Sara Stridsberg Officially Leaves the Swedish Academy

Hello Gentle Reader

In the past week there has been speculation and rumour that this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature would be postponed until 2019, whereupon two authors will be awarded jointly, one for this year and the other for 2019. The Swedish Academy as a whole has been fragmented when discussing the issue. Temporary Permanent Secretary Anders Olsson has only eluded that this is in discussions and debates, nothing concrete. Whereas Göran Malmqvist and Horace Engdahl have stated with zeal and spikey contempt: the good work will continue despite the scandal.

Since the scandal had first unsettled the Swedish Academy mid-April, the Swedish Academy has lost its usual and singular voice, when it came to discussing these issues. Since the exodus and dissent against the Academy, there has been a fragmented chorus, offering splintering perspectives of how the Swedish Academy should conduct its business; but nothing has been unified or concrete during these discussions

The Swedish Academy, however, has stated it will release a press release on May 3^rd announcing the fate of the Nobel Prize for Literature. In other words: on May 3^rd, the world will know whether or not the Swedish Academy will announce a Nobel Laureate in Literature for 2018.

Considering the current atmosphere and the weakened ranks of the Swedish Academy, logic suggests that there will be no Nobel Prize for Literature in 2018. The Swedish Academy is already lacking the required twelve members to hold a quorum to make any decisions; and to further add fuel to the fire, Sara Stridsberg has also decided to relinquish her seat from the Swedish Academy. This means, there are now only ten active members of eighteen.

It comes to no surprise that Sara Stridsberg has resigned from the seat. During the uproar and scandal, Stidsberg was a staunched ally of former Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Sara Danius. Since Sara Danius was forced in a compromise to step down from her role as Permanent Secretary (she resigned, to my knowledge, from the academy voluntarily), Sara Stidsberg has been a vocal and critical voice within the Academy, who has done battle against the old guard, and who has been repeatedly criticized (from what speculation leads) within the Swedish Academy for her public dissidence.

Now with Sara Stidsberg’s resignation, the Swedish Academy finds itself in a perilous and peculiar position—if it hadn’t already found itself before. All that remains, with a few exceptions, is the old guard of years gone past, who have been accused and blamed for the mishandling the recent allegations of sexual misconduct and misallocation of funds.

The Swedish Academy has a lot to clean up, and a lot of in house work to do. Three members in particular have been more damaging of late, then those who have left:

Chair No. 3 – Sture Allen –Who, when Permanent Secretary was first notified of the alleged sexual assaults, and chose not to act, considering the information unimportant.

Chair No. 5 – Göran Malmqvist – Whose blatant and passive aggressive comments against former members—more specifically, Sara Danius—have done nothing but fuel the media frenzy, and plunge the Swedish Academy further into a public display of discord.

Chair No. 17 – Horace Engdahl – Perhaps the most vocal and vitriolic, often feels he takes the impeachable moral high ground, but instead only makes an ass of himself, as he publicly releases his vexations and disgust openly, only to further move the academy into deeper modes of crisis.

But it should come to no surprise, Gentle Reader, that highly doubt any of the three above plan on resigning from their seats any time soon.

On May 3^rd Gentle Reader, we will learn the fate of this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature; though I wouldn’t be surprised if it is delayed.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

For Further Reading 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-academy/swedish-academy-misconduct-crisis-deepens-as-member-stridsberg-leaves-idUSKBN1HZ0E6

https://www.thelocal.se/20180428/six-member-quits-swedish-academy-over-assault

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-swedish-academy-member-sara-stridsberg-steps-down-misconduct-crisis-deepens-for-nobel-literature-prize-2609656

Sundays in August

Hello Gentle Reader

Youth has few qualities. Everything about youth is transient and impermanent. Youth as a state of existence is ethereal and ephemeral. It’s a time of only adjustment and just coming into one’s own. There is nothing concrete about youth. However, it is highly immortalized by the bitter sweet fragrance of nostalgia that wafts off it. As one ages they review and take stock of their life. When one is young, they can only dream and plan for a future that has yet to form. Some make it, while others do not. Some plan, while others merely stumble and party on to another great adventure. Some never make it. In one’s old age they attribute qualities to their youthful time. It’s all they can do. After all, memories themselves are distrustful and not accurate depictions of events which have previously transpired; they after all become faded around the peripheral edges; and much like Polaroid’s disintegrate into the oblivion of time now lost. Memories themselves are dishonest and distrustful. They are tainted by external forces and factors. Not to mention the innate desire to relive the glory and relinquish the insignificance. Those who praise the pass with engaged endearment often speak of: the good ol’ days; or the golden days; or in better times. They fail to truly take a panoramic view of the situation, or the former situation, and realize the only reason those times were better or golden, are because they were young then, and by extension full of energy and vigor, and had no time or commitments. Essentially: freedom. Beyond the attributes offered and allocated to these memories, youth in itself has few and minimal qualities, beyond its concepts of freedom, vigor, and time.

Patrick Modiano has been praised as a writer preoccupied with the big themes of literature: time, memory, amnesiac induced by national shame, personal oblivion, and the abandonment of aging; the absence of connections, and the gnawing emptiness of existence. Patrick Modiano is one of France’s most prolific authors. Which is not surprising, considering the size of a typical Modiano novel is quite short; rarely do they exceed two hundred pages. Despite his prolific nature and short novels, Modiano was not a well-known author in the English language until after he received the Nobel Prize for Literature in two-thousand and fourteen. After receiving the golden kiss from the Nobel, Modiano found himself thrust into the international spotlight, as readers everywhere began to pour over the books of one France’s best kept literary secrets. Unlike Michel Houellebecq and Christine Angot, who are known for their public statements, operatic gestures of discontent, controversial behaviors, opinions, commentaries, and perspectives, and lack of social conventions and graces; Patrick Modiano is quiet, reserved, and discreet his in his engagement with the public. He has rarely given interviews, and has often kept his opinions to himself or at least tucked away in private. He has never been author to cause controversy, or be accused of some ill-mannered behaviour. Yet despite the author avoiding unrestrained displays personal exorcism or public exhibition of character flaw and existential vitriol; his novels are known for being personal and often infused with personal experiences and tropes reminiscent of his own unfortunate childhood and squandered family history. Due to his preoccupations with time, memory, and the sensation that his novels are haunting and ghostly remnants of one another, and his characters each exist in an ethereal and intangible purgatory, with the river of oblivion continually flowing and circling around their solitary island of memory, where they starve off the white wash touch of times erasure, and relish in their personal obsessions and unanswered questions, all the while being completely alienated and isolated from their fellow men.

