Hello
Gentle Reader
In
1968 the Swedish Academy decided to bestow the Japanese writer, Yasunari
Kawabata, the Nobel Prize for Literature, with the citation: “for his narrative
mastery, which with great sensibility expresses the essence of the Japanese
mind.” The shortlist for the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1968 was as follows:
(i)
Japanese
novelist and short story writer – Yasunari Kawabata
(ii)
Irish
(French language) playwright and novelist – Samuel Beckett
(iii)
French
novelist – Andre Malraux
(iv)
English-American
poet – W.H. Auden
Samuel
Becket would go on to receive the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1969. Despite being nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature on countless occasions, W.H. Auden never received the Nobel Prize for Literature and died in 1973. Much like W.H. Auden, despite being nominated since 1947,
The
Nobel Committee for the 1968 Nobel Prize for Literature had two main candidates
for the prize: Irish playwright and novelist, Samuel Beckett; and French
novelist Andre Malraux, as their chosen recommendations for the year’s award.
Once again though, the Swedish Academy as a whole voted down the decision. The
academy was split once again. Some members wanted to award the Nobel Prize for
Literature to Samuel Beckett; while Anders Österling and Eyvind Johnson had
pushed for French novelist and government minister Andre Malraux. Anders
Österling was again the member who had reservations against Samuel Beckett. He
remained firm and suspicious of the absurdist playwright, where he felt Beckett
did not fit or embody the spirit of the ideal direction as per Alfred Nobel’s
will. According to The Guardian
Anders Österling made the following comments with regards to Beckett’s work:
“Of
course, I do not dispute the artistic effect of Beckett’s dramas, but
misanthropic satire (of the Swift type) or radical pessimism (of the Leopardi
type) has a powerful heart, which in my opinion is lacking in Beckett.”
Instead,
Anders Österling and Eyvind Johnson championed French novelist Andre Malraux as
the Nobel Laureate for the year. They both did not see any issue with Andre
Malraux being a government minister with Charles de Gaulle government at the
time. Other academy members disagreed. They believed Anders Österling’s
perspective was superficial and did not see the human compassion that embodies
and inspires his work. Anders Österling was acutely aware of compromise and was
also fine with awarding either Yasunari Kawabata or W.H Auden—despite the fact,
it appeared Auden’s crowning and breakthrough poetic achievements had already
sailed.
Other
writes who came during nominations and deliberations were, E.M. Forster and
Ezra Pound, both pushed aside due to their advanced ages. Chinua Achebe was
also nominated, but most likely set aside due to his younger age. Vladimir
Nabokov was also nominated and dismissed by the committee for his novel
“Lolita,” which they viewed as immoral and vulgar. Romanian playwright Eugène
Ionesco was also nominated and even praised by the Nobel committee for his work
and novelty he had produced for the modern play, but was disregarded due to the
controversial nature of his work; which is ironic considering both Eugène
Ionesco’s and Samuel Beckett’s work traces similar themes with regards reality
and human existence.
Patrick
White who would win the award five years later, was also beginning to gain
serious traction with the Nobel Committee as a striking and powerful voice from
Australia.
The
Nobel Prize for Literature is often criticized for often choosing obscure and
unknown writers who often do not age well. Such as: Roger Martin du Gard, Jaroslav
Seifert, and Sinclair Lewis, from distant decades; as well as recent Nobel
Laureates: Elfriede Jelinek, Dario Fo, and J.M.G Le Clezio. The decision to
award Yasunari Kawabata the Nobel Prize for Literature, has in turn survived
the fifty year mark, as the author is still read and even known, beyond niche
and obscure reading groups.
Since
1961, Yasunari Kawabata was a repeat nomination for the Nobel Prize for
Literature. Despite often reaching it to the shortlist, Kawabata would often be
overlooked in favour of other writers to receive the prize:
1961
– Yugoslavian writer, Ivo Andic
1962
– American Novelist, John Steinbeck
1963
– Greece poet and diplomat, Giorgos Seferis
1964
– French Philosopher and writer, Jean Paul Sartre (though declined)
1965
– Russian (Soviet) prose writer, Mikhail Sholokhov
1966
– German born Swedish Poet, Nelly Sachs; and Israeli writer: Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1967
– Guatemalan poet and writer, Miguel Ángel Asturias
During
this time, Yasunari Kawabata also faced competition from his contemporary: Jun'ichirō
Tanizaki, who was often speculated to be the favoured and most likely Japanese
author to receive the award. Yet Tanizaki died in 1965 without receiving the
award. In comparison to Jun'ichirō Tanizaki, Yasunari Kawabata had faced
considerable obstacles in order to become a serious contender for the Nobel
Prize for Literature. Unlike Jun'ichirō Tanizaki, Kawabata had few translations
outside of Japan. Tanizaki by comparison had already established himself as a
writer with global reach outside of Japan. His monumental novels “The Makioka Sisters,”
and “Some Prefer Nettles,” was well received and critically acclaimed, and
highly regarded by the Swedish Academy. Yet, despite being considered since
1958, the repeat appearance of Yasunari Kawabata often split the academy
between the two writers as they wished to evaluate both writers with equal opportunity.
