journalism as a career or a job alongside
their literary endeavors, such as: Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Yet, Svetlana
Alexievich would be the only Nobel Laureate (as so far) to write and produce
work exclusively in a non-fiction and reportage format; the only other Nobel
Laureate in Literature, who could be considered equivalent in their scope,
would be Winston Churchill, for his memories about the war. With Alexievich’s
new Nobel status, it would appear the award had now been more open to go beyond
the conventional literary endeavors of previous Nobel Laureates, which was
confined to: Prose (novel and short story), Poetry, and Playwriting.
Then
last year, the prize had once again shifted its gaze from the traditional
perspective of what literature was contained to, and awarded a musician and
singer the Nobel Prize for Literature, on the grounds that Bob Dylan’s songwriting
capabilities were considered the equivalent of poetry, and therefore was as
deserving of the Nobel as any other poet before him. Whether or not one
believes the reasoning for Bob Dylan’s Nobel has any merit at all, is a matter
of perspective. Regardless though, at the end of the day—whether one agrees or
disagrees with the decision; Bob Dylan is a Nobel Laureate in Literature. Once
again though, the definition of literature was brought into controversial
broadening. Many supported the move, with the reasoning that Literature
encompasses the vastness of linguistic ingenuity and expression; it’s the
ability to use words and language to portray narratives and emotions, and
cannot be solely reserved for more conservative traditions and formats, which
have been recognized by the Nobel Prize for Literature, for over a century. On
these grounds—they would say—Dylan’s Nobel recognition, was long overdue, but
inevitable at the very least, as ‘music,’ and poetry were both in the same
family, even if poetry received greater cultural and intellectual recognition;
while music appealed to the masses, and would find itself woven into the
cultural phenomena of youth and daily life. Don’t expect to find the likes of
Tomas Tranströmer and Wisława Szymborska inducted into the Rock ’n’ Roll hall
of fame any time soon.
Despite
these new precedents being enacted by the Swedish Academy and subsequent Nobel
Committee, they will not change my speculation list. For one: I would have no
idea how to gauge a journalistic piece of work in the confines of Literature.
It is understandable how Svetlana Alexievich is capable of breaking out of the
confines of one, and forming a hybrid of the two worlds—but beyond her, there
is little to no other writer I could begin to name as an equivalent. The
second: my perspective and opinion has not changed about the different
categories of literature and music/songs. Literature retains its traditional
boundaries of a narrative or emotional concept captured in linguistic concepts
of language; but this is reserved for writing, which must have the most refined
sense of language to make its impact and effect—not performing arts like music
or songs, which are performed and accompanied by musical instruments to disguise
poor writing. In other words: no singer or musical will be given any
consideration in the formation of this speculative list. Despite a very unusual
precedent being set by the Swedish Academy, it will have no bearing on how my
list is compiled or conducted, neither now or in the future. The writers who
are included are of course of personal choice, and fall into the set
conventions of literature as a production of prose, poetry or theatrical
writing.
In Defense of
Dylan –
Despite
the dissidence and detraction that last year’s award went to the pop culture
icon: Bob Dylan, there were supporters who came to his defense, both in
mainstream media as well as online. These defenders of Dylan proclaimed that
Bob Dylan was not the first lyricist to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, but
rather the second. The first winner—as they so eloquently screeched—was awarded
over a hundred years ago to: Rabindranath Tagore, the Bengali polymath and
Renaissance man. These defenders, populists, and applauders, claimed precedence
was already set for Dylan to receive the prize, because Rabindranath Tagore,
became a laureate on the basis of his songs; and after all Tagore is referred
to as: the Bengal Bard—to which they posture themselves with a peacock of
stance of victory and triumph. For those who have not witnessed this stance
it’s a marvelous display of: head up ones ass.
What
these Dylan supporters fail to mention with regards to their rationalization
is: Rabindranath Tagore wrote more than just songs. Tagore also wrote,
traditional poetry, essays, plays, short stories, and novels, as well as
painted. To this effect, Rabindranath Tagore, is considered the sole
revolutionary force behind the modernization of Bengali artistic expression. On
these grounds, Tagore was not and is not limited to songs. The argument that
Tagore was only a songwriter or a lyricist is superficial at best. The same
logic could be applied to Shakespeare being a rock star, because he is
colloquially called: “The Bard.” Last time I checked there was no guitar
strumming (or smashing) portrait of Shakespeare.
The
above defense fails to move me; it does not change my opinion of Bob Dylan nor
his undeserved laureate status. It does not encourage me to accept Bob Dylan as
a Nobel Laureate either. Though, there is nothing I can do about it. In these
regards its best summed up as: what is done is done. OR: ashes to ashes, dust
to dust—to which I slap my hands together and walk away. The truth is, I do not
accept Bob Dylan as a worthy Nobel Laureate in Literature, as his work is not
literature; it is music, and that is fine, but it is not literature, and does
not constitute as literature. His songs are not poems—to which he confessed in
his Nobel lecture; and therefore Bob Dylan is not a poet.
My
resentment towards Bob Dylan has now run its extinguished course. I’ve learned
to tolerate last year’s blight, as a lack of judgment at best; while at worst,
poor judgment. Some years you celebrate, while others you wallow in petulance
and disappointment. Thankfully, there is always a new year, and a new laureate.
Redemption is on the horizon.
Patterns to
Predict the Nobel –
Many
seek to find some hidden patterns, reasoning’s, and rational to which they may
promote their personal candidate, and deduce others as less then worthy. The
names presented each sit on a varied scale of extremely possible to
non-existent; though the scale is only drafted on a general basis, and it
itself has no validity or specifications. When drafting the Nobel Prizes,
Alfred Nobel dedicated a part of his last will and testament to the creation of
each original prize: Medicine, Chemistry, Physics, Literature and Peace.
For
the Literature Prize, Alfred Nobel left the following as the conditions for the
prize to be awarded:
“one
part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most
outstanding work in an ideal direction ...”
The
statement is vague. What constitutes as an “outstanding work in an ideal
direction,”? That is where the Swedish Academy and its Nobel Committee come
into play. They interpret and apply their interpretation of this clause, when
deliberating, debating and finally naming the Nobel Laureate in Literature. The
interpretations of the academy have often changed through the decades, as they
have awarded politically aware writers and dissident writers, to marvelous
poets, apolitical writers, writers who have been held in international
recognition, to the obscure and worthy gems.
At
the end of the day there is no surefire way to predict the Nobel Prize for
Literature; and here are some examples to prove the point.
Some
have argued that a writer needs to have an international presence to be
considered; whereby they have won numerous prestigious international awards.
For example: Alice Munro, won the Man Booker International Prize; Herta Müller
and Orhan Pamuk both won the International Literary Dublin Award, and Mario
Vargas Llosa won the Cervantes Prize.
This
line of reasoning however is quickly debunked, when presented in comparison of
other Nobel Laureates. Mo Yan did not win any high ranking international
literary award. Though he was nominated for the Neustadt International Prize
for Literature, and the Man Asian Literary Prize—he did not win; and nomination
and winning are two separate matters. J. M. G. Le Clézio did not win any
international awards to speak of; all of his awards were French language
awards, with the exception of the Stig Dagerman Prize, which is a Swedish
language award, given to institutions and individuals who embody the spirit of
freedom of expression and speech. Gao Xingjian, an avant-garde playwright and
casual prose writer, as well as painter, did not receive any high profile
international literary awards. This line
of logic and argument does not support the reasoning that a Nobel Laureate has
already won international recognition via other prizes.