Perhaps one of the reasons Patrick Modiano was not well revered and reviewed in the English language before the Nobel, is due to his style. He is not a stylistic writer, riddling his sentences with poetic pomp or using language in linguistic feats of acrobatics. His writing style is straightforward and plain. This means, those who love the pretentious and the peculiar ostentatious experimentation, would most likely turn their noses up at the thought of reading a book with such reserved language and no formalistic attempt at experimentation. The other reason Modiano may have been overlooked in the English language, is he is not well known for his narratives. Patrick Modiano is no lyricist and he is not epicist either; there are no large scale battles between good and evil, or grand gestures of heroism. Yet, the novels would not be called or identified as quiet understated plots of garden realism either. Modiano’s novels are atmospheric riddles, questions are asked, proposed, and pondered—but rarely answered. This has often led to Patrick Modiano being compared to noir crime writers, such as Raymond Chandler, Dorothy B. Hughes, or Derek Raymond. Yet again though Patrick Modiano moves away from their traditional tropes, of hardened and down on their luck detectives sustain themselves via a liquid diet of cheap scotch and brooding vengeance. Modiano appears lighter on the surface, more airy and haunted, proposing questions of a haunted and elusive nature, riddled with abrupt departures, chance meetings, unhappy circumstances, abandoned surroundings and eclectic objects. Yet each perceived piece of the puzzle is an oddity that lacks place and partner. As many questions are posed and proposed, there are few answers, and only more questions begin to bellow out the more the characters seek to find resolve and an ending for their perilous conundrum of memory and reality. These preoccupations with memory and the art of remembrance have often brought on comparisons to Marcel Proust, the great French writer whose obsessive preoccupations of time, memory, and the art of reminiscent, forced the frail asthmatic author to document and writer one of the longest novels of recent memory. Yet the two authors could not be any more different once again, with Marcel Proust favouring long winded and winding sentences where memories ebbed and flowed, bringing with treasures, driftwood, messages, and long forgotten trysts. On the contrary Patrick Modiano’s style is clipped, fragmented and distrustful, whereupon it is always questioning and seeking validity or answers to an otherwise surreal and unsure world, populated by shadows, fading light, and dubious characters who melt and fade both into time and the landscape—making one question if they have ever existed at all.

“Sundays in August,” has been called the most noir novel Modiano has written—or at least been translated into English. It shows his range of style while he tackles his usual preoccupied themes. Rather than setting the novel in his usual stomping ground of Paris, Modiano sets “Sundays in August,” on the French Riviera, specifically: Nice. Amongst the extended light, the sparkling azure coast, the beaches riddled with tourists and topless sunbathers and speedo clad men bronzing, their lurks more shallow and shadowy people, who use the front of a tourist populated locale as a way to execute their schemes, con the unexpected, and drift away before their cruel and cunning deeds can be noticed and notified. Everything in Nice is as transient and intangible, people come and people go, while a fresh new boat of individuals or tourists will quickly fill the gaps and voids. One can quickly blend into Nice as just another passing waif or shadow amongst the sun, sea and sand. That is exactly what Jean and Sylvia wishes to do. If they can’t disappear, then they will simply melt and blend in amongst a crowd of aimless faces. Yet, with much of Patrick Modiano’s work there is the foam of moral ambiguity resting like foam on the surface. We quickly come to understand that Jean and Sylvia are not as innocent as they think they are. After all who walks with casual grace publicly while being saddled with a hug diamond necklace, called the Southern Cross? Which leads one to ponder and wonder about how two young people acquired a certain jewel of such exuberant expense? Then enters a shady character by the name of: Frédéric Villecourt; who the reader meets early in the novel along with Jean, both men reduced to mere shades of their former youthful glories. Villecourt has been reduced to peddling as a street vendor leather coats and accessories on the plazas and streets of Nice. Jean seems to exist in a state of stasis and emptiness as he recollects and recounts his experiences and ventures of the years prior with Sylvia. Though one begins to wonder, did either man truly love Sylvia? Or is Jean merely reflecting on his lost youth, his missed opportunity to take the photographs for his planned book about the rivers of the Rivera, and by extension elegizing missed opportunities, squandered time, and fading prospects. Then one ponders and inquiries about who Sylvia was or is—in typical Modiano fashion is cold, aloof, and draped in her own mystique.

“Sundays in August,” is cloaked in a noir like atmosphere, against the bronze shimmering sunny scene of the French Rivera, where two youthful people are on the run and in hiding as they have stolen a precious jewel. They are of course being perused (a term in Modinao’s world should be used with extreme lightness) by those who have a vested interest in the jewel; in this case the estranged ‘husband,’ of Sylvia, Frédéric Villecourt. Then there is the ambiguous and glamourous couple, Mr. Neal and Mrs. Neal; who also show a particular interest in the stolen jewel and by extension the two youth. However, in Modiano’s hands, what would be fast paced plot of action and intrigue, is slowed down to a brooding crawl, as one reviews, reminiscences, and questions the events of the past and their repercussions now into the present. One is left unsure of the sequence of events that has led to the present situation, with numerous gaps and questions salt and peppered throughout, leaving one wonder what happened to Sylvia, the Neals, and Madame Villecourt, not to mention the Southern Cross. Modiano offers no explanation. As with all his novels, readers are to always be forewarned about Patrick Modiano, and how his novels brew, steep and simmer, more than they boil and froth. The preoccupation is atmosphere and questions, but there are few answers and no real concluding act. Everything fades and dims, as both narrator and reader are left to contemplate and deliberate the minimal events that have led them to the empty present.

