Departing Deft Critics

Hello Gentle World

Do to the current state of the world one is often given the impression they are living in the twilight hours of the end of the world. Recent articles having shown just how unsettled and dystopian the world truly is—or perhaps via a cynics stand point: always has been. The United Nations released a frightening and eye opening report and testament on climate change, and how splinter close the world is to entering irreversible climate catastrophic measures. Those who have not opened up their eyes to the reality the danger poses are worrisome creatures. Climate change can no longer be denied as hoax or myth or scientifically unproven—its happening, and unfortunately we all live on this planet, and if it becomes inhabitable, then we will die alongside it. The current political climate would be called more divisive then it has been in recent memory. A political correct totalitarian left has in turn created a populist fueled reactionary right, which takes fascist rhetoric to authoritarian measures. Politically speaking, any centre situated politic is now longer available. Everyday somewhere in this world there is a terrible political beast rising to power. Democracy, liberty, independence, free speck—pillars of principles—fall to the wayside and are banished as afterthoughts to the attics of antiquarian values. Just the other day Brazil elected Jair Bolsonaro—a retired military officer turned politician, whose campaign style and rhetoric mirrored and shadowed a similar one seen of others in recent memory. Then of course there is the case of murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was killed inside the Saudi Arabian embassy in Istanbul, Turkey. The act has been speculated to have been condoned and even ordered by Saudi Arabian crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman. The reaction by western leaders has been vocal and verbal, but nothing beyond that. Leading one to question whether or not any action will be taken. Turkeys president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has been the most vocal critic of the entire situation, going so far as to demand the eighteen men who are suspected of participating the murder be extradited, as well as the relinquishment of the Turkish citizen who is suspected of concealing Khashoggis body. The desert kingdom has so far denied the request for extradition, failed to provide a reason or excuse for their suspected behaviour, and has no cooperated with international judicial processes. For this Turkish President Erdoğan has gone so far as to criticize and theorize the Saudi Arabian government is protecting the suspects from all judicial inquires and justice. Looking further east, the political situation in China has become increasingly frightening, as Xi Jinping has consolidated the most power within the communist nation since Mao Zedong. Jinping has also aggressively squashed dissidence, freedom of speech, as well as utilized a new anti-corruption commission to politically terrorize and detain opponents, such as Interpol’s Chief, Meng Hongwei; as well as the squashing student protests and magazines in Hong Kong. These coupled with an aggressive foreign policy which desires expansionism, has created turbulent and troubling times in the Far East. Then of course there is the nuclear position of the United States and Russia; not to mention the caprice exhibited by (North) Korea. Russian President, Vladimir Putin, recently gave scathing remarks on the unadvisable decision it would be for any foreign power to attempt or decide to begin a nuclear war with the nation. Then there is the sheer act of mindless violence, such as the recent mass shooting at a Jewish synagogue in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. The sheer act of anti-Semitism is disturbed and equally disgusting. The political response was of course asinine and revolting. No place of worship should ever be required to have an armed guard on its premises, and no politician should ever be so absurd as to make the suggestion, let alone call it a solution.

The literary world has been described by some as in equally dire straits. Though, the literary world is not sitting in the blue waiting room of waning twilight, patient and watching for the nuclear-green dawn of the of days. The literary world by comparison is sitting alone by a nearly extinguished fire, in a old and worn leather armchair which it can’t possibly part with, wrapped in a violet shawl of dusk, and starring across the room of shadows into the ultramarine and indigo nothingness of a future which may not exist—or at least not exist, comparable to the nostalgic silvery twinkle of the receding stars of its past. A casual internet search will always herald the end; be it: the death of the novel; the obliteration of poetry—often called stuffy, pretentious and uncommunicative—the dwindling importance of dramatic writing for the stage, now being replaced for scriptwriting for film; the abandonment of the short story; and now: the dismal departure and decline of literary criticism and theory, as a culturally necessary form and institution, to weigh, direct and influence the literary tastes of the era.