Yasunari Kawabata, however, continually lacked the appropriate translations
into other languages for the Swedish Academy to offer a sober evaluation of the
two writers. [I presume] thankfully for Yasunari Kawabata, he had allies on the
Swedish Academy: Henry Olsson and Harry Martinson, who had both nominated
Kawabata in previous years. Harry Martinson in particular had shown great
influence from Asiatic writers with regards to his poetry, and it is possible
he had recognized the genius, the cultural importance, and the appeal of
Yasunari Kawabata, despite the rest of the Swedish Academy being more cautious
with these regards.
In
1965, the Swedish Academy consulted with ten academics and translators specializing
in Japanese literature, in order to review: Jun'ichirō Tanizaki, Yasunari
Kawabata, Junzaburo Nishiwaki and Yukio Mishima. The specialists consulted
offered an ambiguous and uncertain assessment of his work, especially of the
possibility of being able to fully translate his delicate and lyrical style
into another language, let alone his psychological deftness and strong employment
of Japanese culture and nuances in his work to provide physical and symbolic
metaphors for his psychological narratives. The Swedish Academy is rumoured to
have been split on the decision between: Jun'ichirō Tanizaki and Yasunari
Kawabata. The academy decided to award Mikhail Sholokhov instead, which on its
own carried fierce debate within the academy. That year Jun'ichirō Tanizaki
would also die. It would take another three years for the Swedish Academy to
make an affirmative decision on whether or not Yasunari Kawabata would be Nobel
Laureate worthy. With regards to Yukio Mishima, the Swedish Academy had decided
to pass over him at the time, but would remained interested in his work and if
his output would retain its literary consistency of his current output, would
be given greater consideration in future. It should also be noted, during this
time, Yukio Mishima was in his early forties.
In
1966 the Nobel Committee in their final shortlist and recommendations presented
Yasunari Kawabata as their favoured author to take the Nobel Prize for
Literature. The Swedish Academy rejected the proposed recommendations and
subsequently entered into a fierce debate and discussion over who should be
considered the appropriate laureate for the year. Intensity grew between
members in the Swedish Academy during this time. Anders Österling for instance
favoured the idea of awarding Shmuel Yosef Agnon singularly for the award. Österling was challenged in this notion, as
other members of the academy though Agnon was parochial and limited in scope.
These other members favoured Nelly Sachs, who Anders Österling felt was to demure
for the Nobel Prize. It was then that that the award was proposed to be shared
between Nelly Sachs and Paul Celan, but the majority felt Paul Celan was a
minor writer for the Nobel Prize, and a compromise was decided to share the
award between Nelly Sachs and Shmuel Yosef Agnon. [Please see: The Nobel Prize for Literature: 1966 Nominations for further information.]
1968
the tides shifted in Yasunari Kawabatas’ favour. His groundbreaking short
novel/short story, “The Dancing Girl of Izu,” was released in German, and his
novel “The Old Capital,” was also translated into Swedish. The Swedish Academy,
were then given a greater perspective of the authors work beyond his seminal novel
“Snow Country,” and “Thousand Cranes.” In
mentioning Kawabata’s work the Swedish Academy paid particular attention to
these three novels: “Snow Country,” “Thousand Cranes,” and “The Old Capital.” The
final translations of “The Old Capital,” and “The Dancing Girl of Izu,” would
be the final steps for the Swedish Academy to decide to recognize Yasunari
Kawabata with the Nobel Prize for Literature. Subsequently after receiving the
Nobel Prize for Literature, more of Yasunari Kawabata’s work was being picked
up and translated into different languages. Now days there is a diverse
selection of Kawabata’s work available for consumption, from his novels to his
short stories, which the author himself considered to be the truest testament
to his abilities as a writer.
It
is well documented that the Nobel Prize for Literature was a subtle competition
between Yasunari Kawabata and Yukio Mishima. Despite this the two writers remained
friends. After all, Yasunari Kawabata was instrumental in helping Yukio Mishima
get published, and assist him on his glorious literary stardom. Kawabata also
introduced Mishima to his wife, and gave the eulogy at Mishimas’ funeral after
his very public and brutal suicide. On the flipside, Yukio Mishima wrote an
endearing memo to the Swedish Academy, expressing his admiration for his friend
and desire to see him win the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1961—but this
letter was sent at the request of Yasunari Kawabata, who was then president of
the Japan P.E.N Club. It has often been rumored and speculated that the Nobel
Prize for Literature had pushed both writers to suicide.
