Hello
Gentle Reader
Last
week it was autumn in full force. Now a winter storms whips and whirls through
my region, bringing wet heavy snow, and a frigid north wind. Some would say: it
feels a lot like Christmas. Others would resent that comment. But today is a
rather special day; today the Swedish Academy, announced these years Nobel
Announcement Date would take place on the suspected and conventional date of:
Thursday, October 5th. In that regard it does feel a little bit like
Christmas.
Generally
around this time, after my closing thoughts have been mulled over and discussed
I leave speculation alone until the date of the announcement, at which point I
reconvene with the news and express my congratulations (generally speaking). This
year, however, I am too excited in a way to resign completely from the
discussion.
Despite
the Swedish Academy releasing this year’s announcement date for this week,
there has been very little shift in odds; but the speculation and the
discussion has only intensified, making this one of those exciting years; as
the sour taste of last year slowly dissipates into oblivion.
The
favored candidates remain the same: [ According to the Betting Sites ]
Ngugi
Wa Thiong'o (NicerOdds)
Haruki
Murakami (NicerOdds)
Margaret
Atwood (NicerOdds)
Ko
Un (Ladbrokes)
Followed
by:
Amos
Oz
Adunis
Claudio
Magris
Yan
Linake
Javier
Marias
Jon
Fosse
Cesar
Aira
Ismail
Kadare
László
Krasznahorkai
David
Grossman
Gerald
Murnane
A.B.
Yehoshua
Peter
Nadas
Daniel
Kahneman
Doris
Kareva
Merethe
Lindstrøm
Juan
Marsé
Kjell
Askildsen
Dubravka
Ugrešic
Adam
Zagajewski
Mircea
Cartarescu
Leonard
Nolens
Sirkka
Turkka
Cees
Nooteboom
Jaan
Kaplinski
Tua
Forsström
Bei
Dao
Please
Note Gentle Reader, the above list was taken from the betting sites, and is
based on the lowest odds given to the listed writers.
( I )
In
two-thousand and ten many proclaimed it was the year Ngugi Wa Thiong'o would
win. Many commentators and speculators offered detailed analysis as to why they
thoroughly believed, the Kenyan writer would take the award. First and
foremost: his nationality. The last African writer (by continental definition)
was the Nigerian playwright, poet, and memoirist, Wole Soyinka in
nineteen-eighty six. By awarding Ngugi Wa Thiong'o, many saw this as adequate
compensation for the neglect and oversight, the African continent has often
suffered on the literary world stage. The second reason, he writes in a
traditional and tribal African dialect (Gikuyu), which the writer is able to
preserve the traditional and cultural identity of his native land. Third and
finally, Ngugi Wa Thiong'o discusses post-colonial themes in his work, and how
they have shaped the continent as it is today; in political terms, he has
mapped the contemporary narrative of the African continent, through its
oppressive colonial rule, to the high hopes of independence, to political
disillusionment and disappointment post colonialism and independence was. He
has been imprisoned for his plays and his writings, and has been exiled for his
criticism against the new oppressive power of Kenya. Yet, in two-thousand and
ten, despite being the bookies favored candidate to receive the Nobel Prize for
Literature, Ngugi Wa Thiong'o was passed over in favour of the Peruvian writer:
Mario Vargas Llosa.
The
Swedish Academy was under heavy fire and criticism, when Chinua Achebe died in
two-thousand and thirteen, without receiving the Nobel recognition. Many called
fowl on the Swedish Academy’s perceived ignorance, and willful desire to
neglect and overlook writers hailing from the continent. Despite the criticism,
Ngugi Wa Thiong'o, remains (as it stands) in the peripherals of the Nobel Prize
for Literature.
