Hello
Gentle Reader,
We
have now entered the first week of October and are now in the finishing stretch
before Nobel Week Commences, complete with the Nobel Prize announcements
starting next Monday with Medicine, followed by Physics on Tuesday, then
Chemistry on Wednesday, Thursday the Nobel Prize for Literature, the Peace
Prize on Friday, and concluding the following Monday with the announcement of the
honorary Nobel Prize in Economics.
This
year, the new Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy: Mats Malm, will have
the honour of announcing two Laurates for the Nobel Prize for Literature. One Laureate
is for two-thousand and nineteen, while the other Laureate is to be awarded
retroactively for the previous year, when the Nobel Prize for Literature was
postponed due to an unprecedented affair involving scandal, ethical violations,
and other issues of internal governance, which saw the Swedish Academy’s
reputation in all its gilded wonder, suddenly tarnished and soiled publicly. Even
now there is contention about the notion of awarding two Laureates. Some
believe that the absence of the Nobel Prize for Literature of two-thousand and
eighteen, should be left vacant as a solemn reminder of the academy’s fiduciary
failings. Others believe it should be left vacant as a testament to the
eighteen women who came forward to leverage accusations and allegations against
Jean-Claude Arnault, and his predatory sexual appetites, which now see him serving
a two year prison term. And some believe the awarding of two Laureates is
merely apologetic, which carries no genuine sincerity, and is merely an attempt
of the Swedish Academy to reaffirm themselves as the high arbitrators of
literature. Personally I view the event of awarding two Nobel Laureates in
Literature to be an exciting affair. Though I do wish the circumstances were
different. It has been forty-five years
since the Swedish Academy has announced two Laureates in Literature, which
showcases just how rare it is for the Nobel Prize in Literature to be shared.
The science prizes (Medicine, Physics, and Chemistry) are noted for being
shared between collaborators on breakthrough projects; but writing is a
singular solitary act. As I am sure any creative writing professor or teacher
would say:
“First
Lesson: It’s just you and the page. Enjoy.”
Despite
the somewhat lukewarm idea of two Laureates being announced this year,
speculation for the Nobel Prize has been otherwise subdued. Only in late
September did the betting sites release their Nobel Prize for Literature Odds,
and the list is otherwise conservative, complete with the usual suspects making
their expected return on the list.
The
cynic inside of me wonders if this is due to the fact that former member,
Katarina Frostenson who was accused of
breaking the Swedish Academy Statute of Silence, whereby she informed her
convicted husband Jean-Claude Arnault of the year’s Nobel Prize for Literature
winner. Rumours had swirled for years about the high possibility of a leak
within the academy; and when the law firm who performed its investigation during
the Swedish Academy Scandal into the academies relation with Jean-Claude
Arnault—both in a personal and business capacity—they found reasonable evidence
to believe that Katarina Frostenson had prematurely released the names of
winning laureates for the following years:
1996
– Wisława Szymborska
2004
– Elfriede Jelinek
2005
– Harold Pinter
2006
– J.M.G Le Clezio
2014
– Patrick Modiano
2015
– Svetlana Alexievich
2016
– Bob Dylan
Of
this list of seven, the most recent (and albeit obvious leak) of recent memory
was: Patrick Modiano, who became an unknown dark horse during speculation,
appearing ominously on the betting sites lists, and in the closing hours would
shoot up the ranks to be considered the favoured candidate to win the prize,
and did.
One
cannot help but wonder in the wake of Frostensons’ absence is perhaps why the
betting sites have remained restrained and hesitant in releasing any list of
speculation until now. Perhaps without Jean-Claude Arnault’s insider
information, people have become disinterested in playing literary roulette.
Then again, it would be naïve and garishly optimistic to think that anyone who
watched or observed the Nobel proceedings would have forgotten the previous
year and a half scandal. It would be foolish to think the scandal had not
infected and tarnished the Nobel Prize for Literature, and only now are we
seeing the immediate post effects of the scandal.
