Hello
Gentle Reader,
[My
column has been established to operate on a biweekly basis, however,
considering the pressing need I felt for this column I’ve decided to publish
now, rather than next week.]
Since
the embattled Swedish Academy announced that this year’s Nobel Prize for
Literature, will be postponed until two-thousand and nineteen, where two
laureates will be crowned, there has been the crowing and cooing of many, who
have felt the need to exercise an excessive amount of schadenfreude towards the
Swedish Academy—or rather its smoldering remains. This has all reminded me of
the words of a dear friend: “Never fret, when you hit rock bottom, someone
always graciously passes the shovel.”
(i)
Since
the announcement rang last Friday, that this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature
would be postponed, many journalists, editors, columnists, cultural and
literary critics, have all snickered and hissed their vitriol and criticism
(justly and unjustly) towards the brow beaten and now severely depleted Swedish
Academy. Tim Parks a writer and translator (and an excellent translator may I
add) was first to take the shot. Writing in The
New York Times, Mr. Parks takes aim at the scolded, burned, and marked
Swedish Academy. He opens his opinion piece, with almost cheers about how much
entertainment the Swedish Academy had offered the public over the past few
weeks. He continues to go over briefly the scaffolding of the scandal, to
provide a bit of context, both contemporary issues facing the academy, and its
antiquarian principles. He concludes, the Literature prize in itself is a
scandal of sorts. How can one compare different languages, cultures, and
literary methods against one another, and then crown a winning author over so
many other viable candidates. As Tim Parks points out, literature is not a
sport. It is not a footballer or hockey player, decked out head to toe in pads,
helmets and the instinctual or testosterone competitive urge to seek out and
get a goal or touch down; it’s not a speedo clad water polo player or a bikini
flaunting volleyball player; it is not soccer (football) or rugby—it is
literature, a activity completely deprived of human connection (in its
conception, drafting and creation). It is produced in solitude or via the sole
hand of a singular individual. There is no uniform—no helmet, no skates, no
speedo or bikini. There are no regulated instruments—no bike, no stick, no bat,
no cap, or suit—just pen and paper, or pencil and paper, or typewriter or
computer (all preference oriented than organized and issued by decree or
governance or regulation). Literature is not a competition. Tim Parks argues
that making a literary prize of such a stature like the Nobel Prize is a
scandal, as it attempts to place Literature in the same vein as any sport, like
baseball, or football, or hockey or water polo. The Nobel by design is both
scandal and failure, which apparently most do not see.
I
disagree with Tim Parks on many ends and yet understand the validity of his
points. However, I do not view the Nobel Prize for Literature as a competition.
Mainly because no one is aware who is a contestant. It is not like a Miss World
(or Universe) pageant, where everyone is judged and pleads their case for world
peace (that is after all the Peace Prize’s place). Those who watch the Nobel
Prize for Literature (myself included) do enjoy the speculative process, the
research conducted, and the exchange of writers new and old, and of course it
always provokes a unique discussion—much like discussing politics or economics
at the dinner table (though once again that is reserved for, The Sveriges
Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel). The Nobel Prize
for Literature has the unique ability to crown and offer the golden dream and
paycheque to its chosen writer and laureate. This is an opportunity which is
not offered by any other literary prize, which by comparison could be described
as parochial or myopic in perspective. On a personal note, without the Nobel
Prize for Literature, I highly doubt I would ever have had the unique ability
to discover Wisława Szymborska or Herta Müller or Patrick Modiano; without the
speculative process I would never have had the opportunity to learn about Svetlana
Alexievich, Magdalena Tulli or Yasunari Kawabata or Tua Forsström, or Antonio
Tabucchi or Jon Fosse or Sirkka Turkka, or Adunis, or Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, or Mia
Couto, or Yoko Ogawa. Though perhaps I would have learned about them at later
dates, but the fact the Nobel Prize for Literature, requests (or demands) one
broaden their horizon beyond their linguistic and cultural island and seek to
take an interest in the distant shore.