One
can then look back and say the academy favoured dissidence and social
engagement: Herta Müller, was a dissident writer from Communist Romania, and
was adamant critic in her extensive writings; Elfriede Jelinek was socially and
even politically engaged with Austria’s Nazi’s past, and her scathing critique
of women in society with her ultraviolent/sarcastic plays and novels dealing
with feminist themes; Harold Pinter in his later stages was politically
critical; and then there was Doris Lessing with her long and varied career,
which she documented and codified the socio-political changes of the latter
half of the twentieth century; or Svetlana Alexievich the cartographer of the
Soviet Soul and individual, reported with journalistic integrity and the spirit
of a storyteller, the personal stories and the true faces of the Soviet Union,
through tragedies and war.
But
this line of reasoning is quickly dismissed as well. Alice Munro was not a
writer who would be considered socially engaged beyond writing, she never
criticized or took up social or political platforms. Wislawa Szymborska and Tomas Tranströmer,
were at best politically indifferent and deprived of ideological thoughts.
The
most frightening argument is the argument of popularity. Just because a writer
is popular does not mean they have a chance at the Nobel. Furthermore how is
popularity measured? Does it come down to book sales? Critical reviews? Reader
enjoyment? Does that mean Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, Nora Roberts—et cetera have
a chance? I sincerely doubt it. There work would not be considered of high
literary merit by many. They are popular, they are entertaining, but do they
have long lasting artistic merit and integrity? No. The Nobel’s are not
popularity contests. They are awards, which are presented to individuals in
their respective fields for their contributions to those fields. What is deemed
a worthy contribution to literature, is a subject of debate. Popularity—I
presume—has little to do with the academy’s decision; and if popularity played
a role, I doubt such writers like: Elfriede Jelinek, Doris Lessing, and Gao
Xingjian would have won the awards, let alone many others.
Friends
and acquaintances often inquire about how I compile my own speculative list. They
often imagine some obscure set of statutes, guidelines, and merit based system,
all codified in some old dusty leather book, which is used as a weight to judge
the merit of authors, by fulfilling the necessary amount of qualifications. To
their disappointment there is no statutes, no strict guidelines, no codified
constitution which outlines the exact merits required to be inducted. It’s all
quite the contrary, and underwhelming. I
inform them that I start with writers I like, or discover or want to read, from
other languages. These range from writers I’ve read, and own their books, such
as Magdalena Tulli or Gyrðir Elíasson; then there are writers who I have
discovered through my readings online, such as the poets Sirkka Turkka and Tua
Forsström, all the way to Doris Kareva. Then there are others speculative lists
circulating throughout, and they often present unique writers such as Pepetela,
and so you research and read them to decide whether or not you wish to include
them. Of course, you cannot deny the elephants on the stage either: László
Krasznahorkai, António Lobo Antunes, and Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o—despite having only
lukewarm feelings towards them. Literary awards are also great places to
discover new writers, such as the Cikada Prize, where you learn about Moon
Chung-hee and Y Nhi. It is of course the most fun and delightful when readers
and friends also offer up potential candidates, and writers to be included.
There is no rule book though. As I tell inquiring friends and acquaintances,
the list is personal, solipsistic, with a dash of narcissism. I champion the
obscure, I do my best to present unknown writers, and show my appreciation to
them by including them on the list—that’s it. Do I know their chances? No.
Anyone’s chances at the Nobel Prize for Literature are infinitesimal,
regardless of popularity, international renown, awards won, and readership.
The Swedish
Academy’s Sinologist –
The
Swedish Academy is an eight member institution, who houses members of different
backgrounds, but shared interest: literature. Members are writers, historians,
literary critics, professors, scholars, translators, and linguists. They
generally wear more than just one hat. But the academy only has one Sinologist:
Goran Malmqvist. This would mean, when it comes to literature of Asia
(specifically China), Malmqvist’s opinion would be regarded with high respect.
Being the only Sinologist has its perks and its drawbacks. For one you are
relied upon to give expert advice and opinion on authors nominated—including
the ones you nominate. With no one else with the same resume and knowledge of
Chinese writers, your reasoning and opinions are left (I presume) unchallenged.
The drawback is, with being the only Sinologist, and therefore the only expert
in that field of study, is all criticism will be directed towards that
position.
In
two-thousand and twelve, Mo Yan became the year’s Nobel Laureate in Literature.
The response was divided. Mo Yan was called: a propagating puppet of political
propaganda; a patsy of the Communist regime; and a supporter and proponent of
Communist rhetoric in China, as well as censorship. The criticism was not
solely aimed at Mo Yan; Goran Malmqvist was also criticized for his involvement
in the award. Some went so far as to call Malmqvist’s involvement a conflict of
interest, considering his personal relationship with Mo Yan as well as his
economic relationship with the author— Goran Malmqvist, was Mo Yan’s Swedish
translator.
The
Swedish Academy denounced the allegation that Goran Malmqvist was in a conflict
of interest because he was Mo Yan’s translator, and had a personal relationship
with the writer. This same criticism was not applied in the year two-thousand
when Gao Xingjian won, and Malmqvist happened to be his translator as well. Yet
the criticism continued to pour. Herta Müller, called the award a disaster,
many criticized Mo Yan’s views—or lack of views, and political engagement—as
well his writing style. But it is the exiled Chinese writer: Liao Yiwu; who was
perhaps the most adamant critic of the award, Mo Yan, as well as Goran
Malmqvist, and by extension the Swedish Academy.
Liao
Yiwu (also known as: Lao Wei), demanded the Swedish Academy to formally
apologize for Mo Yan’s Nobel, and specifically targeted Goran Malmqvist. Liao
Yiwu, openly accused Goran Malmqvist of having a “cozy relationship with officially-sanctioned
writers [like Mo Yan], and even become friends with them. Such relationships
impede his judgment of current literary creation[s] in China.” Along with his
criticism and formal letters sent to the Swedish Academy and Goran Malmqvist;
Liao Yiwu, also sent a postcard depicting a naked protestor with the words:
“stick away, Mo Yan!” (rough translation) written on it.
Goran
Malmqvist as expected responded, to the criticism by Liao Yiwu; but also to the
naked protests outside of the Nobel ceremony:
“Lao
Wei,
I'm
very surprised to see you with all the burdensome commitments
As
your position as contemporary Confucian saint demands, has time to lead,
Your
bold companion in your crusade against all threatening windmills.
I
also find it surprising that you do not realize your behavior
Only
make you and your friends appear as complete idiots.
But
be alright, rush around naked and make yourself happy for the whole world!”
[Rough translation]
Goran
Malmqvist, also further made his position clear by stating his translation
works have gone beyond Mo Yan, and have included ancient, medieval, modern and
contemporary Chinese writers, including Gao Xingjian, Shen Congwen, Bei Dao,
and Cao Naiqian. Goran further pushed
his position away from Chinese authority’s influence, by stating that for
twenty seven years (1959 – 1979; 1989 – 1994) he was not allowed to enter into
China; and in two-thousand and eleven would have no formal contact officials
from China; and has thrown his full support behind dissidents such as: Liu
Xiaobo, Ai Weiwei and Liu Binyan.
Personally,
I do hold Goran Malmqvist as the active advocate for Mo Yan’s Nobel accolade;
one in which I felt, Mo Yan did not deserve, when there are and were more
suitable Chinese writers past and present, including but not limited to: Eileen
Chang, Mu Xin, Shen Congwen, Bei Dao, and Can Xue. Mo Yan’s Nobel, was a
catastrophe. There are and were more worthy candidates to choose from. Mo Yan’s
award felt as if it were appeasing the pan handling lobbying of the Chinese
government.