(
II )
Haruki
Murakami has been the perennial Nobel bridesmaid for many years now; yet he is
not entirely alone, as he has company with: Philip Roth, Ismail Kadare, Milan
Kundera, and Ko Un. Personally, I think Haruki Murakami is often considered a
candidate, due to his high level international appearance. After all, Murakami,
is the western publishing industries darling: he’s foreign as he is familiar;
weird enough to sell well (and he does) while grounded enough not to alienate
the readers. He offers the illusion of literary experimentation, which in
reality are merely pop cultural references and odd moments of surrealism. His
philosophy is at best aimed towards youthful disillusionment and urban
existentialism. Not really the hallmark of grand philosophical ideas. His decision to move from: ‘detachment,’ to
‘commitment,’ is superficial at best. Credit is due to Murakami, as his work
has transcended the cultural barriers of Japan and the Western World, becoming
a very popular and well known writer, as well as successful. This being said,
noteworthy, international reputation, popularity, and success do not always
translate to Nobel worthy. Murakami lacks the required depth (in my opinion) to
be considered a Nobel Laureate. His commitment to the repressed, downtrodden,
and victims of society, is again superficial; and neither revolutionary nor
groundbreaking. It’s a cheap ploy in order for the writer to present himself as
a socially conscious writer. He may have written books about the earthquake, or
the Tokyo subway sarin attack; his actions beyond the pen do not showcase any
further involvement. He is not in other words: Herta Müller or Kenzaburō Ōe. A
fine writer, who has helped shape and influence Japan’s contemporary youth; but
he would be a very uninspiring choice, lacking any imagination or profound
reasoning, and would be a subsequent disappointment.
(
III )
In
two-thousand and thirteen, Alice Munro, won the Nobel Prize for Literature; and
it came as quite a shock. The applause, however, were endless. Those who read
the short story masters work heralded the decision as being long overdue. I too
applauded the decision, but was left confused at the same time. Perhaps it’s
the fundamental and dogmatic Canadian modesty, which is sewn into our flesh and
branded on our hearts, and engraved on our brains—that Munro’s Nobel, came as
quite a shock. Up until two-thousand and thirteen, I did not think any Canadian
writer was ever in the running for the Nobel Prize for Literature; let alone
had a chance at the Nobel accolade. Alice Munro was a quiet giant. She wrote
her stories, and let them speak for themselves; she was not known for going on
the television to defend her work, or promote it. She resigned herself, to the
rafters and behind the curtains, remaining reticent and regal. When the once
advertised ‘housewife writer,’ won the Nobel, it was a shock and delight.
Seeing
Margaret Atwood as one of the favored writers for this year’s prize is less
then thrilling. As previously mentioned in my closing thoughts, Margaret Atwood
is a prolific writer, who has written in numerous literary formats: poetry,
prose, short story, essay, children’s literature, libretti, and now comic
books. Not to mention her numerous speaking engagements, editor of anthologies,
commentaries, twitter tweets, and activism. She’s the Joyce Carol Oates of
Canada; a singular industrial literary machine. Much like Joyce Carol Oates,
however, Atwood’s prolific nature is also her demise. Her output is uneven and
it shows in her vast diversity of her work. Playing many instruments may make
an individual well rounded, but do they ever become a master of any of them?
This conundrum falls to Margaret Atwood; she is most famous for her novels,
where she tackles numerous social and political issues, ranging from feminism
to environmental concerns; but again her novels range in quality, from good to
poor.
One
of the major reasons one should be apprehensive about Atwood’s position on the
betting sites, is once again the recent adaptions of her work. The recent
television adaptions of Margaret Atwood’s novels “The Handmaids Tale,” and “Alias
Grace,” have seen a resurgence of interest in Margaret Atwood. One should be
careful of awarding a writer, simply because interest has renewed in them due
to pop cultural adaptions. Though “The Handmaid’s Tale,” may be seen as having certain
relevance, due to the current presidential administration down in the United
States; and has been utilized as a symbol of resistance, freedom, democracy,
feminism, as well as protest. Still the Nobel Prize for Literature is a literary
award first and foremost; social and political ideas, themes, contexts,
narratives, and perspectives, are all secondary to the literary merit of the
author. Atwood could be another Doris Lessing, a writer with scathing preoccupations
and perspectives towards contemporary society, societal standards, social
conventions, and political institutions. The likeliness of this is slim; but
October 5th may state otherwise. As a writer though, with such a
massive oeuvre, international acclaim and renowned, Margaret Atwood does not
necessarily need the Nobel, as her work and commentary are often respected and solicited
for now. The Nobel would not necessarily change her positions, or lift her
higher—it would only increase her speaking engagements, and request for
interviews.