So
no, the Nobel Prize for Literature is not a competition. There is not a
backroom where countless potential names of writers are busy typing and
scribbling; each one seeking to outdo the other in their quest for a medal and
diploma and the status of Laureate. It has been claimed a competition by merely
those who view it, criticize it, or begrudge the award. The idea the Nobel
Prize for Literature is a competition, is merely an air which has been
externally forced upon it, and has neither been endorsed or accepted either by
the Nobel Foundation or the Swedish Academy or the other institutions who name
their laureates in the fields of Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, Peace, and
Economics—though as it stands, these prizes are considered more: respectable,
more contemporary, more necessary, more required, more revolutionary. To me
(again on a personal note), their endeavors, their research, their findings,
their breakthroughs, their new ways of thinking, are revolutionary, ideal,
groundbreaking and contemporary. But science has, and continues to occupy the
empirical ivory tower. It’s almost self-absorbed and self-assured its own
importance, in its own grandness, that if you do not understand or comprehend
their findings, than you must be a mongolid, a troglodyte, uneducated, a useful
idiot, or ignorant. Science has no time to waste on those who neither share
their interests or their findings, as it quickly moves onto the next big
project. Literature, reminds us of our humanity and or modesty, it builds
bridges beyond language and culture, and identifies the universal ideas,
concepts and perspectives of what it means to be human. The area of
literature—much like the idea of humanity—is grey, and difficult to traverse.
To make any firm adjudicating statement on the matter is always difficult to
defend; and therefore always open to controversy and criticism. Medicine,
Chemistry, Physics, Peace and Economics, these are Nobel pursuits, even
lucrative pursuits; but poetry, prose, essays, novels, stories, plays and
theatre, and philosophy these remind us of what we are living for. These are
not just toss away concepts, or entertainment with no value; they speak to the
soul and the idea of what life is however euphoric or tragic it is; however
frightening or beautiful it is.
(ii)
In
The Guardian, Claire Armitstead,
takes immense pleasure is scathingly giving the Swedish Academy and by
extension the Nobel Prize for Literature a scathing lecture (and perhaps a
deserved swat and spank). She calls the Nobel Prize for Literature the anomaly
among the Nobel Prizes; one in which exists as a vain bauble, which has no real
statement to make other then:
“For seasoned Nobel watchers, award day often
appears to be a ritual humiliation by a shadowy society of sadists. As one
journalist wryly tweeted, the announcement of the first Belorussian literature
laureate in 2015 was accompanied by the sound of 10,000 reporters Googling
Svetlana Alexievich.”
Ms.
Armitstead goes on to state that Svetlana Alexievich was one of the better
decisions made by the Swedish Academy, when choosing a Nobel Laureate in
Literature. Yet, I do disagree with Ms. Armitstead,
I do not personally line up to receive any ritual humiliation by the Swedish
Academy, when they award a Nobel Laureate or unknown author. Rather I praise
and applaud such a decision. How wonderful it is to find a new author to be
introduced to—such as Patrick Modiano, who has been a wonderful discovery,
thanks to the Nobel Prize for Literature.
I
find the statements proposed and defined by Ms. Armitstead, speak with a
pugnacious tone with regards to the English culture and languages perspective
of foreign language and culture—one met
with skepticism and even a slight bit of colonial snobbery (that might be
pushing it). But the truth is, English language readers, and its literati,
critics, journalists and writers are always quick to promote English language
literature beyond anything else. After all you never promote the other team or
any other team. Take Philip Roth for example, every day and anywhere, that man
is promoted as some astounding genius of late twentieth century American
literature. Where in reality he is: pompous, pugnacious, pretentious,
sophistic, plain, plodding, and suffocating; the man is not only convinced and
self-affirmed via his own self-absorbed delusions of his genius and grandeur,
he also has everyone else coned and bamboozled into the Pretentious Plodding
Philip Roth Propaganda train as well; and they continue to heap praise on to
him, and claim he deserves the Nobel, and he’s the best America has (oh dear),
and so on and so forth. Quite frankly, he is by the far, the most unimaginative,
and boring and suffocating author I have ever had the displeasure of attempting
to read. Reading Philip Roth (sorry: The Great) would be best described as an
arranged marriage, to a frumpy characterless old man; and the only ways out are
either suicide or murder. To be honest, I’d sooner be damned to hell to read
Shakespeare for the rest of eternity then ever be forced to be acquainted with
the works of Philip Roth ever again.