Back in two-thousand and nine Kirkus Reviews shut its doors and ceased to produce any new anonymous reviews. Kirkus Reviews was famous and notorious for its reviews, which both writers and agents dreaded. For this the anonymous critics and reviewers for the review were scoffed and scalded at by writers, while also simultaneously being utilized by publishers when a book received a positive review and recognition. Then there was the famous literary critic for the New York Times, Michiko Kakutani, who was revered and feared by both readers and writers. Kakutani was unapologetic, acerbic, and cared little for how established a writer was, if shew viewed their work as subpar, she had no issue in stating just that. Michiko Kakutani has also been known for being instrumental on elevating writers into more prominent positions which includes: Jonathan Franzen, David Foster Wallace, George Saunders and Mary Karr. Yet despite boosting their writing careers, some have still hissed and spat venom at her as well. Such as Jonathan Franzen, who once famously called her: “the stupidest person in New York City,” when she (perhaps rightfully) criticised his memoir, “The Discomfort Zone,” as a: “[ . . . ] odious self-portrait of the artist as a young jackass: petulant, pompous, obsessive, selfish and overwhelmingly self-absorbed.” In two-thousand and seventeen, Michiko Kakutani retired from the New York Times as its chief book critic. Recently she has published her own piece of non-fiction: “Death of Truth,” where she horrifyingly observes how the populace has decided to believe in ‘alternative facts,’ and blatant fabrications and fallacies as fact, by a man who has been elected to an office, and who is conventionally responsible to be a voice of virtue, morality, ethics, and obligations for a nation; but instead dismisses and creates divisions for further unconditional attempts at consolidation of greater power and authority. Despite not being a literary critic, willing praise and shred by the mood of the day, Michiko Kakutani has been able to maintain a skeptical mind, a potent eye, a sturdy hand and a sharp tongue turned pen to criticize and offer a sober thought on pressing matters. In this case politics—or more precisely the contemporary dirty business of politics, in an era where facts, logic and police are a mere afterthought.

As book sales (which include novels, short stories, and poetry collections) fall to the wayside in favour of other storytelling mediums: movies, television and video games—the requirement for a literary critic also falls. Do not be mistaken though: books are still important, and people still hanker for a story; though they may not be interested in literary pomp and stylistic techniques which only exist and serve the purpose to showcase an author’s powers. Readers still exist, but tolerance for any piece of work which becomes hermetic or cloistered off is less tolerable, as it cannot engage the reader or hold their attention. Then there is the select few who hanker for the more unique, experimental and literary quality oriented pieces of work—such as myself Gentle Reader, who cannot stand the idea of reading just a common novel or short story collection. Preference is for something with riveting language, unique exploration, and a good discussion of a potent theme; story and plot can always come second. Even then though attention is in demand, and it cannot be held, the book does not hold up.

If declining book sales are not the sole reason literary critics are quietly departing into the rafters, their opinions and their reviews now no longer needed, then what is the biggest driving force behind the decline of literary criticism and literary critics? The answer is: popular cultural demand. In today’s contemporary world, people distrust ‘experts,’—including doctors, lawyers, and judges and so on. The youth of today and the previous generation have all be taught they have a tongue, two vocal cords, a brain and reasonable ability which grants them the ability to speak. This has also been pumped up with a undescribed dosage of self-esteem and self-confidence. These same individuals believe that because they have an opinion and a voice and reasonable abilities that now everyone should be able to hear them or read them, and be enlightened by their opinions. In today’s world everyone has a blog, vlog, twitter account—an avenue in which they can express and proclaim their opinions. These same people are not necessarily experts, rather they share a passion or an interest, or just enjoy the activity and would just like to carve out a space for themselves to write their opinions and their reviews, and they do—and this would also include me. Subsequently these opinions, perspectives, and reviews are all online and for free. There is no need for a magazine subscription, and there is no monetary loss. Suddenly people can see what an average or passionate reader thinks about a piece of work without them being an expert. The issue moves beyond a popular culture one, where people prefer or demand or respect the opinions of those they view as equal. Part of the problem also exists with the literary world’s inability to change and adjust with the times. Literary criticism in particular failed to scrape out its own existence for itself, or renew the lease on its old market; publishers also failed to see the changing times, and are now in a reactionary mode trying to keep up with the changing climate and culture of the information age. Suddenly the book market is flooded with a glut of authors, from established, to debut, to self-published, to be recently translated, and so and so forth. There are few gatekeepers at the helm to watch over the floodgates, so the work keeps pouring out and demanding a reader of some sorts; and though they won’t admit: they also need a critic; someone to analyze and curiously review the work. It’s not always pretty, it’s not always funny, and it’s not always graceful. Kirkus Reviews may have departed nine years ago, and Michiko Kakutani may have retired. The torch is not extinguished and there is hope. It’s just monetarily put in storage.