Despite
criticism aimed at Goran Malmqvist, for his advocacy and prepotency to promote
Mo Yan for the Nobel Prize for Literature; I have respect for him. Being the
only Sinologist on the Swedish Academy, is not an easy place to find oneself
sitting. There’s a certain expectation that anyone with such credentials will
have some understanding of contemporary fiction being produced, specifically in
China; with a minor degree of knowledge in the rest of Asia. This understanding
breeds responsibility, as well as an obligation to offer wisdom and counsel on
either the merits of writers in question, or explain why they are dismissible.
Such responsibilities and obligations, would require sober thought, and
complete objective perspectives, deprived of any inherent biases. The problem
with this is human beings are riddled with biases. Readers, especially, have a
highly developed palette for the particulars of what they enjoy, what they wish
to see, and more importantly: what they disapprove of. This palette becomes
more refined and fastidious in its punctilious delights; meaning there is
little room for foreign additions. Attempting to be completely objective is an
impossible feat, and cannot be expected of anyone. Goran Malmqvist then must find
himself in an at times awkward and overwhelming position, as he is to offer
counsel and wise words, on the nature of eastern literature from Asia. How many
great writers has he promoted, and how many great writers have been turned away
because of him? No one can say, as the question is subjective; and the statues
of the Nobel Prizes force the members of the Swedish Academy, too maintain a
stony mantel of silence on the manner. Their gorgon silence is provocative as
it is frustrating, at times. It’s a shame Mu Xin never received the Nobel Prize
for Literature, and has not found greater success in the English language, as
his work is startlingly fresh, a complete mixture of philosophical ruminations,
poetic observations, and the slight bent of a storyteller, making him a worthy
candidate for the prize.
At
the moment, I can presume and even proclaim with certainty, Liao Yiwu, will not
be finding his name on the shortlists anytime soon. First because Goran
Malmqvist is obviously dissatisfied and offended by the writers criticism. It
should also be noted, Per Wästberg (also on the Swedish Academy) is a close
colleague and friend of Malmqvist, and will most certainly support Goran
Malmqvist, in decrying Yiwu as a worthy candidate. It should also be pointed
out, in times past, the Swedish Academy is not known for tolerating being
mocked. The members of the institution are aware that everyone and their donkey
(whose name is Jack and is quite an ass), has an opinion of what constitutes as
literature, and worthy of the Nobel. This means they are fully aware of
criticism and praise, when their decision has been announced; but blatant and
blunt mocking (including naked protests) the academy would find neither amusing
nor tolerable. Though Liao Yiwu is supported and admired by Herta Müller, I do
not see this changing the minds of the academy at the moment. I do admire Liao
Yiwu, for his continual push for a democratic China. I can never understand the
pain of his torture he endured while he was imprisoned. Nor will I ever sense
the paranoia and fear he must have felt when he was released, but banned from
leaving the country. He is still a courageous author, though brazen in his
protests—though going through it all, one can only suspect, you need to be
brazen to make an impact. The louder, the more grotesque, and eye catching, the
greater chance the point comes across. I do doubt, however, the Swedish Academy
will be as tolerant and understanding as I am.
On Astrid Lindgren
& Tove Jansson –
Astrid
Lindgren and Tove Jansson, were two Swedish language writers (Jansson was from
Finland) who were well known for their works for children; but presented
thought provoking and mature themes in their work. Critics often state, the two
writers should have won the Nobel Prize for Literature.
[ i ] – Astrid
Lindgren –
Astrid
Lindgren is one of the most successful and beloved writer in the world. Reports
state, if you were to ask any member of the Swedish Academy about Astrid
Lindgren, they would offer welcoming and warm praise of the writer. The former
Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Horace Engdahl, once commented on
how Astrid Lindgren would have been a worthy member of the Swedish Academy.
Even more so, many thought, Astrid Lindgren would have been more worthy as a
Nobel Laureate in Literature, but alas this was never accomplished.
Recent
reports state, Astrid Lindgren was often nominated for the Nobel Prize, but was
met by fierce opposition within the halls of the Swedish Academy, specifically
from: Artur Lundkvist and Erik Lönnroth. Artur Lundkvist, it has been revealed,
had a particular displeasure for children, and by extension did not appreciate
children’s literature. Lundkvist, favoured difficult literature, and had no
time for the whimsical tastes of children’s literature.
Artur
Lundkvist is either credited or convicted, of blocking Astrid Lindgren from
getting the Nobel Prize for Literature. Together with Erik Lönnroth, he was
able to bring a majority of the academy to his perspective and stop Astrid
Lindgren from ever receiving the Nobel Prize. I imagine the academy split into
camps, with Artur Lundkvist and Erik Lönnroth opposing Astrid from getting the
award, while Knut Ahnlund and Lars Gyllensten spearheaded the movement. Yet, as
Knut Ahnlund stated, the notion never did pick up enough steam or energy, to
topple Lundkvist’s roadblock.
Despite
not being a Nobel Laureate or a member of the Swedish Academy, Astrid Lindgren
is perhaps of the most influential people in Sweden and internationally. Her
works have been translated into over ninety-five languages, and have sold over
one-hundred and forty five million copies worldwide to date. Her influence goes
beyond her books. Astrid Lindgren has been called the quiet and accidental
revolutionary, as she acquired an influential voice on everyday matters. At the
age of sixty-eight Astrid Lindgren submitted an opinion piece to the Swedish
newspaper ‘Expressen,’ where she commented on a tax loophole, which required
the writer (as a self-employed) individual to pay 102 percent of her income in
taxes. The article gained recognition and notoriety, and soon after the tax law
was changed, but the damage was done, as Astrid Lindgren was credited for
toppling the forty-four year reign of the Social Democratic Party of Sweden;
despite actually liking the party. Lindgren was also known to use her common
sense and clear expression, to discuss other issues, such as violence against
children. In her acceptance speech for the Peace Prize for the German Book
Trade, Astrid Lindgren took the opportunity to tackle the subject head on, as
she brought forward the situation, in which children, who are raised with
violence or are victims of violence, will also perpetrate once they are older.
The speech had long lasting implications, as Sweden became the first country
ban ‘smacking,’ of children; and was taken note of in Germany, especially when
two foster boys, ran away from their foster home, and turned up on her doorstep
in Stockholm. Lindgren did help send them back, but ensured from there on out,
they were well treated and taken care of.
Her
patronage and desire to protect the powerless from the powerful extended beyond
children, as Lindgren was a well-known champion of animals rights. She was not
a vegetarian or vegan, or violent PETA protestor. Lindgren was acutely aware of
those subject to the mercy of others, and animals were no different. She took
particular aim at industrial scale farming, the mass slaughter and at times
inhumane conditions the animals were placed in. Astrid Lindgren’s perspectives
on animals and industrial scale farming, eventually attracted public attention,
and for her eightieth birthday Lindgren saw legislation geared towards animal
welfare in industrial farming.
Astrid
Lindgren’s children’s books followed the same pattern as her public opinions
and views. Her books did not patronize children nor did they cuddle them. Her
works encouraged them, to stand up for justice against tyranny and
authoritarian figures, like Pippi Longstocking had done, when she protected
children against pompous and condescending adults, or animals being unjustly
abused by their masters. “The Brothers Lionheart,” also is for children and
deals with the concept of death. Astrid Lindgren proved that books for
children, could deal with themes which many would see as being to mature for
children. Astrid never patronized children, but talked to them as aspiring
adults, who need to understand ideas of justice, and concepts of death which
are pillars of society, and facts of life. There can be no denying Astrid
Lindgren as being of those great writers of the twentieth century.
