Hello Gentle Reader
December has been increasingly busy as it comes to its
inevitable closure. The past weeks have been spent preparing and executing Christmas
plans and get togethers with family; which apparently means enduring a marathon
of hallmark Christmas movies; the continual assault of Christmas music now in an
intimate home setting; and the polite suffrage of other holiday guests. With the
New Year, and the New Decade right around the corner, everything else is coming
to a unceremonious and routine ending.
At the end of the December, the Swedish Academy was
quite busy. December 20th in particular was their Annual Grand
meeting, whereby they’ve formally inducted their new elected members to the following
chairs:
Chair No. 7 – Åsa Wikforss
Chair No. 9 – Ellen Mattson
Chair No. 13 – Anne Swärd
Chair No. 18 – Tua Forsström
Chair No. 5 – formally occupied by the late Göran
Malmqvist currently sits vacant. If I were to offer a name to consider for
election to this seat, it would be the writer, poet, librarian, academic, and
translator Göran Sonnevi, who was kindly introduced to me by Bror Axel Dehn, a
young up and coming journalist (and I am sure writer), whose current work can
be found on Vagant. Göran Sonnevi is
one of Swedens most esteemed poets, his range from political and topical
discussions (the Vietnam War, the Cold War, globalization, immigration, and
cultural conflicts), despite the social commentary they provide, Göran Sonnevi
retains objective optics, never indoctrinating, supporting, or bolstering any
ideological concept; instead his work seeks out greater universal human meaning
in these events. His work has been awarded both the Swedish Academy Nordic
Prize and the Nordic Council Literature Prize for: “The Ocean [Oceanen].” Göran Sonnevi would be a
valuable member to the Swedish Academy. This being said, the Swedish Academy
has made no formal statement or informal inclination as to who will succeed the
late Göran Malmqvist.
For the time being congratulations are in order to the
four formally inducted members. I make no reservations in stating that when it
was announced Tua Forsström had been chosen to become an appointed member to
the academy, I was ecstatic; though it wasn’t without a bittersweet aftertaste.
I often speculated that Tua Forsström would be a worthy Nobel Laureate, her
poetry probes with simplicity and grace the existential conundrums of human
complexity; the conflicts and fragile nature of relationships; and the beauty
and unforgiving natural landscape. It is an easy caveat to swallow, when one is
able to be a part of the Nobel Laureate deliberations and discussions, even if
it excludes them from winning the prize themselves. Of course my hope is that Tua
Forsström will be able to lobby and bring Finnish speaking writers into the
discussion. Needless to say I look forward to the coming years.
The other newly elected member to the Swedish Academy,
Åsa Wikforss will also become a valuable asset to the Swedish Academy. As a
professor of theoretical philosophy Åsa Wikforss’s recent work tackles the
recent trend of ‘alternative facts,’ and the damaging potential they have on
society, knowledge, and how information is consumed; with such an impressive
portfolio and resume Åsa Wikforss will most certainly bring sobering
perspective to the academy’s deliberations.
This year saw the return of the Nobel Prize for
Literature, after it was postponed last year due to an unprecedented scandal
and ensuring controversy, which saw numerous members resign, the Nobel
Foundation take a adjudicating role, and numerous calls for the Swedish Academy
to reform itself. Two-thousand and eighteen was not the best year for the
Swedish Academy, though no stranger to controversy for some of their decisions;
but when it came to scrutinizing their own affairs, such as their lack of
proper governance, mismanagement of funds, allegations of conflict of
interests, as well as the lack of ethics and moral obligations, the Swedish
Academy’s austere grandeur fell aside, as the internal rot seeped forth,
resulting in otherwise public disputes, disgraces, and battles between factions
within the academy. It is hard to say whether or not the situation within the
Swedish Academy has been completely resolved or not. Though the academy has
renewed its statutes, taken greater precautions to strengthen its internal
governance, and so far has been able to sate the ire from the Nobel Foundation,
all the while seeking to carry on the with the routine operations of the
academy’s work. Throughout it all, the Swedish Academy has elected and inducted
new members into its ranks, has instilled yet another new Permanent Secretary,
and is only one member short from being at full roster.