As the rest of the world sits and waits whether or not tomorrow: is the day; the literary world immobilized in its overstuffed, well-worn leather chair, caked in cobwebs and curiously staring into the inky shadows across the room, it wonders if there is a tomorrow for itself—a tomorrow like all those tomorrows from before. Only it can make that decision for itself. With renewed novelists and writers, there most certainly must be renewed and revised critics willing to play both friend and devil’s advocate. Someone who is willing to recommend for the shelf; while also ask that a book be tossed in the waste basket. If anything from the past is to be learned from critics is they have proven the pen is sharper, more unforgiving, and far more powerful than any sword or bomb. A few strikes of a pen and the words very well may outlast both author and critic, and damn a book for an eternity.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

Further News from the Swedish Academy

Hello Gentle Reader

Last week the Swedish Academy had released they have appointed a new member to its ranks: Mats Malm, a literature professor who has a specialization in ancient Nordic languages. Professor Mats Malm, becomes the newest recruit for the Swedish Academy, and will be formally elected during a ceremony on December 20th, whereby he will take his seat Chair No. 11, along with two other newly elected members: Justice Eric Runesson, and poet and author Jila Mossaed. Dramatist, poet, and novelist Niklas Rådström, is said to have received a request to join the Swedish Academy as well, but it appears has turned the offer down. Pro Tempore Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Anders Olsson has stated that Chair No. 13 formally held by Sara Stridsberg, will most likely remain vacant for the remainder of the year. Anders Olsson believes the Swedish Academy has found greater stability with the election of the three new members. Anders Olsson had stated the goal is to host an election in the early spring to fill Chair No. 13.

The situation and predicament of Katarina Frostenson has once again been raised. Anders Olsson stated it all depends on how, Frostenson responds to the request she voluntarily resigns. In the event she chooses not to resign from the Swedish Academy, she will be investigated with regards to the accusations and allegations of her breaking the statutes of secrecy, as well as the statute of conflict of interest. Otherwise, the situation of Katarina Frostenson remains unchanged; as it sits in the precarious purgatory of ambiguity.

Despite the waters of the Swedish Academy calming, back to their reflective glassy sheen, a few grumbles and bubbles escape the recently restored façade:

In an interview with the Times Literary Supplement Horace Engdahl commented on the situation of the Swedish Academy and called the times dangerous. He linked the recent social media movement (#MeToo) to the Reign of Terror in post-revolutionary France. In this same interview Horace Engdahl, rejected the depiction of fraternization he apparently had with Jean-Claude Aranult, the man recently convicted and associated with the erupting scandal for the Swedish Academy. During this interview Horace Engdahl also depicted himself as a causality of the movement and accusations against Arnault, and firmly stands by the fact everything he has stated and acted on, was done in with the hopes to sustain and maintain the Swedish Academy through the crisis. Though I do believe Horace Engdahl has in previous years always kept the Swedish Academy’s interests aligned with his own; the events of the scandal and his behavior would be questionable as to whether or not Engdahl was completely objective in his attempts to maintain the reputation of the academy; or perhaps lost the objectivity to the twirling swirls of the emotional undercurrents, as he sought to protect his friends: Jean-Claude Arnault and Katarina Frostenson. During the scandal, Horace Endgahl made churlish and bullheaded public accusations against the former Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Sara Danius, as well as other members who left the Swedish Academy in the wake of the crisis. It became apparent that Horace Engdahl played politics during the crisis of the Swedish Academy, and he was publicly tried in the court of public opinion, where he was found guilty. During this time, Horace Engdahl was not interested in facilitating any dialogue with any member of the public of the time or the Swedish Academy itself, instead Engdahl dictated his interpretation of the facts, and propagated them with propagandist zeal. With regards to himself depicting himself as a victim during the situation, who had been unjustly been convicted—it would not be insufficient to state the grounds of his appeal are meritless. To this day, Horace Engdahl showcases and states implications he finds the conviction of Jean-Claude Arnault baffling, and even unwarranted. He lambasts and decries the treatment of Katarina Frostenson as unsavory and disagreeable, stating since the scandal and conviction of her husband she has always been referred to in the context of either the situation or as the wife, never as a prominent and groundbreaking poet of her generation. On these grounds, Horace Engdahl states, history will judge Katarina Frostenson with greater light, in which it will highlight her poetry over her marriage and the scandal of the Swedish Academy.