[
ii ] – Tove Jansson –
Tove
Jansson considered herself a painter and artist, who just happened to write
books. Jansson is most famous for her “Moomin,” books which has delighted
children and adults for years. The Moomins are a charming family of
hippopotamus trolls, who live a carefree and adventurous life in their home of
Moominvalley; but before their permanent residence, they had lived in a lighthouse
and the theatre.
The
works were not solely dedicated to the charming and delightful lives of the
Moomins, they also were host to profound, haunting, and mature themes, which
forced the reader to ask questions around them. The first Moomin book “The Moomins
of the Great Flood,” was born during the war years, and published once the
Second World War had ended. The book sprouted from Tove Jansson’s isolation and
depression during those formidable years of the war, when security and safety
were continually at risk of collapsing.
One
particular thought which stands out about Tove Janssons Moomins, are the Hattifattener.
The Hattifattener are ghost like sock creatures, who are serious in nature.
They cannot speak and they cannot feel. They are obsessed with the weather,
specifically lightning. In the story “The Secret of the Hattifattener,” Moominpappa
attempts to understand the Hattifattener; as Moominpappa suffers from a
mid-life crisis. His attempt to understand the Hattifattener, is n attempt to
understand or gain a deeper understanding of life. It is here Moominpappa, sees
and understands why the Hattifattener are obsessed with lightning; as the Hattifattener
can only feel emotion (or alive) when they are struck by lightning.
It
was a startingly realization later on, to consider the Hattifattener as boring
creatures, and slightly odd bent, being so deprived of life, that they need to
be struck by lightning I order to enjoy it. In this Tove Jansson offered
questions to both children and adults, about the meaning of life, depression,
solitude, intimacy among many other subjects, while being entertaining.
Tove
Jansson may be well-known for her novels and stories of the Moomins, she wrote
many works for adults. Her adult work, is a mixture of stories and novels,
where her mature themes, blended into the Moomins is now fully on display, and
asking questions about life, death, the nature of relationships, solitude, and
the desire for intimacy and safety.
Both
Astrid Lindgren and Tove Jansson, blended their works for children with mature
themes, generally reserved for adults. They presented themes of rebellion as a
form of justice, even if it means standing up to authoritarian figures. They
asked questions about life, and what is the deepest meaning of it. The two
writers showed that children’s literature could go beyond simple entertainment;
it can engage with readers of all ages, and present themes which are profound,
which ask the reader, to question ideas of right and wrong in correlation with
justice, and what is the meaning of life.
Honourable
Mentions –
The
following are some Honorable Mentions. These writers (to my recent knowledge)
are still alive, and have the same infinitesimal chances as any other writer
currently at work. The following writers did not make induction on to the
following speculative list for a variety of reasons; but in consolation I would
like to include these writers here.
Göran
Sonnevi – Sweden – It is with welcoming thanks that a Dear Reader: Bror Axel
Dehn; that I learned about Göran Sonnevi. Göran Sonnevi is one of Sweden’s most
renowned contemporary poets. He was won both the Swedish Academy Nordic Prize
(the ‘Little Nobel,’) in two-thousand and five; and in two-thousand and six, he
won the Nordic Council Prize for Literature. Sonnevi, is a contemporary of
Tomas Tranströmer; but the two poets are immensely different in subject and
themes. Tomas Tranströmer’s poems are known for being inspired by nature, and
tackle the mysteries of everyday life; such as the wonders of time, the awe of
memory, and the fear and apprehension of death. Göran Sonnevi’s poetry is more
topical and socially aware, where he tackles subjects like the Vietnam War, the
Cold War, 9/11, globalization, as well as cultural/ethnic conflicts; but rather
then close his poetry with his own opinion or perspective, Sonnevi, leaves his
poems open and wondering. It is there in this wandering wonder; they depart
from historical context, and seek greater meaning of the human experience in
correlation with history but also separate from it. Göran Sonnevi’s poetry
contains the feats of the epicist in scope, and the complex and complications
of pondering and engagement; though diligence and patience are greatly
rewarded. If Göran Sonnevi, never wins the Nobel Prize for Literature, he would
be a wonderful addition to the Swedish Academy.
Peter
Handke – Austria – When Elfriede Jelinek was announced as a Nobel Laureate in
Literature, the award was divisive, with one member of the academy resigning protest.
Western media sat dumfounded, and hooted: “who?” Elfriede Jelinek herself said
the real writer who should have won the award was: Peter Handke. Peter Handke
himself is a well-known playwright, essayist and prose writer. But like his
fellow countrymen, Elfriede Jelinek, is a controversial writer. Peter Handke,
in recent years has often been found himself at the centre of numerous
controversial arguments and criticisms, for his political viewpoints and
support, for the nationalistic fervor of the Serbs during the Balkan wars.
Handke has often been called a: far-right apologist. Despite his political
controversies, Peter Handke is an internationally renowned writer. His plays
are top notched, avant-garde and noted for pushing the boundaries and
limitations of the theatre as an artistic medium. His prose follow a similar
route, riddled with noir atmospheres, rambling philosophical thoughts and
digressions, and the existential crisis of life itself, on full autopsy
display, beneath the surgical scalpel of Handke’s eye. Despite these literary
successes, Handke has become somewhat of a literary leper. Recent awards
offered to Peter Handke were met with protest. When Peter Handke was announced
to have won the International Ibsen Award, the outcry and the criticism was
huge. Protestors showed up when Handke arrived to receive the award, and the
PEN Norway was also vocal in its disagreement of the decision, the jury of the
award was even pressured to resign because of their decision. Heinrich Heine
Prize was revoked from Handke due to his political views as well. Despite the
controversy and the criticism, Handke has found support. Jon Fosse has defended
the writer as a true literary genius, and even stated Handke deserved the Nobel
Prize for Literature. Whether or not the Swedish Academy agrees, is impossible
to tell. Though considering past controversies, Handke will most likely be left
untouched.
Lygia
Fagundes Telles – Brazil – Last year the Brazilian Writers Union, announced its
nomination of Lygia Fagundes for the Nobel Prize for Literature, and she
immediately piqued interest in commentators and readers throughout the world.
Telle’s is one of the most renowned contemporary writers in Brazil, and in
two-thousand and five she was awarded the Camões Prize, the most prestigious
Portuguese language prize. Lygia Fagundes Telles is well known for her novel
“The Girl in the Photograph,” which recounts the story of three young women
during the backdrop of the nineteen-seventies, during the dictatorship which
gripped Brazil. Beyond her most famous novel being translated into English,
there is very little of her work being translated into English; but her
presence within Brazil is well known and well received, as she is often
referred to as the contemporary Grand Dame of Brazilian letters.
Sjon
– Iceland – Bjork is often called Iceland’s musical export to the world, than
Sjon is currently, Iceland’s literary export. Comparisons between Bjork and
Sjon, go beyond a shared national heritage, as the two have also had a working
relationship. Sjon is noted to have written numerous lyrics to Bjork’s songs.
Despite his creative and business relationship with Bjork, Sjon has not been
eclipsed by the singer’s fame and success. Sjon has found himself welcomingly
received in other languages with his novels. Recently, Sjon was selected to add
a manuscript to the Future Library Project, where he joins Margaret Atwood and
David Mitchell, as writers who have contributed to the project. The writer
claims his prose and novels are his bedrock as a writer, but he first began his
literary endeavours writing poetry, publishing his first collection when he was
fifteen years old. His greatest success as a writer came with his novel “The
Blue Fox,” when it would go on to receive The Nordic Council Prize for
Literature in two-thousand and five, cementing Sjon’s unique presence on the
international literary stage.
