Post-Nobel Prize in Literature Thoughts 2018 & 2019

Hello Gentle Reader

The return of the Nobel Prize for Literature is complete. On this exceptional and rare occasion two writers have become Nobel Laureates at the same time.

Olga Tokarczuk, received the retroactive award for the Nobel Prize for Literature of two-thousand and eighteen, with the citation:

“For a narrative imagination that with encyclopedic passion represents the crossing of boundaries as a form of life.”

Peter Handke, receive the Nobel Prize for Literature of two thousand and nineteen, with the citation:

“For an influential work that with linguistic ingenuity has explored the periphery and the specificity of human experience.”

Leading up to this monumental award, I viewed the prize with tepid trepidation. The external factors created concerning atmospheres, whereby these external concerns would be used as the scales in which to weigh and balance this year’s laureates. What a dreadful prospect. The idea that social criticism, critiques, concerns, and social media movements, coupled with niche political agendas, influencing the literary award for apologist reasons, became a cause for concern for the awards immediate future. Thankfully, the Nobel Committee who held the most clout with this year’s deliberations managed a delicate transition. Kudos and bravo to them!

The New Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy Mats Malm also handled his new role within the Swedish Academy exceptionally well; though his position has been momentarily reduced in comparison to previous Permanent Secretaries of the Swedish Academy such as: Peter Englund and Sara Danius. Despite this, Mats Malm carried himself with stoic dignity, as he welcomed those in attendance to the Swedish Academy’s announcement. There was a bit of confusion, in understanding the Permanent Secretary Mats Malm (at least on my end) when he moved between speaking in Swedish to English. Despite this, he performed his role with exceptional ease.

The mood, however, within the hall was subdued in comparison to previous years. When Nobel Laureates: Tomas Tranströmer, Alice Munro, or Svetlana Alexievich, there were cheers, cries and claps of encouragement. This year the silence became a poignant soundtrack to the announcement. It became a biting observation, expressing blatant judgement and acute scrutiny of the procession. The following panel interview with members of the Nobel Committee which were:

Anders Olsson (Chair)

Per Wästberg

And three members from the external branch:

Rebecka Kärde

Mikaela Blomqvist

Henrik Petersen

The mood for the interview or panel discussion was equally as quiet, lackluster and dare I say boring. In previous years, when the Permanent Secretary had facilitated any interview with a journalist, in the background one can hear the mingling of those in attendance, reporting and discussing the announcement. The Permanent Secretary would then been engaged in a conversation with regards to the Laureates work, some reasons as to what made them standout, what are their personal recommendation for new readers to begin with their work, as well as other personal details as necessary. The interviews are noted for being short, light, and provide a quick overview and personal observation of the Laureates work. This year, this enjoyable process was absent. Instead journalists in attendance were encouraged to ask questions to the above listed panel. The mood was not casual. Instead the entire setup came across as stifling, controlled, staged and uncomfortable. The discussions taking place where mainly in Swedish, which on my end was a bit alienating—but that’s beside the point. The casual informal release of years past was severely absent. This year’s set up came across as a formal institutionalized stage show, reminiscent of a strangely strict school assembly.

Before the Dual Announcement of the Nobel Prize for Literature for two-thousand and eighteen and two-thousand and nineteen, there were a few posts issued on the Nobel Prize Facebook page.

·         The first post was a picture and a quote by Nobel Laureate: Rabindranath Tagore.

·         The second post was a quote by Nobel Laureate: Ernest Hemingway; complete with a photo.

·         The final post was another quote by Nobel Laureate: Nadine Gordimer, complete with her Nobel profile photo.

The Hemingway post worried me the most. The thoughts bubbling through my mind were frightening. The first one was the disappointing thought was the idea that once again there will be another English language author receiving the award; how boring. Then these thoughts became more sinister. What if it was a writer who admires or worst emulates Hemingway? “Oh sweet Jesus fucking Christ, not Jonathan Franzem!” I screamed in the early dark hours of the morning. I am sure I woke the neighbours.