Though I do not necessarily disagree with everything Horace Engdahl has stated in his interview, it is easy to see how he erupted with such scolding venom during the scandal. I must concede that I do agree that the social media movement (#MeToo) has begin to lose its own merits, where it believes it can curtail the procedures of justice and the principles and pillars of a fair trial, whereby it seeks to publicly deface, slander, tar and feather the accused without any consequence to their own actions, and without providing any evidence other than accusations, allegations, with no to little testimony. With regards to Katarina Frostenson, I retain my stance that Frostenson had by all legal definitions—as well as definitions of reasonable common sense—would see that she had behaved and acted without moral probity or a sober ethical perspective in mind. Together with Jean-Claude Arnault (her husband) she had accepted financial assistance from the Swedish Academy, to help run the club Forum, again with her husband. This proven allegation, states alone she should have been expelled from the academy; but alas thanks in part to the machinations of Horace Engdahl, Sture Allen and Göran Malmqvist, the academy (by majority—with former member Sara Stridsberg abstaining) voted to allow Katarina Frostenson to retain her seat, and the subsequent scandal ensured, leaving the academy in its current predicament. Despite her lack of business acumen as well as probity and sober moral conscious, it is a shame that the poetry of Katarina Frostenson is now considered a secondary feature of her character, within the reflection of the current scandal and situation. Before the scandal, Katarina Frostenson was considered a revolutionary and striking feminist voice of poetry during the late seventies and eighties in Sweden. She would later be elected to the Swedish Academy in the early nineties; yet her poetic endeavors have not diminished during her appointment to the academy, where she began to write and produce experimental dramatic texts and plays. In two-thousand and sixteen she would receive the Nordic Council’s Literature Prize, for poetry collection: “Sånger och former,” (English: “Songs and Formulae,”). Yet as someone once told me: shit sticks longer then honey—and unfortunately it appears to be the case here for Katarina Frostenson and her poetry.

All of this However, my dear Gentle Reader is all rather old news. Most of it took place a week ago, or more. During that time, I suffered a terrible bout of influenza and was not able to report on these events as they had occurred and for that I do apologize. Finally: I am on the mend and am happy to report the above information. I suspect now and moving forward, Gentle Reader, the Swedish Academy will fall back into its usual routine, whereby all inquiries will be met with stony silence or indifference. 

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary  

For Further Reading Gentle Reader, Please See the Following Links: 

Ekuriren: "Academy message: No new member this year,"

The Times Literary Supplement: "No peace prize Richard Orange reveals the crisis inside the Swedish Academy,"

The Potency of Goodbyes

Hello Gentle Reader

Nothing is as infuriating as learning of a new writer simply because they have died. It leaves one with this sensation of a missed opportunity. A failed chance encounter. The past week saw the departure of two authors who I had previously been unaware of: Argentinian legend and short story master: Hebe Uhart; and Finnish breakaway author: Arto Paasilinna. Following my Dear Gentle Reader are two short and sweet testimonies on their lives and their work, with what little information has been provided and released. Their departures were quiet, missing the plated grandness and pantomime orchestration which would be used in the event a musician or celebrity, would have in the event of their passing. Yet perhaps, this is what allows writers to pass with relative dignity. A quiet poised piece of respect deprived of the carnality of mass grief, in favour of solitary solace.