However,
now I sound like an apologetic monolingual reader, who is attempting to be
acquainted with the grander world and cultures by taking into consideration the
translated literature of writers from other countries. Let’s face the facts
though. The English language is a predominately spoken language on this third
rock from the sun; it can be heard all over the world. Due to its influence and
demand as the de facto ‘universal,’ language, there can be no denying the
importance the English language and literature has had on the world; but the
sole desire to continually self-promote itself as superior and snub anything
else is not an admirable trait. It should also be noted two of the previous
laureates (2016 and 2017) were also well known (though in different circles and
for different reasons) both in the English language as well as other cultures.
Both Bob Dylan and Kazuo Ishiguro were surprises, but neither would be
described as obscure or unknown to readers or the public. Ms. Armitsteads’
statement of ritual humiliation is once again not entirely an accurate
statement based on objective fact.
(iii)
The
final statement on the matter is how the media has chosen to focus on mere
elements that lead to the scandal, while disregarding the entire scandal in its
entirety and detailed mess. The Swedish Academy scandal is not just limited to
a sex scandal or the wave and social media driven MeToo movement (which I look
upon casual ambivalence, and see the movement itself has no real jurisprudence
perspective, as it seeks to tar and feather, rather than seek judicial
process—though they claim all legal avenues have failed them). Let’s be clear
with each other Gentle Reader, the scandal affecting the Swedish Academy goes
beyond a sex scandal, it goes beyond mistreatment of women, or sexual favours
and bitter sweet promises of career advancements. The scandal runs much deeper
and has more interesting connotations.
First,
the Sex Scandal was the initial spark that led to the current crisis affecting
the Swedish Academy. Ironically no specific member of the Swedish Academy was
directly accused of dubious sexual activity. No member was accused of using
either position or prestige to gain sexual favours. Rather it was a member’s
significant other or spouse; that spouse would be Jean-Claude Arnault, a French
born Swedish photographer, who is the husband of (former) member Katarina
Frostenson, a renowned Swedish language poet. It has been alleged that Jean-Claude
Arnault utilized Swedish Academy owned properties (both in Stockholm and Paris)
to carry out his escapades and attacks. Eighteen women have come forward to
accuse Arnault of his misdeeds, and these accusations go back to the mid
nineteen-nineties. In fact during this time, a letter was sent to the then
Permanent Secretary Sture Allén, by a young woman who has been allegedly
attacked by Jean-Claude Arnault, whereupon she makes her case known and urges
the Swedish Academy to do something. Sture Allén disregarded the letter; and
now the Swedish Academy has been forced to apologize for this oversight and
blatant act of negligence. The sexual assault scandal’s touching of the Academy
is not; however, the sole reason the Swedish Academy fell from grace and
crashed into its current smoldering ruin. The accusations level against Arnaut
were merely the tipping point and the beginning of the fall, as they led to
further investigations which caused the Swedish Academy to become divided and
show its incapacity to govern itself appropriately.
Besides
being married to Katarina Frostenson, and by extension having close ties with
one of the most elite cultural forums in Europe (and arguably the world), meant
he could utilize this position for his photographic pursuits and business
ventures; with networking capabilities and marketing possibilities, through
social events and reputational basis. But the plot thickens even more. Jean-Claude
Arnault ran an exclusive cultural club in Stockholm called Forum, which he ran
with his wife Katarina Frostenson, who was part owner. This club received
grants and funding from the Swedish Academy for many years. As the sexual
assault allegations began to pour in and add up, questions began to rise over
the Swedish Academy’s financial assistance to not only Arnault but also his
wife. These questions forced the former Permanent Secretary Sara Danius to hire
a private law firm to investigate the relationship between the Swedish Academy
and Jean-Claude Arnault, and any support (economic or otherwise) offered to Jean-Claude
Arnault and by extension to Katarina Frostenson.