The
first rumor theorizes that Yukio Mishima—the young, brazen, and flamboyant
writer coveted the Nobel Prize for Literature, more than anything else. Japan
as a nation also desired to see the prize to help cement their rejuvenated image
of the Second World War. The sixties in particular had seen the nation enter
great economic prosperity as well as being chosen to host the 1964 Summer
Olympics. Winning a Nobel would seal the deal. As previously noted though,
despite Yukio Mishima considering himself worthy, and his work being translated
into Western languages, and being well received, Yukio Mishima was still
considered too young by the Swedish Academy, but they had a vested interest in
the author, if his output remained consistent in quality. After he realized
that Yasunari Kawabata had received the prize over him, many theorize, Mishima understood
he would most likely never receive the award, and two years later committed a
public and flamboyantly nihilistic suicide.
In
turn, Yasunari Kawabata also sought the Nobel Prize for Literature. With Jun'ichirō
Tanizakis’ death, Kawabata had become the most likely candidate for the Nobel
Prize for Literature. His work was renowned for its grace, lyricism, and unique
Japanese perspective. It is speculated that Kawabata held slight discomfort
with Mishima, considering his popular appeal and the fact his work was being
translated into other languages. Knowing the sway, appeal and celebrity of
Yukio Mishima growing, Kawabata had asked for Mishima’s opinion on his English
translator, as well as the request for him to send a letter to the Swedish
Academy praising his friend and mentor. Needless to say Yasunari Kawabata would
end up receiving the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1968, and he modestly
excused the recognition, proclaiming Mishima should have taken the award, and
that the award was more geared towards Japan as a nation then himself. After Mishima’s
suicide in 1970, Kawabata would commit suicide in 1972. It is believed it was
part due to his grief and perhaps rumored guilt he felt towards his friend and
rival Yukio Mishima.
Of
course this speculative at the very most; the validity is questionable to non-existent.
These speculative discussions should not be read as factual in any matter
beyond their presented theorization.
Despite
the shadowy interplay between Yasunari Kawabata and Yukio Mishima, the decision
to award Yasunari Kawabata the Nobel Prize for Literature is perhaps one of the
strongest decisions the Swedish Academy made during the decade along with
awarding Samuel Beckett the following year. This momentum built up between
these two years, would be carried on into the early seventies—before being
abruptly shattered in 1974.
Whether
or not to award the Nobel Prize for Literature to Yasunari Kawabata or to Yukio
Mishima has often provoked unique discussion. Personally I find Yasunari
Kawabata to be the superior writer, when compared to Yukio Mishima. It is understandable
why some readers prefer Yukio Mishima. His work is riddled with high octane
narratives, marital night suicides, murder, military coup, and arson, sword
fighting — truly dramatic and theatrically powerful narratives. But his
characters always appeared narcissistic and solipsistic; his narratives came
across as a bit too extreme with an established desire to push the narrative as
fast and hard as it could on the pyrotechnic freewheeling whirlwind of these
theatrics. I found them to get old rather quickly. I found Kiyoaki Matsugae of “Spring
Snow,” to be the epitome of Mishimas’ characters: nihilistic, depraved, and
egocentric to an extreme form of self-abortion. Yet, despite these blatant boisterous
stylistic decisions on Mishimas’ part his work is not deprived of its merit. The
exploration of Japans traditional values, customs, and cultural practices and
western influences are a unique juxtaposition. His narratives often present a
unique historical eye as to the adjustment in the period as well. You just have
to sit back and look through the subsiding smoke from the continual bangs and
booms of his narratives to see these qualities. By comparison Yasunari Kawabata
is a master of the understatement, grace, lyricism, and subtle psychological perspective.
Kawabatas’ work could often reside on the grounds of melodramatic narratives,
but the lyricism and minimalist understated grace of his narratives always maintain
his narratives never fall into the pitfalls of the melodramatic entrapments his
narratives could be present. Yasunari Kawabatas’ true abilities as a writer who
was able to grasp the subtle shifts of psychology and the impressionism and
expressionism can be found his “Palm of the Hand Stories,” which in just a few
pages he can present epiphanies, moments of revelation, and subtle change with
ease and grace. His work never relies on octane overdrive theatrics to accomplish
immediate impact. Rather uses subtle shifts of perspective, elusive gestures,
and understated changes in tone, to present a muted portrait of the psyche,
infused with the cultural motifs and characteristics of Japan as it sat between
age old cultural traditions and the rising western influence.
Thank-you
For Reading Gentle Reader
Take
Care
And
As Always
Stay
Well Read
M.
Mary
Post Script: Please Be Aware Gentle Reader: edits, amendments, and addendums have been made to this post on: January 10 2019 as more and new information has been released.
For Further
Reading—
The Asahi Shimbun: "Details released about selection of Kawabata for 1968 Nobel Prize,"
The Japan Times: "Mishima, Murakami and the elusive Nobel Prize,"
Neo Japonisme: "Kawabata, Mishima & the Nobel Prize,"
Red Circle: "Despite being rivals for the Nobel Prize, Kawabata and Mishima were friends,"
No comments:
Post a Comment