Hebe Uhart –

It was the lovely Archipelago Books which first informed me of Hebe Uhart; and the fact of she died late last week. In their announcement of her passing, Archipelago Books announced they would be publishing a selection of her short stories in the autumn of two-thousand and nineteen, translated by Maureen Shaughnessy. From there I delved deeper into the author. She graduated with a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and taught in both primary and secondary schools, before long she taught at the post-secondary level of education. As a writer she was renowned for hosting literary workshops in Buenos Aires and was a frequent contributor to numerous magazines. Ricardo Piglia had called her the best Argentinian writer, a statement Hebe Uhart did not accept. She stated that to be the best meant one is alone, and she did not want to be alone. Uhart wrote novels and short stories, as well as dabbled in a bit of travel writing. Yet she is most renowned for her short stories. If one looks through the English language to find Hebe Uhart, they will find disappointment of how little has been translated. Thankfully, Asymptote had published one of her short stories: “Guiding the Ivy,” translated by Maureen Shaughnessy, in their online magazine. The story is short and terse, but carries the author’s defined grace as pulls facts and thoughts from the ordinary and begins to turn the personal or even the provincial into a greater metaphor for the universal and a commentary on the human condition. Reading the praise offered to Hebe Uhart, both in life and now in her passing, makes it regrettable and frustrating that I had never had the chance to read her prior. She seems strikingly humble perhaps even self-effacing to a fault, but the grace which is noted pushes such notions to the side, to reveal a giant not deprived of qualities but rather modest in their radiance. Beyond her love of writing and conversations concerning philosophical matters and literature (and I’m sure other eclectic topics), she was an avid gardener, renowned for her balcony forest of flowers and plants.

Arto Paasilinna –

The Finnish language is one of the most difficult languages to learn in the world. This means the writers of the Nordic nation are often isolated and alienated from readers of other languages. Eeva Tikka, Sirkka Turkka, Raija Siekkinen, Olli Jalonen, and Jouni Inkala, are sadly left alone in their language, though surely their works and words would be welcome abroad. Though one should not estimate the English languages distrust towards the foreign. Despite the Finnish languages notoriety for being unforgiving and challenging in its linguistic peculiarity, some authors have been known to find success outside of Finland. Arto Paasilinna was one such writer. Along with Leena Korhn and Tove Jansson, Arto Paasilinna was able to escape the confines of the Finnish language, complete with its often daunting reputation, and find his work translated into other languages. In Finland he was popular, an author of thirty-five works. His works were renowned for their whimsy and surreal plot lines, often taking the most unique characters and allowing them to escape on some grand adventure, riddled with whimsy, peculiarity, and eccentricity abound. His novel “The Year of the Hare,” has been acclaimed in all languages it has been translated into; and has been adapted for film twice. It’s a characteristic novel by Paasilinna, as it details the odd and at times magical world his characters inhabit. In this particular case a frustrated journalist almost kills a hare with his vehicle and through either guilt or delirium, decides to live and care for the hare in the wilderness. The novel is filled with the surreal uncertainty as all of his narratives, but is also riddled with the comedic and the satirical, as it probes the human condition with all its absurd wonders, glories, and frailties. The combination of the comedic and the surreal often made him a favourite with readers, who enjoyed his mordant and trenchant wit to discuss the comedic and tragic of life.

Rest in Peace, Hebe Uhart and Arto Paasilinna.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

The Booker Prize Winner, 2018

Hello Gentle Reader

This year’s Booker Prize was the first in years where the prize received greater recognition for its diversity, and has been considered the strongest longlist and shortlist in recent years. The judges praised this years listed books for being poignant and particular treaties on today’s troubling social and political climate, where they dealt with dark and often unsettling qualities of human nature and the changing socio-political climate. The longlist in particular received particular notice with its first time inclusion of a graphic novel (“Sabrina,” Nick Drnaso). The praise of the longlist transitioned to the shortlist, with continual praise being awarded to the diversity of location, gender, and again themes.  

On the shortlist, Daisy Johnson was named as the favourite to win the award with her debut novel: “Everything Under.” If she had won, she would have become the youngest winner of the prize at the tender age of twenty-seven. Her novel a reimagining of a classical Greek myth with contemporary tones and scenery documents and explores the complicated and strained relationship between mother and daughter. Since being shortlisted for the award, Daisy Johnson has been a hotly discussed author of late, with the media and readers curious to learn more about this particularly talented young writer. Sadly, however, Daisy Johnson did not receive the award, nor did the bookies other favourite: Richard Powers with his ecological novel: “The Overstory.”  