This
years’ betting sites speculation reads as follows:
Anne
Carson – 4/1 Javier Marías –
20/1
Maryse
Conde – 5/1 Jon
Fosse – 20/1
Can
Xu – 8/1
László Krasznahorkai – 20/1
Haruki
Murakami – 8/1 Milan
Kundera – 20/1
Lyudmila
Ulitskaa – 8/1 Peter
Handke – 20/1
Ngugi
Wa Thiong’o – 8/1 Yoko
Tawada – 20/1
Margaret
Atwood – 10/1
César Aira – 25/1
Marilynne
Robinson – 10/1
Yang Lian – 25/1
Olga
Tokarczuk – 10/1 Ko Un
– 33/1
Péter
Nádas – 10/1 Ernesto
Cardenal – 50/1
Adunis
– 14/1
Gerald
Murnane – 14/1
Mircea
Cartarescu – 14/1
Ya
Hua – 14/1
Ismail
Kadaré – 17/1
[ Nicer Odds “Nobel Literature Prize 2019
Winner,”
As
you can see, Gentle Reader, I was not being dramatic or exaggerating the muted
perspective the betting sites have taken to this year’s Nobel Prize for
Literature. The list is skeletal in appearance, populated by perennial
candidates; some of which I’d like to comment on. Of course despite whatever I
say or theorize, each writer listed (or not) has relative equal chances of
being one of the two authors named as Nobel Laureates for this year.
Front
and centre on this otherwise conservative list is the Canadian poet and
classics scholar, Anne Carson. I quickly discussed Anne Carson in my
“Announcement Of The Nobel Prize for Literature 2019 Speculation List,” I
quickly mentioned and discussed Anne Carson. To be blunt, Anne Carson is
somewhat of an open secret in the literary world, while being a dark horse. Her
work is noted for redefining the traditional notions of poetry, essay and
prose, by blending them joyfully. Puritan poets resent referring to Anne Carson
as a poet, while other writers are not entirely sure how else to define her
work. Regardless, Anne Carson is often referred to as a poet who has reshaped the form, renewed relevancy
in the form, as well as being able to engage with antiquarian subjects with
contemporary flare. Despite this, Anne Carson would raise an eyebrow here and
there when discussed. Critically she is praised, admired, and even envied; but
by the reading publics standards she is unknown—despite her beautifully and
excellent wordsmithing craftsmanship. Internationally, however, Anne Carson’s
reputation is growing. One of the external members of the Swedish Academy’s
Nobel Committee, Rebecka Kärde [if memory
serves me correctly] had stated in an interview that she enjoys the work of
Anne Carson. It is easy to speculate that of course that Ms. Kärde would lobby
for the poet. Of course, Anne Carson would be a worthy Nobel Laureate; though
yet another English language writer receiving the award sounds drab and boring
and almost monolingual. Then again at least she is more rationally a poet then
the Bob Dylan could ever be molded into.
Following
Anne Carson is Maryse Condé, who won the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize for
Literature,’ last year. The Guadeloupean writer graciously accepted the
alternative version for the prize, and it is easy to see how winning this award
could be seen by some to improve her opportunities to receive the real one in
turn. Despite the scandal, the Swedish Academy is still a rather prideful
institution. The ‘Alternative Nobel Prize for Literature,’ could be considered
salt and insult to the academy during its lowest point. I have personal doubts
the Swedish Academy will entertain awarding a writer who had become a bystander
turned victim in the scandal because of the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize for
Literature,’ as it could be misinterpreted as validating the previous ‘New
Academy,’ whereby the Swedish Academy accepts and acknowledging their work as
admirable or legitimate; where in fact they most likely view it as peevish and
insulting. Unfortunately, I believe this diminishes Maryse Condé’s chances
significantly. The Swedish Academy may have been in ruin, and is only just
attempting to distance itself from the previous scandal, but it’s still proud
and won’t appreciate being mocked.
Tucked
away on the list, is the perennial speculated candidate and other Canadian
writer: Margaret Atwood. It would be negligent not to discuss Margaret Atwood
at this time. Margaret Atwood has always been a force within the literary
world. Now, however, she has blown on blizzards' winds to new heights and new
planes. This due in large part to the critically acclaimed televised adaption
of her famous novel: “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which since its initial publication
has taken on a life of its own. It is no longer confided to the covers, pages
and spines of its original incarnation. “The Handmaid’s Tale,” has been adapted
into a film, performed on the stage, become a ballet, sung as an opera, and
revised as a graphic novel; and of course has become a synonymous image of
protest for women’s reproductive rights around the world. It is with thanks to
the televised adaption though that Margaret Atwood is now gaining wider
appreciation and interest, which reached its most recent pinnacle with the release
of her follow up book thirty four years later, titled: “The Testaments,” which
once again sees the author return to the theocratic and totalitarian state of
Gilead.