This year’s Nobel Prize for Literature was unique as
it would see two laureates announced one for two-thousand and nineteen, and the
other retroactively for the previous year. The two laureates for the years:
2018 and 2019 were as follows:
2018 – Olga Tokarczuk: “for a narrative imagination
that with encyclopedic passion represents the crossing of boundaries as a form
of life.”
2019 – Peter Handke: “for an influential work that
with linguistic ingenuity has explored the periphery and the specificity of
human experience.”
Despite crawling away from the still smoldering remains
of the previous scandal, the Swedish Academy found itself embroiled in a new
one with the decision to award Peter Handke the prize. The controversy over
Peter Handke’s documented support for the Serbian leader and war criminal Slobodan
Milošević, became the major talking point during the Nobel season, which sadly
overshadowed Peter Handke’s services and contribution to literature, while also
overshadowing Olga Tokarczuk’s Nobel recognition. The controversy surrounding Peter
Handke, saw one of the external members of the Nobel Committee resign, and former
Permanent Secretary Peter Englund did not attend the Nobel proceedings on moral
grounds. It should be noted Peter Englund served with the Swedish military in
Bosnia during the Yugoslav Wars, and on good conscious and unimpeachable
integrity, Peter Englund boycotted the events. Meanwhile, wherever Peter Handke
went, protests were sure to follow, and they did. Images, signs, slogans—were advertised
quickly throughout the Stockholm and the internet, condemning Handke as a
supporter of war crimes and genocide. Overtime the Swedish Academy and the
Nobel Website and other social media outlets, attempted to curb or diminish the
spotlight Peter Handke was given on these mediums, in order to curb the
pushback further. Despite the protests, Peter handke still delivered his Nobel
Lecture and received his Nobel medal and diploma by the hands of the King of Sweden.
Olga Tokarczuk, has sadly been overlooked during the
proceedings, her achievements ignored, her merits unacknowledged. In comparing
the two ins of Peter Handke and Olga Tokarczuk, some state that Peter Handke is
the superior writer. Handke is noted for his formal experimentation, his work
in multiple of mediums, the first and foremost being theatre. His novels have
been noted for their powerful panoramic survey of the human condition, and its
constant existential crisis. His influential pen has influenced many writers
across the world. Handke has always been deemed one of the living classics, whose
work will continue to be read, studied, consumed and enjoyed for years to come.
His contributions to German literature, and soon international literature cannot
be denied or overlooked. To compare Peter Handke and Olga Tokarczuk is not
entirely a fair measurement of eithers literary merit, or their contributions
or services to world literature. Peter Handke may have made explosive lasting
impacts decades prior, Olga Tokarczuk in comparison has been a quiet giant on
the global stage, whose long overdue recognition has now been reached. Where
Peter Handke explores in the world in postmodern peripheral fashion, seeking to
redefine or rediscover the world anew, while exemplifying the failure of language
as a medium in order to properly transcribe the world, while hinting at the
continued existential crisis of those inhabiting the world. Olga Tokarczuk can
be found on the strange entangled postmodern family tree as Peter Handke. Where
Peter Handke is most likely described as an early postmodernist with admiration
in stylistic ventures towards modernism, Olga Tokarczuk delights in her
narratives being a mosaic reflecting: “fragmented consciousness,” or reflecting
a constellation like format, whereby multiple independent functions, coordinate
to create a cohesive and unique unified whole, while maintaining their own
unique qualities independent of the whole. Tokarczuk is not quite as impersonable
as Handke is in his descriptions of the world around and beyond. In contrast, Olga
Tokarczuk takes an introspective perspective, which slowly accumulates in its independence
a singular reflection of the greater whole. As a student of Carl Jung and a
psychologist by training, Tokarczuk maintains a fresh and vigorous curiosity to
the human psyche. In a similar fashion to Jung, Olga Tokarczuk maintains an analytical
and critical eye to the macro patterns of the human psyche via anthropological observation.