The winner of this year’s Booker Prize was, Anna Burns for her novel: “Milkman.” In receiving the award, Anna Burns becomes the first Northern Irish author to receive the Booker Prize. “Milkman,” has been praised as a experimental and haunting testament on the contemporaries societies almost paranoid self. It’s narrated by an unnamed eighteen year old woman, who is being perused (or hunted) by a paramilitary figure only referred to as: “Milkman.” The novel is dense with few paragraph breaks, no characters are named in favour of descriptions, and the use of language is considered potent and unfamiliar, eschewing all conventional courses of action. The novel has been called a breathtaking and uncomfortable as well as relevant in light of the previous year’s climate of sexual violence and scandal. Yet it’s how the novel was crafted with its unique use of language and experimental format that truly captivated the judges who were in unanimous agreement of its worth and merit.

Congratulations to Anna Burns, truly a well-deserved winner!

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

Maryse Condé Wins the Alternative Nobel Prize for Literature

Hello Gentle Reader

The Guadelopean writer Maryse Condé has won the “Alternative Nobel Prize for Literature,” or to be more precise and true: “The New Academy’s Prize for Literature.” Maryse Condé has cordially accepted the announcement with casual grace. Of the original four shortlisted authors: Haruki Murakami, Kim Thúy, Neil Gaimon, and Maryse Condé—Only Murakami and Condé, have ever been truly considered contenders for the real Nobel Prize for Literature.

Maryse Condé is best described as one of the greatest French language writers hailing from the Caribbean. Her narratives are renowned for their unique multicultural heritage, and poignant eye cast on the Caribbean’s history as a former colony, a history which still overshadows many countries in the tropical region. With remarks on the award she hopes the prize will help recognize Guadeloupe as more than just a former French colony, and a place to mention due to a hurricane or earthquake, but a vibrant and beautiful country riddled with a multicultural background, and thriving literary scene. The judges for the award have called Maryse Condé a world class storyteller, whose language is ravished with emotional intensity, while also being intensely aware of the colonial history and postcolonial present, and a future which continually is reshaped by ever desire for change and progress. Her work is known for its piercing commentary on the acts of the human heart against the backdrop of history, and telling the unique narratives, histories, and personal stories of the island nation of Guadeloupe.

When it first came to my attention that the New Academy’s Prize for Literature would be operated on ‘democratic and transparent,’ principles—in other words populist philandering; I held the view of contempt and disdain for the new award. I viewed the award as a satirical slap in the face to the Swedish Academy, who at the time acted like rotten children in a sandbox, unable to cooperate or get along or handle their issues in private with decency and decorum fitting of an institution as itself. When it came to review the longlist of authors and the fact it was open to the public, I shook my head and scoffed at many of the writers listed, which had proven my own theories and distaste towards the award, as it postured and paraded the public’s opinion of what good literature is—which is not necessarily true. However, now that I see a deserving writer takes the award, I won’t say I am disappointed or as contemptuous as I was. Maryse Condé is a worthy writer and a accomplished intellectual, whose novels explore the unique world of slavery, colonialism, post-colonialism, identity and self-worth all through the lens of a torrid and horrific history, which thankfully is not deprived of the unflinching and unyielding qualities of the human heart to resist and grow no matter the circumstance. Maryse Condé is more than deserving of the award.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

Preliminaries to the Alternative Literature Nobel Prize

Hello Gentle Reader

The Swedish Academy is adamant that it is doing its best to restore trust and legitimacy as an institution with cultural and literary adjudicating authority and powers. Last week they announced that they have elected two new members to the Swedish Academy: Justice Eric Runesson (who had also been appointed to the Swedish Supreme Court), and Jila Mossaed, an Iranian born naturalized Swedish citizen, who is renowned for her poetry in both Persian and Swedish as well as a writer of novels. The elections were received warmly, though neither will take their seat respective seat until the annual meeting on December 20^th, where they will officially take their positions in Chair No. 1 and Chair No. 15.