With a forlorn gaze, Patrick Modianos’ narrators look back and take stock of a time which has led to their current situation. They seek to grasp the elusive vapor of their misspent and now departed youth, a time of transient and shadow. The people come and they go. They waltz in one minute, and drift out the next. Their whereabouts, their situations, their eventual predicaments are left up in the air as questions of whether or not they’ve made something of themselves, or if they are happy, or even if they are alive. Despite not being a narrative focused author and not a great formalistic and stylistic author, Patrick Modiano is still a bewildering and enjoyable writer. His work is quiet and brooding, more inclined towards atmosphere and mystery, but lacking in any conclusive evidence to sate an appetite demanding a conclusion. The enjoyment of Patrick Modiano comes from his lack of commitments to endings or beginnings. One is left to curiously mull over the lives and the endings of the characters, and wonder whatever happened to them. Some lack the patience for such nonchalant deliberations, and would rather see everything conclude and justice be served. Yet, in Modianos’ world, justice is in short supply and flawed anyway. Everything fades and dims, until it’s completely vanished. All that remains are open ended questions that evade any semblance of an answer. To read Patrick Modiano is to drift alongside the characters as they take stock of their understated shipwreck of a past or life, and wonder where I all went wrong.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

A Statement from the Swedish Academy

Hello Gentle Reader

Since the crisis of the Swedish Academy has started, the institution as a whole (if it can still be called that) has remained silent on the internal matter, and has allowed individual members speak out or air their own opinions of their volition; which they often did, and with no surprise often added greater fuel to the fire, as the academy found itself further slipping into a fragmented and shattered mess from its former illusion of solidarity and unity. It showed the bitterness that sits within the academy, one fit with caustic opinions, and vitriolic perspectives; which many members saw fit to spit out in the open during the events unfolding—including Sture Allen, Horace Engdahl, Göran Malmqvist, and Kristina Lugn. Others saw fit to resign themselves from an institution now smoldering in ruin, and have found support in their cause for resignation, while others fight for them within the academy. Now at long last the Academy as institution (or what is left of it) has released a lengthy statement concerning the events which have transpired, and hopes to reconcile both with its former members and reinstate trust with the public once again.

First on the statement, the Swedish Academy has decided to release and hand over its internal investigation to the authorities; the same investigation which it has been reported earlier that Horace Engdahl wanted to cease and desist. The Swedish Economic Crime Authority verified that it did receive the investigation, but could not comment any further. The Swedish Academy retains the opinion that the institution itself was not complacent with the assaults that have taken place by a former member’s husband. However, it has confirmed and confessed (as a whole) that the Permanent Secretary of the time (Sture Allen) did receive a letter from a complainant in December of 1996, alleging sexual assault by a well-known associate of the Academy at the time. Sture Allen as the then Permanent Secretary discarded the letter as ‘irrelevant,’ and of ‘no-importance,’ at the time. The Swedish Academy today: “deeply regrets that the letter was put aside, which means no action was taken to investigate it.” In other words: Sture Allen as Permanent Secretary of the time was I negligent compliance with the assaults that took place, and subsequently two decades later, has (intentionally or not) helped orchestrate the academy’s current situation.

Second the statement is sorrowful in its current status and wishes to reinstate and gain the trust of public and patron as it moves forward. It wishes the members who have resigned in protest to return to the Swedish Academy and reclaim their honoured chairs. There has been no comment—as of yet—whether or not the resigned member will seek to reclaim their chairs. Both Lotta Lotass and Kjell Espmark have already drafted formal resignation requests to remove themselves from the Swedish Academy. As for the others it is unclear what their decision will be at this time.

Third the Swedish Academy recognizes the financial aid it offered to the Cultural Forum was in direct conflict of interest with its own statutes, as the forum was co-owned with the former member Katarina Frostenson.

Fourth the Swedish Academy stands by its royal patronages decision to amend the statutes and allow members to resign from the Academy, and it hopes to further amend its statutes and legal perspectives to ensure it is always in compliance with outside judicial statutes and perspectives.

On a final note, the Swedish Academy has released it cannot deny the recent events have damaged the Nobel Prize for Literatures reputation. Despite this, the Nobel Committee, for the Literature Prize (consisting of: Per  Wästberg as Chairman, Anders Olsson temporary Permanent Secretary, Kristina Lugn, and Horace Engdahl—associate members Sara Danius and  Katarina Frostenson have since resigned) has continued on with its work, and intends to name to put forward recommendations for this year’s Literature Laureate.

However, it should be stated if the resigned members do not return, the Swedish Academy still lacks a quorum to make any decisions such as electing new members, to voting on the Nobel Prize for Literature.

The statement in the end Gentle Reader does not bring any real closure to the current crisis. It merely states a united front on the crisis, of the remaining members, and offers the institutions perspective of the crisis, fit with regret, confessions, and action being taken currently to rectify the situations and to thwart future repeats. Again the fate of the Nobel Prize for Literature and the Swedish Academy as it currently stands is unknown at this time.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

For Further Reading --

http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/swedish-academy-investigation-1.4628158


https://www.svt.se/kultur/svenska-akademien-om-advokatutredningen

Swedish Academy Statutes, Amended

Hello Gentle Reader

In the latest development of the Swedish Academy’s crisis, His Majesty King Carl XVI Gustaf, has used his patronage authority to amend the two century long historical statutes, which will allow members of the currently fragmented institution to formally resign their seats and be replaced. The amendment will also exclude members who have not been active within the institution for two years, and allow their seats to also be replaced. These amendments are being called a legal update, to help quell their current situation and to ensure the Academy is in compliance with international and domestic laws, where upon individuals can remove themselves from association of company or institution, which they no longer wish to be a part of.

However, the situation still remains complicated for the Swedish Academy. Currently there are seven inactive members:

Chair No. 1 – Lotta Lotass

Chair No. 7 – Sara Danius

Chair No. 10 – Peter Englund

Chair No. 11 – Klas Östergren

Chair No. 15 – Kerstin Ekman

Chair No. 16 – Kjell Espmark

Chair No. 18 – Katarina Frostenson

Meaning there are only eleven remaining active members within the Swedish Academy currently. In order to hold a quorum, and voted on decisions, such as: the Nobel Prize for Literature and the election of new members to the academy. The complications only become more apparent, as members do not formally take their seat on the Academy until an official ceremony on the 20^th of December, after an election is held in late summer or early autumn.

What this means for the Nobel Prize for Literature, is still unclear. If the Nobel Prize for Literature is not awarded, it will be the first time since 1943, that the Nobel Prize for Literature was not awarded. If the Nobel Prize for Literature is awarded, the prize will be shadowed and haunted by the current crisis currently taking place in the Swedish Academy. Either way, the future is uncertain, and appears a bit grim.