Nicanor
Parra – Chile – Nicanor Parra is an influential Latin American and Spanish
language poet, at the centennial age of one-hundred and two, going on
one-hundred and three. Despite being a poet, Nicanor Parra did not studying
literature or linguistics or creative writing at university. Instead Parra
studied mathematics, physics, and cosmology instead. The poetic ambitions of
Nicanor Parra were then more of artistic and personal passion, rather than
method of study. Parra is not a typical poet though, as he renounced the pomp
and stylistic formalities of poetry, in favour of a more down to earth and
colloquial form of expression. Parra dubbed his form of poetry: “antipoetry,”
where he deconstructs preconceived notions of poetry, and instead binds the
element of his poetry to the everyday and the expression of social realities,
in a plan language format. With his revolutionary style and language, in which
he discusses everyday issues, while removing and deconstructing ingrained
prejudices and perspectives of formal school of poetry. Nicanor Parra is one of
the greatest Spanish language poets, heralding from South America, where he is
revered and respected. Being over one-hundred years old, often casts doubts on Nicanor
Parra’s chances to win the Nobel Prize for Literature. Yet, the former
Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Peter Englund, had once commented
in an interview a writers age, nationality, and gender plays no parts in the
objective adjudicating process of the Swedish Academy.
F.
Sionil José – Philippines – The Filipino literary Sage is ninety-two pushing
ninety-three. F. Sionil José is the Philippines most renowned writer currently
at work, and is the most translated Filipino writer of contemporary Filipino
literature; including a bestselling writer in Russia. For years now, Sionil José
has shoulder the Philippines nationalistic desire to win the Nobel Prize for
Literature. F. Sionil José’s work is
known for grappling with numerous and weighty themes, such as: colonialism,
revolution, abject poverty, cronyism in politics, as well as social and class
struggles. His “Rosales Saga,” is a five novel series, which dive into the
depths of Filipino society. This epic saga took the author twenty-two years to
write. F. Sionil José’s works are noted
for their sense of ‘political obligation,’ as they recount the Philippines
continual change in political master from colonial rule to war time occupation.
F. Sionil José may not receive the Nobel Prize for Literature, but his service
to Filipino literature cannot be mistaken. He offers acerbic wisdom on the
current state of the Philippines much like any literary grandfather would, as
he best, deploring the citizens leaving the country to find work, and the lack
of engagement of the Philippines literature. But the author states the best way
to find a solution or present a solution is a story.
Keki
N. Daruwalla – India (English Language) – Daruwalla is a poet, prose writer and
former police officer and special assistant to the Prime Minister on
International affairs, before his retirement. Throughout his illustrious and
interesting career, Keki N. Daruwalla wrote poetry and prose, and gathered
critical acclaim for his writings. When discussing Indian literature,
especially English Indian literature, Keki N. Daruwalla is bound to appear. Daruwalla’s
poetry has been anthologized; and both his poetry and prose have gone on to win
numerous awards, including: the Sahitya Akademi Award and the Commonwealth
Poetry Prize. His prose is known for its bitter, skeptical and often satirical
notes of tone, where he traces the dark sides of human existence and
experience. On these grounds Keki N. Daruwalla, believes literature (be it
poetry or prose) must be socially aware, committed and engaged. Daruwalla’s
poetic themes range from an infatuated preoccupation with love, to death,
destruction and domination/colonialism. Critics often point out the poet’s
particular interest in depicting landscapes in his poetry, especially those
which reach beyond the borders of India, often reflecting the foreign
landscapes he has visited as a government official.
Ulrich
Holbein – Germany – Two-thousand and ten, was called the year of Ngũgĩ wa
Thiong'o. Ladbrokes and NicerOdds, shot up the chances of Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o
winning the Nobel Prize in the last days of speculation, and the internet went
mad with the possibility that it was the authors year to win. Thiong'o’s resume
was displayed and the merits brought forward, such as his left leaning politics
and the fact he wrote in a African tribal language. Alas, it was not the year
for Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, as Mario Vargas Llosa became the Nobel Laureate in
Literature. During the final days open of last minute speculation new names
became increasing contenders. One of those names was the German writer, Ulrich
Holbein. There is relatively little to no biographical or bibliographic
information about Ulrich Holbein, in English. What can be discerned is he is a
prolific writer, often called avant-garde; meaning he works in literary genres
of his own creation. He was born in the former East Germany, before his family
defected and moved to West Germany. His work is known for being satirical,
subjective, and difficult and riddled with a unique and playful structure
mimicking and emulating postmodern theories and philosophies, to reflect a
post-capitalist world.
Margaret
Atwood – Canada – Sometimes there is no avoiding the elephant in the room or on
the stage. Margaret Atwood is currently revitalized with many younger readers
and people, do the adaption of her famous dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s
Tale,” to a television series. The novel has found itself poignantly
representative of the current state of American political affairs; and women
young and old are picking up the novel as a weapon of protest. Women dressed in
red cloaks and white blinders have graced Capitol Hill as well as the Texan
legislature, to protest women’s rights and legislative restrictions. In these
regards Atwood is considered something of an oracle and prophet. Her three
decade novel has found itself on the frightening scale of possible. For this
Margaret Atwood is interviewed invited on speaking ventures, to offer her
consolidation and support to those who are enraged and worried about the
administrations chaotic agenda. With all this attention, many have speculated
that Margaret Atwood and her work are more relevant now than ever. Her work
deals with numerous themes from identity, to women’s issues, and more recently
the environment, and the concerning future of the human race. Though Margaret
Atwood has been graced with a renewed sense of urgency; the Nobel are always
awarded as a life time of achievement and recognition. Atwood does have years
of engagements with the literary scene as well as socio-political issues,
ranging from women’s rights to environmentalism and environmental protection.
But, her work is rather uneven. When Margaret Atwood is at her highest peak,
she is a master; but when she’s not top of her game, the response is lukewarm
and understated at best. Can Margaret Atwood win a Nobel; the possibility
exists just as much for her as it does other writers like Philip Roth and Joyce
Carol Oats and Thomas Pynchon.
Two Nonagenarian
Poets –
Philippe
Jaccottet – Switzerland (French language) – Philippe Jaccottet is a Swiss born,
French language poet and translator. Jaccottet is one of those renowned but
quiet giants of Swiss and French language literature. His poetry is known to
tackle the dual theme of perception of reality and the feelings of reality. In
other words, Philippe Jaccottet endeavors to find a relation between the
natural worlds via the subjectivity, but tackles the matter in two different
ways. The first way is the way in which the world is observed and subjectively
perceived by the individual; while the second way, is grasping the emotional
responses of the observed world. This is why his poetry is often called
paradoxically simplistic and profound (other state mysterious). After the
Belgian poet Henri Michaux; Philippe Jaccottet is considered one of the most
important French language poets of the twentieth century. Due to Jaccottet’s
contribution and devotion to French literature and poetry, he has been inducted
in to the: ““Bibliothèque de la Pléiade,” (Pleiades Library), in two-thousand
and fourteen. This marks Philippe Jaccottet as the fourth Swiss writer to be
included in the Pleiades Library; and in a rare, one of the few writers to be
inducted while still living.
Friederike
Mayröcker – Austria – Poetry is a difficult product to bring to market.
Translated poetry experiences greater hurdles because of its reliance on the
linguistics of its mother tongue, to show complete effect. Avant-garde and
experimental poetry is often deemed to be left untouched. Poetry is considered
a niche market; or rather, an extremely small flea market. It’s deemed an
obscure and obsolete form of communication. High school poetry segments and
lectures, have since taken the sand paper to any budding poetic pallet, and
rubbed it clean of any airy thoughts or desire to ever read or consume poetry.