Despite the initial warm reception both appointees received, others have remained stony in their judgement of the academy, as they have said: neither, Justice Eric Runesson or Jila Mossaed are going to cleanse the academy of its previous five months of poor behaviour; nor will they absolve the academy of its absorbent behaviour over the past few months and even year. The academy can revise and modernize its statutes and appoint as many new members as it needs to, the rotting taste over the previous few months remains fresh in the mind and bitter on the tongue. There has been no word from the Nobel Foundation, who as it stands has a strained relationship with the academy, on whether or not it views these appointments as significant enough in regaining trust and legitimacy.

After today’s meeting, the Swedish Academy has once again come to a decision to appoint two new members to the academy. Who they are is still a mystery, due to the fact the Swedish Academy requires royal ascent in order to confirm publicly the names of the proposed two new elected members. The announcement of the two new members is expected to come either tomorrow or Monday. It was also confirmed that Peter Englund and Kjell Espmark have also participated in electing new members to the Swedish Academy; there has been no word on whether or not former Permanent Secretary Sara Danius has.

The question of Katarina Frostenson has also once again been revisited. It turns out a majority of the Swedish Academy has finally come to its senses—at least according to the Swedish Newspaper Dagens Nyheter. The majority of the Swedish Academy has drafted and signed a letter of intent, requesting that Katarina Frostenson relinquish and resign herself from the Swedish Academy, due to the violation of Statute 48, concerning locality and confidentiality.  pro tempore Permanent Secretary Anders Olsson did not comment on this; nor did any other member. Though it is implied three members oppose the letter. I speculate the three members opposing the letter are: Horace Engdahl, Sture Allen, and Göran Malmqvist; who were some of the loudest members of opposition to former Permanent Secretary Sara Danius and instigators in the crisis. There is still no word on the future or fate of Katarina Frostenson with the Swedish Academy.

Krista Lugn, a current member of the Swedish Academy’s, Nobel Committee also announced today that one winner has been decided for the Nobel Prize for Literature for two-thousand and nineteen; but did note that this may change in the following months.

With that aside, what does the Swedish Academy think of the Alternative Nobel Prize for Literature, which will announce its winner tomorrow? In short, they do not hold a high opinion of the reactionary award or Alexandra Pascalidou the Swedish-Greek journalist who had spearheaded the award. I should note Ms. Pascalidou does not appreciate the term: Alternative Nobel Prize for Literautre, she claims the award is not an alternative, but a separate award based on different passions and idealistic pillars, such as transparency and egalitarianism. Members of the Swedish Academy, however disagrees. Horace Engdahl has called the entire idea a joke, and proposes the idea is a blatant attempt at trying to create a substitute the Nobel Prize for Literature.

With regards to his friend Jean-Claude Arnault, Horace Engdahl remains firm that the Swedish Academy could not do anything with regards to the scandal let alone prevent: “the wicked deeds, if there were any.” He said in an e-mail to CNN. Anders Olsson also agrees with Horace Engdahl on his perspective of the new award and the ‘New Academy,’ which he says lacks the financial resources of the Swedish Academy as well as its intellectual authority. Alexandra Pascalidou dismisses these claims as reactionary and fearful, but expected, as well as hopes the Swedish Academy will be able to renew itself for the sake of the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Tomorrow Gentle Reader, the ‘New Academy,’ will release who will win their new award—to blunt the Alternative Nobel Prize for Literature. One of three authors are up to win the award, as Haruki Murakami had resigned himself, they are:

Maryse Condé – Guadeloupe

Neil Gaiman – United Kingdom

Kim Thúy – Vietnam/Canada

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary


For Further Reading 


Judith Vonberg, CNN: "New literature award emerges in absence of #MeToo-hit Nobel,"

Kkuriren "Contradictory information about invasion of the Academy,"

Aftonbladet: "Tasks: Decide on Frostenson's future - should leave the Swedish Academy,"

Dagens Nyheter: "Academy decision: Katarina Frostenson should leave his chair,"

Two New Members Elected to the Swedish Academy

Hello Gentle Reader

Nobel week has wrapped up beginning with the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, and now ending with the Nobel Peace Prize. Thursday was quiet as the Nobel Prize for Literature was not announced as the prize had been postponed. Earlier this week Jean-Claude Arnault, learned his fate with regards to his conviction for sexual assault, and was sentenced to two years in prison. The presiding judge in this case had choice words for the Swedish Academy, who he blamed for creating a culture of silence, which forced victims and causalities of Arnault’s to go unheard; such as in the event of former Permanent Secretary Sture Allen, disregarding a letter from a accuser back in the nineties. Despite this, the Swedish Academy has remained silent on the ruling and the choice words issued from the bench.