For now though Gentle Reader, these updates prove to be a positive start. However, there is still a lot of uncertainty at this point.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

For Further Reading - 


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-academy/swedish-king-to-change-statutes-of-nobel-awarding-academy-idUSKBN1HP25K


https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/kungen-andrar-stadgarna-i-svenska-akademien/

O’ Captain My Captain, Sail us to Safety

Hello Gentle Reader

Safety is important. How cannot it not be? Everyday employees, workers, and the proletariat are reminded of the importance of safety. Many employers have adopted slogans and adages to remind employees of the importance of safety; such as: “tomorrow is the reward for working safely today,” or “safety is no accident,” or “work safely, somebody loves you at home,”—and so on and so forth. Perhaps a more precise safety slogan would be: “Safety: We’re Watching You.”

I am all for safety and other precautionary measures. However, I despise any inclination of self-importance or vanity. Nothing is more contemptuous then someone who walks into a meeting or onto a job site with the haughty air of they know what’s best. I’m sorry dear, but: do take your feet off the desk; perhaps you’d like to chew your gum with your lips closed—or better yet: spit it out, as it may be a choking hazard.

Now, safety has its place and its uses. The function of a safety officer is crucial to a productive workplace and team. When employees view their employer taking a concern or an interest in their safety, it builds morale. It means that an employee is recognized as a human being, not just a number, not just a cog, not just a drone in the grander colony of production. Of course there are ulterior motives for employers to take considerable consideration into workplace safety, such as: operating and in compliance with statues, increased productivity equals increased profits, and of course the less equipment damaged, also means less financial resources are spent on repairing the equipment. I have worked in numerous places where safety is a serious concern and given thorough consideration. One such place was when I worked as a contractor in a fertilizer plant during a shut down. This industrial plant site took safety seriously—almost fanatically so; but its goals, its perspective and its reasoning where always clear and concise. Before any contractor entered the plant site they went through orientation. This orientation was presented by a very kind but dreadfully boring safety officer. He took his position seriously and went over every safety point, policy, procedure and protocol during the orientation. The most informational aspect of this time was when he went over the four different ‘zones,’ that engulfed the plant: green zone, yellow zone, red zone, and blue zone. Each zone had its own safety requirements:

Green Zone – Office Spaces – does not require any hard hat, safety glasses, steel toed boots, or reflective vest, or any other undisclosed PPE.

Yellow Zone – Warehouse/ & Trailer Town – does not require hard hat, safety glasses or reflective vest, but does require steel toed boots, and be aware of any hazards which may prompt further personal protective equipment.

Red Zone – Industrial Sites – requires steel toed boots, hard hats, safety glasses, reflective gear, and other personal protective equipment depending on where the individual is on site.

Blue Zone – Water areas – requires steel toed boots, hard hats, safety glasses, reflective gear, and life jackets, as well as other personal protective equipment.

I admired this informative map which outlined the geography of the plant and divided it into colour coded zones. Everything was clearly defined. Of course the orientation went over numerous other procedures and policies, such as the speed limit in the plant zone, what do in the event an ammonia leak took place, where wash stations are, et cetera. This was safety done professionally. This was safety with thought. There were only a few times punitive action was mentioned as a consequence for not adhering to the procedural process of the worksite—and that action was being walked off site (or in other words: termination/dismissal). But this course of action was not repeatedly mentioned as a mantra or as a continual overshadowing threat, it was mentioned on a few occasions, and carried the weight of fact not menace.

Now years later I can see the idea and term safety is not always taken as seriously as this contractual job site had. When I worked in retail, safety was mentioned, discussed, and promoted—complete with its own procedural and policy handbook. The reality: it was never implemented. It was just lip service. It was kind reassurance and employee relations at its most superficial level. In reality employees are/were expected to make space for product, or make space to store the product; as well as move quickly. In other words cut and shelf product in a fast paced manner—not necessarily safely or efficiently, just quickly. When it came to customer safety, however, there was a difference—when machinery was being operated there was an entire smoke and mirror effect of public relations, to show how the company/store takes notes of its employee’s safety and more importantly its customers. This lukewarm safety disregarding anarchy, was both a danger and a joy; it meant getting the work done quickly (once an employee found their bearings) but it also meant a certain disregard for one’s own personal preservation. This superficial promotion and realistic disregard of safety is paramount and can be found anywhere one looks. The attitude is not limited to retail or customer service positions; it can be found in a plethora of jobs and careers. Now in my current places of employment, I must confess I have never been left with such a bitter distaste towards all things safety and more specifically: safety officers themselves.

All my encounters with safety officers—in other words: trained and designated professionals—as of late have lead me to believe that the profession exists solely on the grounds of bloated egoism. Where does that egoism come from? Perhaps from the ability or the perceived authority in which to tell others how to do their jobs, or better yet report others for doing their jobs unsafely. They carry the air of that obnoxious older sibling, who always knows best, and can always advise—or rather direct—another in doing something for their own betterment.

Working in the lowest levels of public service, specifically in recreation and arts, one does not engage with the bureaucratic machine often in its entirety. One, however, does get the sensation that they are but a loose cog in it fulfilling a generic role, which can be replaced or contracted out without a moment’s notice. After all, recreation and arts are luxuries not necessities. Being a low level peon who is forgotten, ignored, and overlooked does have its benefits and profits. Perhaps the most beneficial advantage is: one rarely interacts with the grander glacial machine, which causes both citizens and other employees nothing but frustration and bane.

The ability to avoid, or be overlooked, does not always happen. Even shadows, my Dear Gentle Reader, are noticed now and then. When the bureaucratic machine is riddled with analysis of policies and procedural process, it must assign and task its enforcement agencies, to look in and correct the work of its employees, while others are more engaged in more pressing matters. Enter the safety officer, the KGB or Securitate of the workplace. These agents are always drifting about, ensuring employees are in compliance with policies and procedures, and always exercising safe work place practices. Where dissidence is observed curative action is taken, generally through the use of e-mails, meetings, discussions, conversations, lectures, and if necessary other reprimanded actions. It has already been pointed out that the requirement to work safely is important to any industry or workplace (not to mention employers are legislated to do so); but the sheer myopia of the perspective these safety officers choose to enforce, enact, and endorse is bewildering in its audacious and asinine implementation. On a recent workplace inspection and review, these safety officers walked through the doors with their usual self-important air, and with their usual keen eyes begun their close inspection of the worksite as follows:

(i)                 One member of the safety brigades, eyes were permanently affixed to his phone, texting, messaging, and presumably playing on social media.