Poetry is the sick man of the literary world. Its old, it’s crippled, it’s
sickly, and has since been moved to attic to suffer in silence. It’s ignored
and ostracized; it’s not welcome at the party, its conversations are either
self-absorbed in nature, or there to prove how clever it is; or it sits there
grasping at the air searching for the most perfect words to express that
particular moment, which no one has time for because the beat has dropped. Yet,
there are still those who practice the form, keeping the dying flame above a
shallow smolder. Friederike Mayröcker is
one of those poets, who doesn’t care if poetry has fallen to the way side. Her
poetry is experimental and avant-garde, and yet she is still considered one of
the greatest and refined Austrian poets and of the greatest contemporary poets
at work in the German language. Her poetry is known for its free style writing,
where liberty is taken with association, and private obsessions, all wrapped up
in her linguistic gymnastics. Friederike
Mayröcker eschews national and political association in favour of the
individual and experience. It’s through this personal language and experience,
often employing a collage like language to display her unique poetic
perspective.
Lest We Forget –
Time
is an enemy of every mortal, and writers are mortal. Not every write is capable
of receiving the golden call and the Nobel accolade, for numerous reasons. The
most common reason though is time caught up with them, and they died. Since its
inception, the Swedish Academy and the rotating Nobel Committee have missed
opportunities to recognize great writers with the Nobel, over the years. Now
the Swedish Academy is at times unjustly blamed for the oversight of some
writers. For example: Virginia Woolf, Marcel Proust, Franz Kafka, and Anton
Chekhov, died at early ages. But some authors were declined, due to a gross
display in poor judgement. Leo Tolstoy for example was praised on one hand by
the Swedish Academy, for his immortal works: “War & Peace,” and “Anna
Karenina,” but, was dismissed due to his social and political theories, as well
as his new translation of the new testament, which was riddled with ‘half
mystical, half rationalistic spirit.’ The Tolstoy snub, has been a difficult
shadow to get out from behind. The American poet Robert Frost was also refused
the Nobel, on the grounds of his advanced age, and the complications it would
present. Jorge Luis Borges was tied in knots over his neglected nod. It is
theorized Borges, was often turned down do to his vocal support of dictators
like Augusto Pinochet of Chile and Jorge Rafael Videla of Argentina; as well as
being an adamant critic of Communism. Henrik Ibsen is perhaps one of the most
unfortunate writers who were overlooked. Ibsen is the most important
playwrights since Shakespeare. Ibsen did die while the Nobel’s were still in
their infancy; but he was discussed by the Swedish Academy, was ultimately
turned down because he was too realistic, and not idealistic enough. It should
be noted, in these early years, the Swedish Academy ‘literally,’ interpreted
the contents of the Alfred Nobel’s will, and in doing so sought to award
writers who wrote with an ideal bent; before abandoning this approach in favour
of a contextual interpretation, which varies in its grounds of interpretation
year by year or decade by decade.
The
following writers are writers who never received the Nobel Prize for
Literature; for whatever reason, on whatever grounds. I include them here, to
honour them as worthy, powerful, and timeless. Their work in their respective
genre or field or their cultural influence be it national or international are
difficult to dismiss. But I also choose to honour them on personal grounds as
well.
Antonio
Tabucchi – Italy – Antonio Tabucchi is a giant of world literature, a
refreshing voice, with a unique perspective of the world. Tabucchi was often
called the ‘heir of Italo Calvino,’ as Italy’s greatest writer—and in becoming
Italy’s greatest writer, Tabucchi would be forced to shoulder the mantel of the
nationalistic hopes and dreams of the government, for a Nobel. This is slightly
ironic, as Antonio Tabucchi, could not be bothered by nationalistic desires,
hopes or dreams; his predilections took greater importance and priority, then
anything nation interested. One such interest would become Antonio Tabucchi’s
greatest influence: the esoteric poet, and medium of writer(s): Fernando
Pessoa, and his numerous literary identities or alter egos, the Heteronyms.
Fernando Pessoa, was a unique and obscure character, who only found his
recognition after his early death; it was there his masterpiece “The Book of
Disquiet,” was discovered, as well as his poems republished, among other
miscellaneous writings. What truly separate Fernando Pessoa, from anyone prior,
was his unique use of literary alter egos (Heteronyms), who wrote under their
own names, as well as in their own writing style. Fernando Pessoa was a writer
in plural, a conjurer of the occult in the literary; a creator of writers, held
in his own body. Through Pessoa, Antonio Tabucchi was introduced to the
Portuguese language, and from there a love affair bloomed between Antonio
Tabucchi and Portugal. Fernando Pessoa makes appearances in Tabucchi’s work,
such as “Requiem: A Hallucination,” as well as “Dreams of Dreams.” Despite
being a Pessoa scholar, Antonio Tabucchi’s work goes beyond Pessoa. Antonio
Tabucchi wrote numerous novels and short stories—and even professed the short
story was his natural format. His work deals with identity, chance and fate; enteral
themes such as love, death, and memory; as well as the accuracy of history and
the individual entrapped in historical contexts. Like any good writer though,
Tabucchi had a lightness of touch and never displayed these themes with a lead
hand. Unlike Italo Calvino; Antonio Tabucchi, was noted for being both socially
committed and politically engaged; he was an adamant critic of the former prime
minister of Italy Silvio Berlusconi; and his novels are also known for
displaying political themes and discussions, where they criticize and revolt
against dictatorships, the corruption of power, and the abuse of authority.
Antonio Tabucchi was a great writer, timeless, important, entertaining, and
thought provoking. He was the best kind of literary writer, one who had the
touch of a literary magician, who could be read with enjoyment, and still offer
questions to ponder.
Mu
Xin – China – The twentieth century was one of those miserable centuries,
plagued by grand wars, political change, upheaval and revolutions, dictators
rose and fell, empires dissolved, weapons of mass destruction were developed
and released; and through it all, people sat in front of their radios or later
on their television, and listened and viewed these events as curiosities, of
tragedy and success, but always as far flung events which are of no
importance—or more accurately: of no real effect or concern to them. These
events were simply parochial skirmishes, far beyond suburbia, and therefore
were not a threat. These events and tragedies did have victims. Thousands and
millions of people died or were displaced. Families were torn apart or killed.
Hope became terror. Mu Xin is one such victim. Mu Xin, before the Chinese civil
war and subsequent Cultural Revolution, was an individual of prospects. His
family was filled with intellectuals, with no surprise; Mu Xin would receive
classical education. Then political reform and revolution took place, and Xin,
like all intellectuals and children of intellectually prosperous families, was
deemed an enemy of the state. Mu Xin would be taken as a political prisoner due
to his enemy status; his writings and paintings destroyed. This would begin the
author’s prosecution under the Communist regime, and Xin would become political
victim of circumstance, fate and family. Yet, persisted and as he survived the
Cultural Revolution, Mu Xin would enter exile, to only live an isolated and
alienated life. During his exiled years, Mu Xin wrote and painted; but his
writing had no published, and it was banned from his home country; while his
paintings were shown in his exile, they did not receive much in attention or
acclaim. Consolation though was at hand, at least in exile, he was capable of writing
and painting without fear of repercussion, prosecution, or having them
confiscated or destroyed. Despite being underappreciated and relatively
unknown, Mu Xin would eventually find success in his twilight years. All that
suffering would eventually come to their end, when he was welcomed back to his
homeland of China, where his work was published and devoured; his paintings
were on display and appreciated. Mu Xin died in two-thousand and eleven,
without a Nobel; but he would have been a perfect candidate. His masterly of Chinese, is classical and
culturally pure, beyond political revolutions. His work is uniquely Chinese,
often dealing with themes of Chinese culture, but it has a unique twist as
being reminiscent of the modernist masters of the western canon. Mu Xin was a
true bridge, he blended China’s illustrious literary heritage and history, with
modern western thought, to create a unique perspective and genre all his own.