Last week, before Nobel Week was set to begin, the Nobel Foundation once again expressed uncertainty in its confidence of the Swedish Academy, whereby it threatened to find another institution to oversee the prize selection, decision, announcement, and relinquishment to the chosen laureate. Again, the Swedish Academy remained reticent and silent.

Now Friday, October 5^th the Swedish Academy has broken its silence to release the news it has elected two new members: the recent Swedish Supreme Court Justice appointee, Eric M. Runesson and Iranian born writer and poet, Jila Mossaed.

Justice Eric Runesson will be formally inducted to Chair No. 1, replacing the former member Lotta Lotass on December 20^th.

Jila Mossaed will be formally inducted to Chair No. 15, replacing the former member Kerstin Ekman, who resigned earlier this year and had been inactive with the Swedish Academy since the late nineteen-eighties.

Both decisions are being praised. The appointment of Eric Runesson has been seen by some in literary corners as unconventional, but it should be noted once again: Chair No. 1 had been conventionally occupied by a lawyer in years past, and despite the look he does not have any ‘literary,’ background in either theory, criticism, or publications, the legal field is riddled with a demand for extensive reading and writing. His experience as both an arbitrator and lawyer specializing in business law, may certainly prove him to have the ability to adjudicate, defend, question, negotiate and mediate literary discussions, as well as participate in them. His experience with legalities will also prove him to be an asset to the Swedish Academy when handling issues of a conflicting nature—such as the one that faced the Academy with regards to Katarina Frostenson operating a business with her husband which received financial assistance from the Swedish Academy, which she was a member of. His position as a lawyer and a judge may also allow Justice Eric Runesson to mitigate and handle scandals internally before they erupt out of control, as witnessed this past spring. It will be interesting to see if he will act as ambassador to inactive members, to see if they will consider returning to the Swedish Academy.

The appointment of Jila Mossaed, has been met with more conventional praise, but she is still a unique face to the Swedish Academy. Mossaed left Iran in the late nineteen-eighties, and entered exile into Sweden. She has published two novels, six poetry collections in Persian, and another seven collections of poetry in Swedish. She is a critically acclaimed author and poet. Her induction will only prove to be able to open the Swedish Academy’s perspective into Middle Eastern cultures and languages, and most importantly its language.

With regards to the new elected members, His Majesty King Carl Gustav XVI, has accepted both nominations and has cleared them to being inducted in a ceremony on the 20^th of December. Following their announcements, his royal highness had the following statement:

“The election of two new members is positive. I hope The Swedish Academy will be given the opportunity to continue rebuilding the trust of the institution and that the academy can now continue its important work.”

This is merely once again another step for the Swedish Academy, as it moves towards rebuilding itself as an institution, and regaining the trust of the public; while restoring its integrity as a cultural and legitimate adjudicating authority of cultural and literary achievement. Whether or not this has moved the Nobel Foundation, is yet unknown.

For now though, congratulations can only be offered to the two new members: Justice Eric Runesson and Jila Mossaed. With their elections and eventual inducements they will allow the Swedish Academy to once again hold a quorum of twelve members. However there are still many inactive members and vacant seats still needing to be filled.  Demands have once again been made for Katarina Frostenson to step down and recuse herself from the academy; on that end, the Swedish Academy has remained bitterly silent.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

For Further Reading Gentle Reader Please See The Following Links:

The Local Sweden: "Two new members join scandal-ridden Swedish Academy,"

Reuters: "Nobel-awarding Swedish Academy elects new members after rape scandal,"

Business Day: "Nobel literature body elects Iranian poet and Swedish judge,"