(
IV )
Ko
Un’s odds recently shifted on Ladbrokes. For years Ko Un has been considered in
the running; much like Jorge Luis Borges, Vladimir Nabokov, and W.H. Auden in
decades past, and much like Borges, Nabokov, and Auden, Ko Un has been passed
over. Now in his eighties, the Swedish Academy needs to make their decision on whether
or not Ko Un will receive the Nobel or not. His poetry is extensive and wide
reaching, covering the vast political discourse of the Korean peninsula over
the past fifty years.
Ko
Un’s poetic profile varies in form, themes, and format. He has written
imagistic poems, to haiku’s, to long epic narrative poems, as well as his monumental
poetic achievement: “Ten Thousand Lives”; a thirty volume poetic series, where
Ko Un wrote a poem to commemorate and remember every person he has ever met. This
thirty year, long poetic achievement came from Ko Un’s imprisonment, where he
waited to be executed; and vowed if he lived, he would write a poem for every
individual. “Ten Thousand Lives,” is both documentary through poetry, as Ko Un
discusses social themes, individual themes, and the people he remembers; it’s a
starting epic piece of work recounting the personal history of (South) Korea
and the Korean war, through the eyes of the citizens and individuals, who
witnessed firsthand the death and the destruction the war would bring, and the
division of their homeland into two spheres of ideologies.
During
the Korean War, Ko Un worked as a grave digger, and his studies were
interrupted. Many of his friends and family died during this time. The war had traumatized
Ko Un, so terribly; he even poured acid into one of his ears to drown out the
sounds, horrors, and noise of the war. This action would leave the poet deaf in
one year. In nineteen-fifty two, Ko Un spent a decade as a Buddhist monk, where
he published a collection of poems and a novel, but would soon abandon this way
of life, and returned to the layman’s world, with all its hardship and
suffering. In nineteen-seventy an alcoholic Ko Un attempted suicide, but
failed. It was a chance (and poetic epiphany)
during this time that Ko Un read a newspaper article, about a young textile
worker who immolated himself in protest against the government, advocated
worker’s rights, and democratic reform. It was then, Ko Un, the social activist
was awaken. During this time he founded numerous writers organizations for
freedom and democracy, and found himself at odds with the government of the
day, which imprisoned him three times due to his activism and political
activities. In prison, Ko Un, was beaten and tortured. After the coup d’état
and the military takeover, Ko Un was once again arrested, this time for treason
and sentenced for twenty years in prison, he was pardoned two years later, and
the poet would finally come at peace. He married, and dedicated his time to
writing poetry, chronicling and documenting the turbulence of the Korean peninsula.
Ko
Un would make a delightful Nobel Laureate. His poetry changes in style and
form, and its themes are wide ranging and historical scope, with personal
narrative. Ever socially aware and conscious of the state of the world, Ko Un
is a poet of engagement and commitment. It would also be a delight to see a true poet receive the award.
For
now though Gentle Reader, I resign myself to be quiet and anxiously patient for
Thursday to come around. Hopefully I’ll see you then in the early hours here.
Till then Gentle Reader:
Thank-you
For Reading Gentle Reader
Take
Care
And
As Always
Stay
Well Read
M.
Mary
Wonderful analysis, Mary. I too hope to see a true poet getting the prize this year.
ReplyDeleteHi Octavio,
DeleteThank-you very much! I couldn't agree more, a true poet (or even a true writer) will do!
M. Mary