The
investigation forced the Swedish Academy to face the fact that it was breaking
its own statutes—knowingly or otherwise. With the findings of the investigation
now being heatedly discussed and debated, the Swedish Academy voted at the
beginning of April on whether or not to exclude Katarina Frostenson for her
obvious abuse of position within the Swedish Academy, to seek and lobby
financial assistance and funding from the institution to help her own personal
capitalistic ventures. In order to resolve the issue the Swedish Academy held a
vote to exclude (remove) Katarina Frostenson from her position within the
Swedish Academy, in early April. The vote was divisive, and it was claimed
during this vote that Katarina Frostenson, would retain her position. This
decision divided the Swedish Academy—on one side there was the former Permanent
Secretary Sara Danius, and the other the ‘old guard,’ headed by Horace Engdahl
with vocal support from Sture Allén and Goran Malmqvist. This divide forced
three members to resign in protest, and so the scandal would become a public
spectacle, rivaling an Elizabethan tragedy in its second hand emotion and
dramatic histrionics (which was mainly perpetrated by Horace Engdahl and Goran
Malmqvist).
With
the public and press taking note of the dissidence and divide, the Swedish
Academy was under immense pressure to figure out a solution. The then Permanent
Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Sara Danius was often in continual meetings
and talks with their royal patron King Carl XVI Gustaf, in order to find some
remedial approach to resolve the crisis. Week after week, the pressure
continued to mount, and as the Swedish Academy’s wedge grew to a chasm,
criticism began to pour from all angles and avenues. With end to scandal in
sight, and criticism (external and internal) mounting, the Swedish Academy was
forced to come to compromise which was presided over by its master of
ceremonies Anders Olsson. The compromise was simple: Sara Danius would need to
step down from her position as Permanent Secretary, and Katarina Frostenson
would resign. Sara Danius not only stepped down from her position as Permanent
Secretary she removed herself from the Swedish Academy; while Katarina
Frostenson resigned as per end of the bargain.
During
this time it became public knowledge that Katarina Frostenson had also broken
the statute of secrecy with regards to the Nobel Prize for Literature. She had
leaked information on serval different occasions information regarding the as
of yet secretive Laureate. She had first done this is nineteen-ninety six and
the last time in two-thousand and sixteen. It has been speculated that Jean-Claude
Arnault used this privileged information to his advantage, financial otherwise.
It goes without saying that breaking this statute is a highly reprimandable offense.
Though it has been said many members of the Swedish Academy have told their
significant others of who would win the Nobel Prize for Literature, but they
could be trusted, and never used the information for any beneficiary or
self-serving means—or so we hope.
After
the resignation of these two women, Sweden reacted in outrage and protest. They
believe the Swedish Academy internally had pitted two women against each other,
in order to hide the crimes and negligence of men. But this is not necessarily
true. It is perhaps true on the front of Sara Danius, she had been unjustly
sent to the alter to be sacrificed; while on the front of Katarina Frostenson,
she had dug her own grave by violating ethics, morals and the internal statutes
of the Swedish Academy, knowingly. She had accepted money from the intuition to
assist in running her club and she advertised privileged information, which in
return could (or did) benefit her. I have no sympathy for Katarina Frostenson,
as she had obviously decided to take full advantage of her position to benefit
herself, and had done so for a decade plus.
Since
then the Swedish Academy has been doing its best to put out the flames which
have been left in the wake of scandal and resignations. Since then another
member has also resigned. Horace Engdahl and Goran Malmqvist, continued to
enflame the public with more comments, and the Swedish Academy continued to
fail to get control of the situation. It should come to no surprise that the
Nobel Prize for Literature has been postponed for a year. It’s the only
logical, knowledgeable and wise decision the Swedish Academy could have done at
this point.
(iv)
The
question now is: how will the Swedish Academy redeem itself, reinstitute itself,
and gain the trust and respect from the public once again. Let’s slip into the
vernacular for the moment and call a spade a spade: They fucked up royally. The
Swedish Academy had proven a multitude of points during these ensuring events
(a)
They
cannot properly govern themselves. They prove to the world that in the depths
of the Swedish Academy the ‘old guard,’ still reigns supreme, with many men
still refusing to acknowledge or budge on matters of contemporary reforms.