His work (often called ‘sanwen,’) is
a unique blend of essay, short story and poetry. Despite not receiving a Nobel,
Mu Xin, found peace with his soul and his native land, and was able to leave
the final five years of his life in China. Mu Xin is perhaps one of the
greatest discoveries and writers I have ever had the pleasure of reading.
Anna
Akhmatova – Russia – Just over fifty years ago, Anna Akhmatova found herself at
the potential threshold of becoming a Nobel Laureate. The only condition is,
should have shared the award with Mikhail Sholokhov. This all took place back
in nineteen-sixty five, when there was serious discussion about the award being
split, either between: Jorge Luis Borges and Miguel Ángel Asturias (on the
grounds they wrote in the same language), Nelly Sachs and Shmuel Yosef Agnon
(for their preoccupation with the Jewish people and spirit), or finally: Anna
Akhmatova and Mikhail Sholokhov (on the grounds they wrote in the same
language). These propositions were shot down; mainly because if the award went
out like this, it would mean the Academy was split and a compromise was the
only agreeable route. In the end, Mikhail Sholokhov, took the prize.
Nineteen-sixty five was the first year Anna Akhmatova was nominated for the
prize, and sadly would never receive the Nobel nod. Yet, Anna Akhmatova lives
on as a somewhat resilient and stoic figure of the early Soviet period. The
poet was known as the Soul of the Silver Age, before the Stalinist Terror took
hold. Her poetry is often divided into two categories, here early output, and
her later output. Akhmatova, gathered success early in her career, as she was
refreshing, daring and above all else new and exciting. Her women readers would
compose poems for her, emulating her style; and for the briefest of moments she
would experience the lighthearted joys of life. It would all change, after the
Russian Revolution during the First World War. After which the terrors and
purges would take place, the Russian intelligentsia were in shambles. It was
during this time, Anna Akhmatova’s poetry was censored, her first husband
killed, and her son would be sent to the gulags. Her friends would either be
exiled, sent to a gulag or commit suicide. Anna Akhmatova, continued to live,
despite the misery the reigning Soviet regime poured down, and she never left
Russia, she remained despite the limitations, the lack of prosperity, and the
censorship. Anna Akhmatova remained, and in her later years of poetry output
would document the horrors of Stalin’s reign and terror in her poetry,
especially the tragic masterpiece: “Requiem,” a poetic cycle detailing the
times, the fears, and the horror. Despite her being the muse and observer
watching the wretched horror of revolution and authoritarian government take
control, Anna Akhmatova would once again relieve he joys of the Silver Age, in
her longest poetry cycle: “Poem Without Hero,” it is here she recounts the joys
and kindness she once enjoyed; a complete contrast to what had come. Anna
Akhmatova is a unique figure of Russian literature. On one hand she was this
successful poet, acclaimed by readers, as lovers were once said to have quoted
her poetry; and on the other, she is this poetic chronicler and engaged
observer, who opened her mouth and a thousand mouths screamed forth. Now, Anna
Akhmatova is considered is beloved, and considered one of the greatest poets of
Twentieth Century Russian Literature. Nobel or no Nobel, Anna Akhmatova gave
voice and hope to the people during the purges, the terrors, and the
uncertainties of the time; but she also gave them hope, warmth, and injected
iron into their soul, to resist and endure.
Vijaydan
Detha – India – Detha was a modern short story master. He had left over eight
hundred short stories behind upon his death in two-thousand and thirteen, at
the age of eighty-seven. Vijaydan Detha, would not be called or considered a
cosmopolitan writer. His work is not globetrotting. His work was often
considered parochial, and limited to his home state of Rajasthan, which
provided countless gems and rays of inspiration for the author, as he would
record, document, codify, and then reshape the folktales of the land into his
short stories. He was often referred to as the Rajasthani Shakespeare. His
short stories were known as simplistic and often exposed power. Vijaydan Detha
was a writer who inhabited the people’s hearts, and had a deep affection for
his home state. He was offered numerous enticements to leave and lecture, but
he always declined, preferring the desert area of his home, to anywhere else.
His writing was at once allegorical and realistic, asking questions about the
personal reflecting the grander historical. Vijaydan Detha was one of those
spectacular writers of Indian literature; he had the power to entice with
simplicity and folktale enjoyment, but offered deep and underlying questions
about the nature of power, the arbitration of history, and how the personal is
a reflection of ones place in both history and the world. Detha was a colossus
of literature, but was humble nonetheless. He offered sage like wisdom, and
counsel on the state of the human races destiny. Vijaydan Detha, was a writer
who wrote in an ideal direction; he entreated the reader with simplistic
language and empathetic themes, but his eyes were always cast upon the human
races fate and destiny, and the independent person or the weak exploited by
more powerful players or people.
Ricardo
Piglia – Argentina – Ricardo Piglia was one of the most renowned and respected
writers to come from South America; and is considered the successor of Jorge
Luis Borges. Piglia was noted for his novels, short stories, as well as his
essays and criticism. His essays and criticism, has often titled him as a pop
culture historian, as he wrote extensively on numerous authors, especially
Jorge Luis Borges, Julio Cortazar, and Manuel Puig. His critcimism and essays
on these writers, often gathered Piglia the title of a pop culture
historian. Ricardo Piglia’s fiction,
especially his novels, were known for displaying his interest in genre fiction;
but like many of his postmodernist contemporaries, it was a facade, in which
Piglia was able to exploit in order to apply his literary and philosophical
interests and knowledge. Ricardo Piglia, was a giant of contemporary Argentina
literature; his works could straddle entertaining and thought provoking; his
criticism and essays, were thorough and philosophically curious. He was a
postmodern master of South American and Argentinian literature.
Yves Bonnefoy – France – People always
say nice things about someone when they die. Its honouring both the life lived
and the individual who had lived it. Most obituaries are riddled with factual
information, a brief vignette of the individual’s life, and then surviving
family; if the circumstances are tragic or extremely unfortunate, such as
young, murder or accident, they mask for a donation to a charity in lieu of
flowers. Writers—or rather, individuals who have obtained a certain prestigious
position, meaning politicians, artists, dancers, musicians—generally get a
little bit more to their celebration of life. Yves Bonnefoy was no different,
and certainly anything else would never do him justice. After all was
considered the pre-eminent French language poet before his death, not after;
but he was herald as one of the greatest French post-war poets of the twentieth
century. Yves Bonnefoy showcased his
poetic genius upon his debut with: “On the Motion and Immobility of Douve,” a
poetic sequence which tackled the obscure womanly figure, but also recounted
the death and rebirth of the poetic format; beyond its poetic themes and
narrative, the debut was considered a technical feat of mastery; and from this
point on, Bonnefoy would become one of the most renowned and respected poets of
his generation. Beyond poetry, Yves Bonnefoy was a renowned translator
(Shakespeare) as well as art critic; he was also noted for his essays and
literary criticism. His poetry reflects the world in which was born into, a
world on the brink of collapse, devastated by war, civilized culture in ashes,
and man vs man the only doctrine that mattered. In this, Yves Bonnefoy’s poems
sought to find meaning in another meaningless world, in an age and era devoid
of meaning. Perception and language are the main tools for which, the poet
attempts to find meaning or give meaning or apply meaning; such as observing
the individuals place in the natural world; while language is the key in which
the individual understand and comprehend the world, offering it meaning by naming
it, and giving it a sense of identity. Yet, Bonnefoy’s poetry is noted for
being obscure and highly difficult to read; and the poet made no apologies for
the difficulty of his poems. Yves Bonnefoy’s contribution to French language
poetry cannot be overlooked or dismissed; his work went from attempting to
create or find spiritual or philosophical meaning, in a world gone mad; to his
later poetry where he found at least enough spiritual tranquility to be at
peace with it. His poetry is high and difficult, but admired nonetheless. His
criticism of literature and art, are equally well respected. Yves Bonnefoy, was
an intellectual through and through, with the right amount of luck, grit, and
intelligence to make his mark on the world. Calling him, France’s pre-eminent
poet, does not begin to do the poet justice; but it’s a start.