(ii)               Another member was busy looking and drifting around making—what appeared at the time to be serious notes.

(iii)             The final member busies themselves by inspecting first aid equipment.

The results of the safety inspection were incomprehensible and bewildering. Again the myopic perspective of the time often leaves ones teeth on edge. The member of the safety inspection team who played on their phone, had no comment, criticism, or recommendation to make on the stage of the worksite or building. The member who drifted and observed aimlessly had a few remarks to make, the first being: the AED box needed to be dusted as well as the first aid kit, they also mentioned user group storage spaces within the building could prove to be tripping hazards. The final member who went through the first aid equipment stated the band aids had expired by stating: “the stickiness is gone.” This entire spectacle took an entire hour, and the end results were . . . underwhelming and even disappointing—or in other words: infuriating.

This being said, Dear Gentle Reader, if you want a decent paying career built on the grounds of egoism with the air of a self-important bureaucrat, then perhaps a career in occupational health and safety is one to look into. Your work is there to justify itself, as you continually review procedures and policies, make your case to senior members of management, review workplace safety and its compliance—and enforce when necessary—but more often than not justify your position and you work by creating work for yourself.

It’s a cruel and unsafe world Gentle Reader, made even more unsafe and cruel due to the guardians and propagators of safety being more self-important then interested in the actual safety of employee’s and people, beyond superficial observations, or worst: completely disregarding any notion of safe workplace practice in favour of production; or even more sad yet, not even observe unsafe habits or hazards, simply because you are too busy playing politics or playing on your phone. What a world.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

Sergio Pitol, Dies Aged 85

Hello Gentle Reader

One of the great giants of Mexican culture and literature, Sergio Pitol, has died at the 85.. Sergio Pitol was a celebrated author of novels, essays, and translations. Like his fellow countryman and writer Octavio Paz, was also a diplomat. He served as a cultural attaché to: Rome (Italy) Belgrade (now Serbia, then Yugoslavia), Warsaw (Poland), Paris (France), Beijing (China), Moscow (now Russia then Soviet Union), Prague (now Czechia, then Czechoslovakia), Budapest (Hungary), and Barcelona (Spain), before eventually becoming the ambassador to the then Czechoslovakia. Beyond his diplomatic career, Sergio Pitol was an accomplished writer of prose, noted for his many novels and short story collections, but is well renowned for his memoires and essays. His literary work is known for blending and blurring the lines between traditional fiction and essay, and utilized both mediums to his creative advantages. It should come to no surprise Sergio Pitol is considered one of the most important Mexican authors of the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century. He was awarded the Cervantes Prize in two-thousand and five for his contribution to Spanish literature and language. He was also an avid translator, which he described as essential to his craft as a writer. He is known for translating many English language writers (such as Henry James, Jane Austen, and Joseph Conrad) into Spanish, as well as Polish authors, Witold Gombrowicz and Kazimierz Brandys. It has been noted his international diplomatic missions, helped form the unique style and use of language, found in Sergio Pitol’s work. Due to his international and metropolitan influences, Sergio Pitol refined his use of the Spanish language, to the idiosyncrasies of all the languages he had come into contact with through his diplomatic career. Many readers of Sergio Pitol have described that reading his work, as an exercise in seeing and understanding the layered use of language. Sadly, in his later years, Sergio Pitol was diagnosed with Aphasia, which robbed him of his language and speaking capabilities.

Sergio Pitol will be immortalized and remembered as one of the most influential and wise writers of the Spanish language, and of Mexican culture and literature. His influence is vast and has helped inspire and encourage many Mexican and Hispano-American writers, of a new generation.

Currently speaking his novel “The Magician of Vienna,” part of his “Trilogy of Memory,” is longlisted for this year’s Best Translated Book Award.  The novel has been called a masterful work of literary composition, and has even been suggested as his masterpiece.

Rest in Peace Sergio Pitol.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

The Man Booker International Prize 2018, Shortlist

Hello Gentle Reader

In a week riddled with controversy in the literary world, it would be easy to overlook the Man Booker International Prizes shortlist for two-thousand and eighteen. The shortlist is listed below, organized by author and their nominated book, in no particular order.

Olga Tokarczuk – “Flights,”

Ahmed Saadawi – “Frankenstein in Baghdad,”

Antonio Muñoz Molina – “Like a Fading Shadow,”

Virginie Despentes – “Vernon Subutex 1,”

Laszlo Krasznahorkai – “The World Goes On,”

Hang Kang – “The White Book,”

There they are Gentle Reader, the six shortlisted titles for this year’s Man Booker International Prize. If one were to review the texts selected here (as well as on the longlist) one can specifically see, there is no overlap between the Man Booker International Prize’s nominated and selected authors, and the Best Translated Book Award’s nominated and selected writers and books. Much like the Booker Prize itself, the Man Booker International Prize, operates very conventionally and conservatively. Two writers shortlisted have already won the award before: Hang Kang and Laszlo Krasznahorkai. Olga Tokarczuk is considered an internationally renowned writer. Virginie Despentes is a renowned French writer and intellectual, who is now beginning to make a name for herself in the English language. Antonio Muñoz Molina is considered a leading Spanish language writer, and has a relatively steady presence within the English language. This means the old daring writer on the list, who is just beginning to gain a foothold in the English language, is the Iraqi writer Ahmed Saadawi.

In comparison, the Best Translated Book Award, is riddled with new and exciting names, meaning to or not, overlooking already established authors such as Laszlo Krasznahorkai (who the award went to twice), Hang Kang and Olga Tokarczuk, for writers and authors generally overlooked, underappreciated, or otherwise unnoticed. The Best Translated Book Award certainly takes the cake for being extensive, diverse, and daring.