Beyond that, the Swedish Academy proves that it was unable to properly take a
stand on ethics and morals, when faced with facts and refused to exclude a
member despite breaking its golden statute of secrecy.
(b)
They
have proven that they are a fragmented entity, and when the going gets tough it’s
an opportune moment to make political maneuvers; as both Goran Malmqvist and
Horace Engdahl proved.
(c)
Personal
friendships override all grounds of proper governance. The vast majority of
voting showed this to be true—and many resisted (or still remain reistant) to
the law firm to continue the investigation into personal relationships of
members held with Jean-Claude Arnault.
For
now the Swedish Academy is quite—and it is in their best interest to remain
silent. Any comment now issued or made without official status, will only put
the Swedish Academy into a further tail spin.
Moving
away from the Swedish Academy, the current talk throughout the world is rather
frightening to varying degrees. Many have taken the current scandal and
weaponized it into a feminist and political issue. The issue is not very
political and it is not feminist oriented. If any issue of feminist is to be
taken against anyone, it is against Jean-Claude Arnault, who has allegedly
attacked, mistreated and disrespected various women (including apparently, the
Princess of Sweden). But this does not mean some opportunists are taking it
upon themselves to demand concessions with future Nobel Prizes for Literature.
Many believe the Nobel Prize for Literature of two-thousand and nineteen should
be shared by two women, in order to repair the damage. I find this statement
absurd. If it is one thing the Nobel Prize for Literature has been
semi-diligent about, it is not making political statements with regards to its
decisions. It has awarded (for the most part) worthy writers (not Bob Dylan) on
grounds of literary merit. These decisions should not and are in fact promoted
and propagated by the Swedish Academy, to be free from any external political
influences—how much of that is true, I couldn’t say. To share the Nobel Prize
for Literature between two women would be considered a forced sentiment. If
anything the Swedish Academy needs to work on getting its self-back on its
feet, and continue with the good work—which would mean Horace Engdahl and Goran
Malmqvist would need to shut their mouths. It has also been reported there are
three new potential members already in waiting to be inducted into the Swedish
Academy as well. Who they are, is as of yet unknown. Though I believe next
month (or they will be elected to the Swedish Academy in September) we will
know their names and they will be officially inducted into the Swedish Academy
come December, I believe (how without the required twelve member quorum I do
not know).
As
the good work apparently is to continue here is hoping the Swedish Academy can
rectify its recent travesty and get back to work. Here’s hoping for another
moment of ritual act of humiliation, as they announce two obscure and unknown
authors—now wouldn’t that be double trouble and a good year of reading.
On
a side note: for those wondering, I have decided to postpone my Nobel
Speculation for this year as the award has been postponed. However, this gives
me even greater time to compile more names, more research for the list; it will
offer greater time to review and revise, add and subtract, so by August 14th
of two-thousand and nineteen it should be a marvelous list (or so I hope).
For
now my Dear Gentle Reader, I wish you well.
Thank-you
For Reading Gentle Reader
Take
Care
And
As Always
Stay
Well Read
M.
Mary
P.S.
– It should be noted Gentle Reader, that since the statute of election for life
has been amended by his majesty King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, only four
members of the Swedish Academy have taken the opportunity to officially resign.
They are:
Lotta
Lotass
Klas
Östergren
Sara
Stidsberg
Kerstin
Ekman
There
is no word yet on whether or not, Sara Danius, Peter Englund, Kjell Espmark or Katarina
Frostenson will formally resign; as they currently sit as inactive within the
Swedish Academy’s records. However, after two years of inactivity their seats
become void and open for new elections and inductions.
For Further Reading --
Tim Parks - "The Nobel Prize for Literature is a Scandal All by itself,"
Claire Armitstead - "Nobel literature prize: anomalous vanity bauble scrambles for dignity."
No comments:
Post a Comment