The
build up to the release of “The Testaments,” was intense. Readers worldwide hankered
to get their hands on the book. It has been shortlisted for the Booker Prize
and the Giller Prize; and Margaret Atwood has made circuits on television talk
shows, indulging uninteresting television personalities and their less then
incisive questions with regards to her work. Atwood remains a charming figure,
but is perhaps too educated and erudite for the superficiality of day time
television, and late night talk shows. In one interview I happened to catch a
glimpse of the author, her noteworthy medusa corkscrew curls, freshly ironed
and straightened. Makeup airbrushed on. She sat pleasantly enough, surrounded
by her hosts, who clucked and gabbed about. The author remained pleasant, but
reticent, answering the questions in the most simplified ways she could. Atwood
appears almost apologetic about her erudite way of speaking; while the talk
show personalities never apologize for their lack of interest or depth into the
real meat of her work. Instead they skim the top, licking the icing while never
enjoying the cake. Still, the new found fame graced on Margaret Atwood, has
also seen the author appearing in photoshoots and on the covers of magazines
like a model or movie star--and she pulls it off well. These are strange
extroverted graces to be awarded to a writer. Margaret Atwood is honest,
sincere, and witty with regards to her perspective on the new found attention.
She confessed she loves it, and stated she would be lying if stated otherwise;
but admits it’s great that it has come now, expressing concern that if it
happened to a younger person it would destroy them. After all: the only
direction from the highest point is down.
Margaret
Atwood is of course a perennial speculated candidate for the Nobel Prize for
Literature. If the Swedish Academy chose to award the Nobel Prize for
Literature, it would send a striking message, but also be considered
predictable or even obvious, considering her revitalized and intense attention surrounding
her. But also the metaphorical, social, and political statement it would make
with regards to the previous scandal, and the ill-mannered ‘MeToo,’ movement,
and its hypersexualized divisive views on gender.
The
last author I’d like to comment on directly from the above list is: Olga
Tokarczuk. Over the past few years, the Polish magical realist and student of
Jung, has finally gained her overdue recognition and acclaim in the English
language, with her constellation novel: “Flights.” Prior to “Flights,” Tokarczuk
had two previously published novels in the English language: “Primeval and
Other Times,” and “House of Day, House of Night.” Of the two “Primeval and
Other Times,” remains one of my personal favourites. The first half of the
novel is baroque and enchanting, showcasing the authors fragmented perspective,
and ability in handing these fragmentary consciousnesses into creating a mosaic
narrative of a small Polish town, complete with its own mythology. “Flights,”
is a mere extension of the early experimentation in fragmented narrative, and
instead allowed the atomization to increase without a narrative spine cementing
it together. Instead the novel moves with cellular independence, through the
veins and arteries of image and theme creating a more airy philosophical
depiction of the idea of movement in its various fluid forms. Olga Tokarczuk
would be a delightful writer to receive the award. There would be no complaint
or gripe on my end.
The
other writers named are considered usual and perennial candidates:
(i)
Adunis
(ii)
Haruki
Murakami
(iii)
Ngũgĩ
wa Thiong'o
(iv)
Jon
Fosse
(v)
Ismail
Kadare
(vi)
Mircea
Cartarescu
(vii)
László
Krasznahorkai
(viii)
Peter
Handke
(ix)
Milan
Kundera
(x)
Ko
Un
And
so on.
Of
the writers discussed above the four of them have one trait in common: all four
are women. Reviewing the otherwise conservative list presented, one can see
there is a large quantity of women writers named. Of the twenty four writers
issued, nine are women—though not an even split down the middle, it’s still an
improvement from previous years of speculation. During the previous scandal,
women and sexual assault, where often seen as the main pressure points
surrounding the events. I disagree. The scandal was only superficially about
sexual misconduct, which orbited around Jean-Claude Arnault. The true scandal
of the Swedish Academy was the festering rot behind closed doors. Despite the
evidence and rationale behind why the scandal had nothing to do with sexual
assault—at least on the Swedish Academy level—the vast majority of people
believe the scandal was only about sexual assault and women. This will
inevitably play a role in how people view the deliberations and decisions of
the Swedish Academy. How the Swedish Academy will in turn deal with this
foreshadowing, can only be assessed after the announcement next Thursday.
There
are, however, complications to consider. If the Swedish Academy chooses two women
to share this year’s prize; the decision will be infected by the previous
scandal, and contaminant the writers, whereby the award will be reviewed and
discussed via the lens of social politics and movements, rather than the
literary merit the writers may bring to the table. If the award went to two
female authors, despite its landmark decision, could still be criticized as
apologist in tone, which will only diminish the historical potency of the
movement.