However, the Man Booker International Prize cannot be overlooked with the press and media attention, the writer receives after winning the award. The Booker name and brand carries prestige and honour with it. Though, unfortunately the award often appears to be a bit to conventional and conservative that it fails to see the diversity of the translated literature market.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

A Compromise Which Ends in Tears

Hello Gentle Reader

It been almost a week since the Swedish Academy erupted into a public and catastrophic crisis, over issues regarding sexual misconduct of a members husband, a members lack of good faith and strict compliance with the academy’s statutes of privacy and confidentiality, as well as financial assistance offered to the same member and her husband, by the Swedish Academy, which in its own result ended in an internal statute being broken. This saw to the public resignations of three members, and a whirlwind of controversy and media storm followed. It required his Majesty the King of Sweden to intervene on the mater, and was deeply criticized by the Nobel Foundation, who felt the current behavior of the Swedish Academy, had damaged the Nobel Prize for Literature. There have been calls for the royal patronage to dismiss all members who currently sit on the Swedish Academy and one in four Swedes support this decision. As the Swedish Academy’s failure to govern itself with integrity and conduct itself with decorum, has reached unprecedented levels, it seems they have met and agreed upon a compromise, that is both promising and saddening at the same time.

From what can be gathered from the evidence, the Academy was split into two camps – roughly based around the voting that took place earlier, to decide whether or not to exclude Katarina Frostenson (the academy member charged with leaking Nobel Prize information as well as receiving financial assistance with her husband to operate the club called the Forum); with some minor adjustments.

Roughly, it would appear the first camp was led by former Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Horace Engdahl—who recently criticized Sara Danius in her role as Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, stating she above all others before her, had absolutely failed in her position. This camp voted to retain Katarina Frostenson as a member of the Swedish Academy, and consisted of:

Chair No. 17 – Horace Engdahl (Leader)

Chair No. 2 – Bo Ralph

Chair No. 3 – Sture Allén

Chair No. 4 – Anders Olsson

Chair No. 5 – Göran Malmqvist

Chair No. 6 – Tomas Riad

Chair No. 9 – Jayne Svenungsson

Chair No. 14 – Kristina Lugn

Chair No. 18 – Katarina Frostenson

The opposing group was led by Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy Sara Danius. This group voted to exclude Katarina Frostenson, on the charges she was accused of not only within the academy’s statutes, but also accepting financial funding from the academy while being member of the Swedish Academy, and of course the controversy her husband brought on. This group consisted of:

Chair No. 7 – Sara Danius (Leader)

Chair No. 8 – Jesper Svenbro

Chair No. 10 – Peter Englund

Chair No. 11 – Klas Östergren

Chair No. 12 – Per Wästberg

Chair No. 16 – Kjell Espmark

Chair no. 13 – Sara Stridsberg*

[Though she originally did not vote on the matter, has recently thrown her support behind Sara Danius]

The following two members have been removed from the discussion and the Academy, and did not or do not, officially belong to either side; and are considered inactive.

Chair No. 1 – Lotta Lotass

Chair No. 15 – Kerstin Ekman

In the end the Swedish Academy has been forced to put aside their differences—and it has been mentioned Anders Olsson was called upon to act as a mediator between the divide, and come to a conclusion and compromise. A deal seems to have been bet, but with tears.

First: Katarina Frostenson, with the charges of leaking Academy information to third parties knowing or otherwise, which may have had personal and financial benefits; seeking financial support from the Swedish Academy with a business she owned with her husband, among other allegations of misconduct; resigned from her seat within the Swedish Academy of Chair No. 18. She will no longer participate in the dealings and decisions of the Swedish Academy going forward.

Second: Sara Danius, must step down as the Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy; a decision which was not met with enthusiasm by all. Sara Stidsberg, reportedly was in tears over the decision, as she supported Sara Danius through the fickle and controversy an came to her defense now more than ever; but walked with Sara Danius after the meeting was held, and she announced her resignation. But if it meant repairing the academy, and beginning to move forward with the great work the institution does, Sara Danius was gracefully and with honour and integrity stepped down from her role as Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, and has reportedly resigned from the Swedish Academy as well.

It’s a sad day for the Swedish Academy, some members—such as Horace Engdahl—believes this departure will allow the Swedish Academy to reclaim its former glory, and place in its position as a once important national and international institution. Others offer warnings that the Swedish Academy will merely go back to its good old boys club days, the very days Sara Danius tried to end, while modernizing and revolutionizing the Swedish Academy to participate with the grander world. Now those plans are tossed into limbo.

But the support for Sara Danius has been pouring in all over. The academy members who left before her: Peter Englund, Klas Östergren, Kjell Espmark, have released a joint statement, where they praised Sara Danius for her leadership and demeanor during the events which had transpired.

“We want to emphasize that throughout this crisis she acted with great integrity and calm determination. We want to express our wholehearted support for her in this difficult moment,”

            [The Joint Statement Stated]

In the end I hope Peter Englund, Klas Östergren, Kjell Espmark, Sara Stridsberg, and any other member of the Swedish Academy, can come to Sara Danius side and toast a drink to her, and give her support. But for those who really mean it, truly surround her, and support her during this difficult and unfortunate time, as she made a difficult decision to propel the Swedish Academy forward, and reignite its dying flame of integrity, with her own.

As for Katarina Frostenson, there is little that needs to be said on the matter. She only resigned on this condition, as she herself could not due the honest act in the first place, which first propelled the Swedish Academy into its current situation. With regards to Göran Malmqvist, I have few and choice words for, he described the meeting as difficult, but Sara Danius’s decision as ‘wise.’ Still I can’t help feel that on a few occasions, Göran Malmqvist betrayed his position with the Swedish Academy and as a sinologist at times, which resulted in a Chinese government approved patsy to win the Nobel Prize for Literature. But I had little respected for Malmqvist before now, and none certainly now. Sture Allen, a previous Permanent Secretary, apparently has known about the claims of Sexual Abuse for some decades now, when he first received a letter from a young woman accusing the husband of Katarina Frostenson, of sexual misconduct. Sture Allen, reportedly disregarded the letter as ‘not important.’

What does this mean for the Swedish Academy? Of eighteen chairs, only eleven are active and filled; meaning the Swedish Academy cannot hold a quorum, and no major decisions can be made at this time. It is unclear yet, if former members who recently resigned will return to their posts, or if new provisions will be adopted to allow academy members to resign. As for the Nobel, the crisis has severely damaged its integrity. There is no word on whether it will be awarded this year or not.

If the Swedish Academy chooses not award the Nobel Prize for Literature on grounds of reprieve and respite it is understandable. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to rebuild the reputation of both the Swedish Academy and the Nobel Prize for Literature.  