Fairytales, folktales, and mythological elements weave and twine themselves
through the cultures of the human experience, each one an independent reflection
and understanding of the human experience as a whole. In turn, Olga Tokarczuk
maintains a mythical approach to writing, producing tender narratives and
modern fairytales, which reflect the primeval nature of the human imagination
and its influence on the human condition.
In the award ceremony speech, the Swedish Academy
praised Olga Tokarczuk’s work for its engagement in the ‘excoriating strangeness,’
of the world. The same strangeness which is found in her encyclopedic knowledge
of the arcane, preoccupation with astrology, enjoyment of the forlorn and
forgotten myths, superstitions, interpretation of dreams, and lost esoteric
patron saints. These minute details and abstruse facts are but a few treasures
which can be found in the mercurial work of Tokarczuk. Thankfully the auhor is
also capable of turning these details, philosophical contemplations,
digressions into psychology, history anatomy, and the otherwise unknown, into
gripping and potent narratives that can engage the reader on both an
intellectual level but also an enjoyable level. Beyond her engagement with the ‘excoriating
strangeness,’ of the world, the Swedish Academy gives immediate praise to the
author for her engagement with humanistic ideals. In this they reference her most
recent work: “The Book of Jacob,” (translation forthcoming in English in the New
Year) the Swedish Academy makes poignant and potent observations about the writer’s
depiction of Jakob Frank the charismatic mystic, who also is nothing but a fraudulent
manipulator, and theological rebel. His questionings and positionings as
himself as a new Messiah, are no different, but rather simply on par with others
through the later centuries, such as Hitler or Stalin. Despite their
differences in work, or their cruel nature of their actions in accordance with
their messages, they are able to rally their rabbles under a common guise, on
common ground, with a common scheme, which ultimately leads to a new and better
world. In this perhaps, despite her humanistic vision, Olga Tokarczuk also sees
the inherent flaw to the ideologies of seeking to create or achieve a new or
better world, it is destined to its own failure, because what is new or what is
better is not equally shared by all. Despite this, Olga Tokarczuk had announced
she will use part of the prize money associated with the Nobel Prize win to
establish a foundation to promote cross-cultural exchanges, human rights activism
for civil freedoms, and support for environmental causes.
As Nobel week came to its ceremonious conclusion for
the year, neither literature laureate appeared during the Nobel Minds forum for
the year. Instead the round table held at the old Stockholm Exchange (where the
Swedish Academy resides) along with the noble museum and library, was filled
with physicists, scientists, doctors and economist, who discussed their work,
the state of the world, and their goals and hopes for the future. Why the
literature laureates were dismissed or not included is not known; or perhaps
they may have chosen to abstain from those proceedings.
In the end, both writers and now Nobel Laureates, handled
the procession and proceedings with exceptional grace. They delivered their
lectures unencumbered. Peter Handke did not acknowledge the protests leveraged
against him. In turn, it appears to the public relations arm of the Nobel media
and the Swedish Academy attempted to control Handke’s social media presence. In
comparison, the public relations arm of the media turned its focus to Olga
Tokarczuk, announcing she left a personal journal from the year two-thousand
and eighteen in the hands of the Nobel Museum. Her banquet speech was quickly watched
and delighted with. Photos of the author visiting students in Stockholm to talk
was also pushed to the forefront, including captions about the student’s inquiry
about the authors hair, and articles about LEGO enthusiasts crafting their own
models of the newly inducted Nobel Laureate.
In receiving the Nobel Prize for Literature, Olga
Tokarczuk joins the pantheon alongside: Wisława Szymborska and Czesław Miłosz.