If
the Swedish Academy forgoes any women during this year’s prize it will most
certainly be a disaster. Again social politics, movements, and perspectives
play a role in what would be eviscerating criticism. Critics, readers, and the
public would question the Swedish Academy’s ability to learn from the previous
scandal (which will be touted as a sexual assault scandal, calling back to the
MeToo Movement). The two male writers chosen will have their works and literary
merit completely ignored, as they will be bombarded with prosecutorial
questions about their gender, their opinion on women, and the previous scandal
and so on and so forth.
If
the Swedish Academy choses to award a male writer and a female writer, it will
be seen as a compromise between the genders, but again it will have the
external connotation of social politics, movements, and perspective at play
once again, completely derailing the literary importance of the writers work.
One side will most certainly inquire why not two women for the award? Why a man
and a woman?
Unfortunately
regardless of what ratio the Swedish Academy chooses to play, I suspect that
the literary talents of the writers will be overlooked in favour of social
contexts. It’s a disappointing and even cynical thought, but a realistic one
all the same. Sadly, the Swedish Academy can no longer take into consideration
the literary importance and merit of writers for this year; they must also
consider the double entendre of the social context in which their decision will
be weighed and reflected against. I suspect this year, there will be no
appeasement of anyone. In its stead I believe there will be greater criticism
leveraged against the Swedish Academy, depending not only on their literary
choices, but also on their gender.
I’d
also like to note:
The
previous year’s scandal has also changed how the Swedish Academy goes about
choosing its laureates. The most noticeable change has been the extension of
the Nobel Committee with five external members:
Mikaela
Blomqvist
Rebecka
Kärde
Kristoffer
Leandoer
Henrik
Petersen
Gun-Britt
Sundström
These
members are expected to stay around until after the Nobel Prize for Literature
twenty-twenty. Together with the Nobel Committee made up of the following
Swedish Academy members:
Anders
Olsson (Chairman)
Per
Wästberg
Kristina
Lugn
Jesper
Svenbro
Will
present a shortlist of five writers to the Swedish Academy of potential
candidates for the Nobel Prize for Literature. This year, due to two laureates
being honoured, the Nobel Committee has presented a shortlist comprising of
eight potential writers, which the Swedish Academy read and reviewed over the
summer break. According to recent articles, on October 10th hours
before the prize announcement, the Swedish Academy will be presented with the
Nobel Committees suggestions of who should receive the Nobel Prize for
Literature, afterwards deliberations and a vote will commence, then in the
early afternoon, the new Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy Mats Malm
will announce the two laureates.
Traditionally
after the announcement is made the Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy
will then participate in a short interview with a journalist about the year’s
Nobel Laureate. The Permanent Secretary will discuss the Nobel Laureate’s work,
their themes, their personal favourite work and other restrained questions presented
by the journalist. This year, however, Mats Malm the new Permanent Secretary of
the Swedish Academy will not be available to answer questions from the
journalist. Due to the high interest into the newly enlarged Nobel Committee,
the press conference will be conducted with:
Anders
Olsson as Chairman
Per
Wästberg (former Chairman)
And
three external committee members [names have yet to be released/decided]
Speaking
of the Nobel Committee their autonomy and their authority has also been
revitalized after the previous scandal. In years past, the Nobel Committee
would present names to the entire Swedish Academy for deliberation, then advise
on who they think would make the preferable laureate. The Swedish Academy in
turn would take the Nobel Committees advice into consideration during its
deliberations, but would not be bound by their commentary or their advice, and
reserved the right to overrule their deliberations in favour of another. This
year, the Nobel Committee has taken full charge of the Nobel Laureates; they
will decide who will receive the award(s) with the Swedish Academy’s input, but
in the end they will decide on who will win the awards and present their
findings in the late morning of October 10th before the
announcement. Their decision will be made with a comprehensive analysis to be
submitted to the Swedish Academy explaining their motivations and their decision.
On
a personal note, I am not in love with this idea of a supersized governing
Nobel Committee. I’m left pondering what part the Swedish Academy and their
members play in this process. From what it appears they’ve lost their teeth and
claws in the process, and are merely neutered house cats, with a small meow rather
then their once ferocious roar. Their position sadly reduced. I don’t believe
awarding a centralized committee audacious authority is appropriate. I would
prefer personally, if the Swedish Academy in conjunction and association with
the Nobel Committee were able to work in a democratic and collaborative
environment, to discuss, debate and deliberate together on the chosen Nobel
Laureate. The current method appears to be one sided, with little room for any
discussion or debate. In this fashion the laureate(s) in question are chosen,
and whether or not the Swedish Academy agrees with the decision of the Nobel
Committee, it will go through regardless, with no room for dissidence due to
the statute of secrecy.