In the end, my sympathies go out to Sara Danius. Her tenure as Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, was short, but she proved to master the task of announcing the Literature prize, dealing with the media on an official capacity and perhaps reinvigorating the award itself. I wish her the best of luck in her future, and know she had a magnificent job, despite what others may say. Her resignation is sad and heartbreaking, as much as it is tragic for the Swedish Academy, who refused to do the right honest action when called to.

The Best of Luck Sara Danius.

M. Mary


Post Script - Edit & Update - 

After Sara Danius' resignation Sweden erupted in support for the former Permanent Secretary and members of the Swedish Academy. Politicians, the public, writers, and former members of the Swedish Academy, all wore puss bow styled blouses or scarves in support of Danius. Meanwhile, Anders Olsson has become the temporary Permenant Secretary of the Swedish Academy, but has found himself in a bit of hot water with his royal patron, His Majesty King Carl XVI Gustaf, by implying the His Majesty, was complicate or even active in the resignation of Sara Danius, to help resolve the crisis within the Swedish Academy. The Royal family's press office, has denied this claim vehemently, and in a meeting with Anders Olsson was held, where an explanation for the comment was sought. 

Kjell Espmark, one of the three members who resigned first in protest, has drafted a formal and official request for resignation from the Swedish Academy. Currently, as it stands all chairs on the Swedish Academy are occupied for life. Since the crisis had first become public, there have been suggestions of reforms to the membership status of the Swedish Academy, whereupon His Majesty the King, would amend provisions, which will allow members to resign and be replaced. However, there has been no further word on whether or not this reform will take place, at this time. To reiterate, the Swedish Academy, now only has eleven members, and requires twelve to hold a quorum to make decisions, such as electing and appointing new members. 

This will most certainly will not be the last we have heard about the Swedish Academy and its current state of duress. For now, we must wait to see what will happen going forward, and see how the Academy will regain the confidence and trust, while re instituting faith and prestige in the Nobel Prize for Literature, which it most certainly has tarnished. 

For Further Reading -- 


https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2018-04-12/efter-krismotet-danius-och-frostenson-lamnar

http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/nobel-swedish-academy-head-resigns-1.4616997

https://www.thelocal.se/20180413/swedish-academys-first-female-head-ousted-after-metoo-scandal

http://time.com/5238852/nobel-swedish-academy-resignation/

https://www.svt.se/kultur/bok/las-ostergren-jag-lamnar-in-en-formell-begaran-om-uttrade

https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2018-04-12/efter-krismotet-danius-och-frostenson-lamnar

Previous Blogposts on the Matter -- 

Shocking News from the Swedish Academy 

Swedish Academy Controversy (Continued) 

Horace Engdahl Speaks Out 

A Shadow Over the Swedish Academy Darkens

Hello Gentle Reader

Gone are the days when I could sit and moan how Bob Dylan had tarnished (if only slightly) the Nobel Prize for literature. After all he was (or is) a, has been, burned out hippie, who brought no real merit or revolution to literature or poetry. He is credited for revolutionizing music, with his folk like lyrics, and blues guitar style. No one of which either concerned or interested me, and nor does any justification, rationalization, or explanation of why he deserved the prize. His name sets my teeth on edge, his award grates my nerves—and these facts are well known, as friends and family, chose opportune moments to bring it up and send me in a rant, only to slink out of the vicinity while rave to myself, like a lunatic. But recent events overshadow Bob Dylan’s Nobel Prize piss off, and even make his award appear like a minor controversy, in comparison to the continual catastrophic crisis which currently assaults the Swedish Academy; the sickening thought is: it is members of the Swedish Academy who publicly assault it; advertently and inadvertently.

Everyday more news comes out with regards to the scandal of the Swedish Academy, and more people are weighing on it. The condemnation, of the Swedish Academy cannot ring clearer, as it is criticized for failing to govern itself with integrity; and how a certain member—Katarina Frostenson—has failed to possess the character, constitution, and dignity to remove herself from the Academy due to her poor conduct, her violation of its statutes, and for not operating in good faith for the Swedish Academy as an institution; and instead chose to benefit herself and her husband Jean-Claude Arnault (who stands accused of vast allegations of sexual misconduct over several years).

So far the crisis has forced three members to publicly resign, with a fourth considering handing in her resignation. The Royal patronage of His Majesty Carl XVI Gustaf has also been forced to weigh in on the crisis, where he had an emergency meeting with Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy Sara Danius, over the issues currently plaguing the Academy. The Nobel Foundation (the administrative and financial body of all Nobel Prizes) has also been forced to publicly denounce the conduct of the Swedish Academy, and worries about the damage done to the Nobel Prize for Literature and its reputation, as the members internal squabbling continues to become a public point of discussion.

In response to the resignation of his fellow members, the former Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Horace Engdahl, released a public letter to a leading Swedish newspaper, expressing his disgust towards his fellow members—who he called a clique of sore losers; and blames them for the current damage done to the Swedish Academy, and the perilous circumstances it has placed the Nobel Prize for Literature into. Engdahl also goes on to criticize the current Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, who he accuses of being unable to perform the duties of her position, and has allowed the Academy to split and divide in this matter. Though one only needs to wonder, what his goal was with this letter, if it was an attempt at calming the waters, or to only stoke the raging fires already burning in the furnaces, which only damages the reputation of the Swedish Academy further, which he accuses the three members of doing so prior.

Horace Engdahl’s antics and public criticism of the three members who have publicly resigned, as well as the current Permanent Secretary, have not gone unnoticed. His ex-wife, Ebba Witt-Brattström, a scholar of comparative literature, unleashed a rebuttal against her former husband’s remarks. Ebba Witt-Brattström confesses while they were married (1989-2014) Horace Engdahl often told her, who would receive the Nobel Prize for Literature; but she clarifies he could trust her. This is quite different from the situation of Katarina Frostenson and her husband Jean-Claude Arnault; as the narrative can be painted that husband Jean-Claude Arnault used the information for business and capital purposes within his club, or on the betting sites. Those who will remember, days before the announcement Patrick Modiano shot through the betting sites list with assured fury. Ebba Witt-Brattström believes the Academy is also in an internal crisis between tradition and old ways, and the proposed renovations and modernizations by Sara Danius, have forced a divide between two competing camps within the academy, led by Sara Danius and Horace Engdahl, respectively. One of the defectors from the Swedish Academy, Kjell Espmark, responded to Engdahl’s letter by stating: “There is no honour left in the body of that man.”