In receiving the Nobel Prize for Literature, Peter
Handke joins the pantheon alongside fellow writer: Elfriede Jelinek, and much
like Jelinek he has proven to have been just as controversial, divisive, and cantankerous,
while being completely apathetic towards it all.
The end of this decade has not been entirely kind to
the literary scene either. Many great writers have been lost over the course of
the year. Tributes as New Years rapidly approaches continue to pour in for the
late Nobel Laureate American writer Toni Morrison, whose work helped to engage
and revolutionize the American novel to include the African-American experience,
to come not from the perspective of the sympathetic who have never experienced
the alienation, segregation, racism, degradation, and haunting shadow of
slavery; but from the nit and grit narrative of an African-American. Numerous
tributes touched on Toni Morrison’s warmth, kindness, and generosity, as well
as her personal quirks, which have been openly discussed by her friend and
cohort Fran Lebowitz who lovingly remembers Toni Morrison’s sweet tooth (she
preferred dessert first over the meal) and her love of giving and of course receiving
gifts. Beyond her personal qualities which have won over her friends, and
cemented them throughout her life, Morrisons literary work will continue to survive
beyond her death. Her is a testament to the history of the United States of
America, but not from the same old conventional narrative of the country rising
from glorious revolution into its current superpower status throughout the previous
centuries; rather the narrative turns towards the complicated and divisive
history the country has had with the idea of superiority, racism, and discrimination
which continue to fester to this day. Rather then being a torch of resentment,
bitterness, and biting rebellion, Toni Morrison produced novels of grace,
kindness, poignancy through personal tragedy which ultimately leads one to forgiveness.
In this Toni Morrison always took the high road, the right road, the moral road—the
one that not only salvaged the soul, but saved the spirit.
Two-thousand and nineteen also saw the death of former
member and Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy Sara Danius who succumbed
to cancer at the young age of fifty-seven; it also saw the death of the mammoth
monolith of American literary theory and criticism, Harold Bloom.
Despite the deaths, personal upheavals, and the
general dirty business of life, two-thousand and nineteen has been an alright
year for reading. Though I did not get a lot of reading done—a recent stock has
only five books listed (!)—but I’ve enjoyed the books for the most part.
Reading Han Kang remains a highlight of the reading year. The breakout Korean
writer rivals Bae Suah, with eschewing the others cerebral musings and surreal juxtapositions,
for understated ethereal elegance. Where Bae Suah eschews literary forms from
essay to fiction, blending time with liberal ease, and probing the
philosophical and the psychological with minimal concern; Han Kang traces (or
attempts to) the ghost, the shadow, the spirit, and the soul of the human
experience, as it is shaped by tragedy, violence and other events beyond the
immediate control of the individual. Han Kang dissuaded any concern one may hold
against her work. She proved herself to being a remarkable writer, of the most
enviable talents. Of course, there was also Patrick Modiano to read, and Olga
Tokarczuk; neither writer one can go wrong with, reading them is like visiting
with an old friend. I am currently still working my way through Annie Ernaux’s “The
Years,” but will have it completed in the New Year. The pace in which I am
reading “The Years,” is set by circumstances beyond my control at the moment,
time lays down its immediate demands first, and unfortunately reading must come
secondary to ensuring the fridge is stocked and food is on the table. This
being said, “The Years,” has been a wonderful book to drop and return to on
such as sporadic basis. It’s quite a unique read. Its disappointing to think
that Annie Ernaux, until now has never been on my radar.
For now, though Gentle Reader the year and decade come
to a close, and a new one just a few days away. I each of you have a relaxing
and rejuvenating Christmas, be it quiet or populated. With everything coming to
its end, regular life is set to resume shortly, and we best prepare ourselves
to reacquaint ourselves to it as well.
I look forward to writing, talking, and hearing from
you in the coming year. Happy New Year Gentle Reader—here’s hoping I can get
more reading done in the coming year as well.
Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read
M. Mary