Simin
Behbahani – Iran – Being referred to as the “Lioness of Persian Poetry,” is an
invigorating honour, which reflects both grandeur and fiery spirit. Roar claws
and all. Simin Behbahani was a lioness, with a poetic career and oeuvre
reflecting the echoes and reverberations of her nuanced and beautiful
observations of Iran. Her work is known for encompassing a wide variety of
themes including: revolution, war, peace, abject class disparities, martial
life, domestic violence, gender discrimination, patriotism, aging, love, death,
and global violence. Her poetry is noted for its warmth and welcoming nature,
but also for being armed with arsenal of experiences and perspectives documenting
the difficulties and trivialities of the modern Iranian experience, while also promoting freedom of expression,
gender hegemony, and egalitarianism; making Simin Behbahani an engaged socially
aware and politically vocal writer, seeking to better Iran and the human race
beyond its petty squabbles. Behbahani often employed mundane daily events to
provide narratives for her poetry, such as her: “From the Street,” cycle, where
she recounts, depicts, and observers the contradictions and paradoxes of the modern
Iranian experience; such as woman who gives birth while waiting for food
rations, or another women who is stoned to death. In this Iran is a mere shadow
of itself; with its historical achievements and cultural accomplishments. Now
Iran is a place ruled by archaic doctrines, while surrounded by the superficialities
of modern furnishings. Simin Behbahani is not without suffering for these
causes. She was censored and harassed. She was interrogated by the police for
celebrating International Women’s Day in the streets of Tehran; and was banned
from leaving the country to celebrate International Women’s Day in Paris. On
these grounds Behbahani, is often strictly called a feminist, meaning someone
who is only concerned with the rights and lives of women, and the social
progression of women through society. This is an inadequate description. Simin
Behbahani was humanistic, more than she was myopically concerned with the
female side of the human spectrum. Behbahani was concerned with basic
principles and ideals of the human experience; the same principles, ideals and
freedoms denied to Iranians by the government and its theocratic blindness. Simin
Behbahani proclaimed, fought, wrote, and roared about these ideals, and did her
best fight for them. She sought egalitarianism, freedom of expression and
speech, social progression et cetera; while staying free of the trap falls of
partisan politics. Man, woman, Islamic faith or not; it did not matter to Simin
Behbahani, as she believed every human being belonged to the same race,
deprived of these notions which separate and isolate each other. Her poetic
perspectives are tinted with the feminine experience and emotional responses,
because that is who she was. Yet, she fiercely protected and fought for her
ideals, her perspectives, and voiced them without hesitation. She suffered the
consequences of them as well, politically and socially. Resilient as always Simin
Behbahani became an admirable figure of resistance, and conviction in her
ideals. Beyond her socio-political engagements, Simin Behbahani, is also known
for writing some of the most important verse of Persian literature in the
twentieth century. She revolutionized poetry, by including theatrical subjects,
as well as daily life events, and mundane conversations. It is somewhat of a
public record that Simin Behbahani was
nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature twice; and it also somewhat public
record that in order to be considered, you need to be nominated [I think] three
times. If only Simin Behbahani had been nominated more, she perhaps would have
had a greater chance. Regardless, she was a striking revolutionary poet whose merit,
ideas, ideals, and fighting spirit live on in her verse.
FIN –
There
it is Gentle Reader, the pre-emptive beginning for this Nobel Prize Speculative
List. To read the full list, please come back August 14th, to see
the seventy-six writers, placed on the list. Your comments, thoughts, opinions,
and recommendations are always warmly welcomed. The above, is simply ruminations,
thoughts, and opinions. I do not envy the Swedish Academy. Their decisions can
be polarizing, and often criticized. Despite this, there can be no denying the
Nobel’s golden charm, in which winners are translated into different languages,
invited to speaking ventures, and their opinions often solicited. As always,
those eighteen Swedes have their work cut out for them, and sometimes they get
it right, and sometimes they get wrong. As the former Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Peter Englund, once said: there is never shortage of worthy candidates, its always difficult to pick the one. Regardless Gentle Reader, it is always fun to speculate; despite knowing full well, its groundless and aimless, as there is no real way to speculate about the prize with affirmation that any specific writer will win, some are just seen as more possible with greater chances then others. Yet, its enjoyable to learn about new writers, and that is solely the goal with the Nobel Speculation, its the discovery of new horizon and unexplored territory; which always broaden ones reading tastes and capabilities.
Thank-you
For Reading Gentle Reader
Take
Care
And
As Always
Stay
Well Read
M.
Mary
And
again: I do hope to see you back on August 14th, as well as hearing from you.
For
Further Reading about the subjects above, please feel free to follow the links
below:
About Goran
Malmqvist, Mo Yan, and Liao Yiwu –
About Astrid
Lindgren –
A small correction: the Swedish Academy has 18 members.
ReplyDeleteThank-you for your comment,
ReplyDeleteYes there are eighteen members of the Academy; but Chair No. 9, is vacant due to Torgny Lindgren died earlier this year; and Chair No. 15, Kerstin Ekman, is inactive, and does not participate in any selection, decision, or discussion of the Swedish Academy.
M. Mary
Excellent analysis; but
ReplyDelete1. Ngugi Wa Thiong'o : [ Kenyan writer ]
2. Haruki Murakami : [ Japanese writer ]
3. Antonio Lobo Antunes : [ Portuguese novelist ]
4. Ismail Kadaré : [ Albanian poet and novelist ]
5. Yan Lianke : [ Chinese writer ]
are the most compitent;
Either Antonio Lobo Antunes OR Ismail Kadare is going to win.
Hello Rahman Henry,
DeleteThank-you for your comment. Your list is very intriguing and interesting. Personally, I hope Haruki Murakami does not receive the award, as I find him rather uninspiring. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o has his merits, but again is a perennial listed writer; I am almost wondering if Ismail Kadare is like Milan Kundera and Philip Roth respectively, in that his time has passed - though he may still have a chance, after all he is still alive. if I recall Antonio Lobo Antunes, some years ago shot himself in foot when, Jose Saramago became a Nobel Laureate, Antunes criticized the academy - and we know the academy does not take criticism lightly or impersonally. Yan Lianke is a lot like Mo Yan, though more critical of the government and more controversial.
I hope this years award, is a surprise and a obscure writer is brought forth from the wood work. The best years in recent memory (for me) were: 2009 (Herta Müller), 2011 (Tomas Tranströmer), 2013 (Alice Munro), and 2014 (Patrick Modiano) - for being surprising and deserving after I got better acquainted with the writers. I enjoy it when the Nobel brings to light a new writer.
Again, thank-you for your comment!
M. Mary