In closing, His Majesty Carl XVI Gustaf has opened up about amending the provisions of the Academy’s membership, and is entertaining the idea of allowing authors to withdraw from the Swedish Academy, and have their seats filled. As the Royal Patron of this important cultural institution, His Majesty believes he is in not only his right and authority to make the amendment, but it is also the appropriate action at this time. In the event that this amendment was to take place, perhaps Katarina Frostenson will do the only honest and sensible thing she can do: resign from Chair No.18, and allow the Swedish Academy to repair itself and wash the rust and scum she and her husband have forced it into.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

Prior Blog Posts –

Shocking News from The Swedish Academy

Swedish Academy Crisis (Continued)

Horace Engdahl Speaks Out

For Further Reading –

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/world/europe/swedish-academy-sex-nobel.html

http://royalcentral.co.uk/europe/sweden/king-carl-xvi-gustaf-comments-on-the-crisis-in-the-swedish-academy-100163

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/11/king-sweden-considers-using-royal-powers-break-nobel-deadlock/

https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/witt-brattstrom-horace-lackte-nobelpristagare-till-mig/

https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/kungen-overvager-att-agera-mot-svenska-akademien/

Horace Engdahl Speaks Out

Hello Gentle Reader

As previously mentioned now on a few different occasions, the Swedish Academy is emblazed in a public crisis, with regards to one of its members (Katarina Frostenson), who may have used her position on the Swedish Academy to lobby for financial assistance from the academy for her husband’s artistic club the Forum, as well as leaked information about who the new winners for the Nobel Prize would be. Frostenson’s husband Jean-Claude Arnault has been accused by eighteen women of sexual assault, harassment, and misconduct. Recently the academy held a vote on whether or not to exclude (or rather expel) Katarina Frostenson from the Swedish Academy and its dealings. The votes were cast, and Frostenson was permitted to retain her seat on the academy, which saw the public resignations of three academy members in protest, and the possibility of forth still to come.

For more detail and further information please see the previous two posts:

Shocking News from the Swedish Academy

Swedish Academy Controversy (Continued)

Horace Engdahl is a somewhat mercurial figure. He can be a literary curmudgeon who scoffs, sneers, and derides the current way literature is being upheld as anything important in society. He often vents these vexations publicly, and often stirs great controversy when doing so. Who could forget his remarks ten years ago, when he called American literature: “ignorant and insular,” and that America could not “challenge Europe as the center of the literary world,” and gave the most scathing remark yet: “they don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature ...That ignorance is restraining.” On these grounds, I agree with the former Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy. His criticisms were justified, the lack of translation is appalling (though steps have been made), and its true American and dare I say English (or British) writers/readers in general, are rather self-proclaiming as the masters of literature; where in reality they are most likely overtly hyped and a bit pompous and boring. On these grounds, I often find myself on the side of Horace Engdahl, mainly because I too like to consider myself a dry curmudgeon who can’t stand the state that the literary world is in.

Often on the contrary though, Horace Engdahl can be a bit to open about his criticisms, and in these moments appear to be self-serving some ulterior agenda. In a recent open letter to the Swedish newspaper Expressen, the former Permanent Secretary unleashes his uncontrolled bile, vitriol, and condemnation towards his three former colleagues and members of the Swedish Academy, as well as the current Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy.

Horace Engdahl begins his letter by going over the first time a similar crisis had taken place; back in nineteen-eighty nine, when Ayatollah Khomein issued a fatwa (death sentence) against Salman Rushdie for his controversial novel “The Satanic Verses.” At the time writers, governments, writers organizations and movement, cultural institutions, governments and the public themselves, all condemned the barbaric order, and protected or sought to protect Salman Rushdie (literally and figuratively). The Swedish Academy, however, at the time decided to remain silent, a fact that did not bode well for certain members. Kerstin Ekman, and the late Lars Gyllensten, and the late Werner Aspenström—all resigned in protest. Engdahl criticizes this move, which he calls: “abandoning their duty to the academy and its community, only to fling themselves into the arms of the media, and claim moral superiority.” Engdahl goes on to state; this move damaged the Academy’s reputation and severely upended the work of the Academy, as their seats have sat vacant for many years— Kerstin Ekman’s still does.

Horace Engdahl then changes his attention towards the current situation. Though he admits what happened in nineteen-eighty nine had the airs of ‘tragic dignity,’—he calls the current situation an abhorrent state of affairs, being brought on by a group and I quote ‘losers,’ who have chosen to resign (though not give up their seat (?)) and have broken the statues of confidentiality by bringing the public into the matter, seeking them to join the argument to oust Katarina Frostenson, by publicly resigning. Horace Engdahl eludes that is far more serious than any Nobel Prize leak a few days before announcement.  

Moving on Horace Engdahl believes the manipulator, causing this desperate power struggle is: Sara Danius, the current Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy; who he criticizes as being unable to take control of the situation and get a firm handle on the catastrophic events which are currently taking place. He has stated that Sara Danius has voiced her own opinion(s) as that of the perception of the Swedish Academy, who eluded that her opinions and the decision by the academy are one in the same. He has stated she has not been able to maintain a spirit of community or co-operation within the academy, nor has she moved between camps within the academy; in fact (or so Engdahl would lead us to believe) Sara Danius is only interested in maintaining her own position within the academy; and that a divide within the academy causing these leaks to the media about its internal struggles, rests solely on the hands of Sara Danius, who has been incapable of maintaining control and decorum within its walls. Horace Engdahl concludes that in its 232 years of being an institution of importance, Sara Danius has been the worst Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy.

I am left to wonder what Horace Engdahl had hoped to prove or otherwise achieve with this letter. If it was to pour more petrol and gas on the fire then bravo, truly bravo, your operatic statements of discontent are well noted and cannot be ignored—it’s a standing ovation. If it were to somehow defend the honour (or what little is left) Katarina Frostenson, then he failed. In the end all Horace Engdahl ended up doing was rattling the cage and stirring the fire even more. Throwing Sara Danius under the bus was both rude and unprofessional in my opinion, and does not further the Swedish Academy’s cause, it merely tarnishes its reputation further.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

To Read Horace Engdahl's letter please see the following link: 

https://www.expressen.se/kultur/ide/jag-forfaras-over-raheten-i-akademiens-maktkamp/