Anders
Olsson the former pro-tempo Permanent
Secretary of the Swedish Academy, who has been praised for steering the academy
through the tumultuous storm of the scandal, after the tradeoff of former
Permanent Secretary Sara Danius and Katarina
Frostenson; had recently cast shade towards previous decades of the
Nobel Prize for Literature. In an interview posted on the Nobel Prizes YouTube
account, Anders Olsson has expressed this year the Nobel Prizes are attempting
to take into an account a: “Global Totality,” whereby the awarding institution
must take into account wider perspectives, where in years past the award
carried a more ‘Eurocentric perspective,’ that was also male dominated. This is
perhaps a nod and side eyed glance towards Swedish Academy member of Chair No.
17 Horace Engdahl. Of course it can’t be denied that in some of the past
decades the Nobel Prize for Literature was accused of having a gender bias, and
being Eurocentric. These criticisms are superficial and often showcase some
critics lacking perspective of the prize and the laureates chosen. Due to the
rarity of woman laureates, those who are chosen were always a gem, and often
outshined other Nobel Laureates. Such laureates as: Wisława Szymborska, Herta Müller, Alice Munro,
and Nelly Sachs—are proven powerful writers who often outshined the other male
laureates who surround them.
In
less than a week’s time Gentle Reader we will learn who this year’s Nobel
Laureates will be. It’s an exceptional year because two laureates will be
named, but the circumstances spoil the tone. Regardless of who is chosen as
this year’s Nobel Laureates, it will be interpreted through the social and
political lens of gender politics, equity, and other social justice mechanisms,
which detract from the literary merit of the prize. This inevitably pollutes
this year’s Nobel Laureates, whoever they maybe at this time. This year’s
decision will be difficult and complicated. The external influences, the social
interpretation, and the scathing scrutiny will ensure that pleasing everybody
will become an impossible task. The pressure of being the first Nobel Prize after
the scandal will also weigh heavily on this year’s decision. It is a position one
should not envy.
Every
year, Gentle Reader, it’s often asked who I hope who will win the Nobel Prize
for Literature. It’s a difficult question to answer, as my preferences are
mercurial in form, changing by the day and the hour. Despite this I will
attempt to answer the question Following are three columns where I’ve listed
eight authors in each column concerning who I’d hope to win the prize. The
three columns are organized by if the winners are to be both female, if the
prize is to be two men, and if the prize will be split between a female and a
male; in order to present a clear angle of all three possibilities. All writers
I’ve listed come from my speculation list. They have been listed in no
particular order.
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Sirkka Turkka – Jon Fosse – Sirkka Turkka –
Doris Kareva – Durs Grünbein – Doris Kareva –
Yoko Ogawa – Mia Couto – Adunis –
Annie Ernaux – Yang Mu – Magdalena Tulli –
Lyudmila Petrushevskaya – Gyrðir Elíasson – Zsuzsa Takács –
Olga Tokarczuk – Adunis – Jon Fosse –
Kim Hyesoon – Jaan Kaplinski – Gyrðir Elíasson –
Nancy Morejón – Mircea Cartarescu –
Yang Mu –
Even
after listing the writers, my mind immediately begins to gnaw and wonder about
who has been omitted: what about László Krasznahorkai or Péter Nadas? Should I
have included: Adam Zagajewski? Why not have included Ý Nhi the Vietnamese
poet, or the dissident Duong Thu Huong. Why did I omit: Adélia Prado and
Rodrigo Rey Rosa? Why did I not include, Ersi Sotiropoulos; after all I enjoy
her work. What about Can Xue? The dark horse surreal Chinese novelist is gaining increased international attention, and recognition when it comes to global literary awards; she's a silent giant, who should not be overlooked easily. There is just no winning Gentle Reader, and I am sure between now and
this coming Thursday my opinions will once again change.
For
now though Gentle Reader, we will have to wait to see who will be the two
laureates for this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature. Who will win it is anyone’s
game at this point. It’s certainly going to be an intense year though, with
high expectations riding on the decisions for this year’s award. Announcing and
awarding two Laureates in Literature is a rare exceptional event. As previously
noted the last time the award was shared was in Nineteen-Seventy Four, which
was forty five years ago. Beyond the shared prize in Nineteen-Seventy Four, the
Nobel Prize for Literature had only been shared three times prior. In total the
Nobel Prize for Literature has only been shared between writers on four
different occasions, in the prizes one-hundred and eighteen year history. It is
a true pity that the circumstances for this exceptional event are not
different.
Thank-you
For Reading Gentle Reader
Take
Care
And
As Always
Stay
Well Read
M.
Mary
For Further
Reading & Information – Please See the Following Links