The Nadine Gordimer post offered assurance that at least one of the winners would be a female winner; but also provoked my thoughts as to perhaps it’s an inclination to the African continent as well? Who could that be: Mia Couto or Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o? Perhaps, Ben Okri or Tierno Monénembo? Being a little more imaginative it could have been a nod to: Antijie Krog or Nawal El Saadawi. I calmly reassured myself that due to the new dynamics of the awards—‘awarding structure,’—the decision had yet to be decided. At least it was my understanding that final discussions were taking place at 11:00am, Stockholm Time that morning. Regardless there wasn’t much discussion to have, as the Nobel Committee had already made the decision, the Swedish academy is merely operating as a rubber stamp in the meantime.

Yet on cue at 1:00pm Stockholm Time, Mats Malm made the announcement of the double Nobel Prize for Literature. Their names: Olga Tokarczuk and Peter Handke; are flying around the literary world, and even the internet. What’s missing is the perennial hooting “Who?” of the insular journalists; which must be a sign that these two names are familiar with the global and international literary stage—and they are. 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

First: Olga Tokarczuk

The reception of Olga Tokarczuk receiving the Nobel Prize for Literature has been met with a unanimous chorus of approval. Readers, critics, and journalists have all praised the acknowledgment of the Polish author, who joins of the ranks of previous Polish Nobel Laureates:  Czesław Miłosz and Wisława Szymborska. Though to a degree, it would have been curious to award Adam Zagajewski; that way the Nobel Prize for Literature really could have crowned the royal triplets of contemporary Polish poetry, for a three of a kind. Still, I am delighted to see Olga Tokarczuk receive the retroactive Nobel Prize for Literature for two-thousand and eighteen.

Over the past few years, Olga Tokarczuk’s success, renown and recognition in the wider literary world has grown significantly. After the translation and publication of her monumental novel: “Flights,” Olga Tokarczuk, would go on to receive the Man Booker International Prize, and be engulfed in a whirlwind of success. Despite having two novels previously translated in the English language: “Primeval and Other Times,” and “House of Day, House of Night,”—the Polish author remained relatively unknown to English language readers. These two novels though are worth just as much attention as: “Flights.” They are examples of the early gestation of her famous writing style called: “fragmented consciousness.”

“Primeval and Other Times,” was the first novel I had read by Olga Tokarczuk, roughly six years ago. The novel recounts the eccentric lives and destinies of the inhabitants of a small Polish village called: Primeval; which is guarded by four angels in its four corners. The novel moves through the Twentieth Century (1914 – 1980), and recounts the inhabitants of Primeval, which is not just limited to the human inhabitants, but also: animal, mineral, vegetable, divine, celestial and fungal. Some characters receive more exposure then others, such as the Niebieski family; while others only make minuet appearances. But Olga Tokarczuk ensures each character— regardless of the length of their appearance—remains memorable and unique, with subtle inclinations of their story still unfolding even if it’s not recorded. The novel itself is not massive. It’s two-hundred and eighty pages; but is able to distill the inhabitants’ lives and their experiences into the most essential framework. The first half of the novel alone should be read for its warmth. The tone begins with the bright light of summer days, and warm summer nights. The pages become tinted in this almost airy baroque gilding. Of course good times never last, and the Second World War hits Primeval, with Nazi occupiers, neighbouring the once beloved residents, before the black and grey coats of the Nazi’s are replaced with the red ideology of the Soviet Union. Time, politics, social changes, ideology—they inevitably hammer, crack, and splinter away at Primeval and the residents. The once pastoral idyll becomes a grey, lifeless world, oppressed by foreign powers, and strict dogmatic ideological conformity.

“Primeval and Other Times,” also showcases Olga Tokarczuk’s ability to depict archetypes while avoiding the pitfalls of clichés, and entering the realm of caricature. Tokarczuk is a trained psychologist and a student of Carl Jung; who she considers to be one of her greatest literary influences. Her exploration of symbolism and archetypical characteristics as a reflection of both an individual’s personal consciousness, as well as societal consciousness; and even as an echo of how civilization and human beings perceive, identify and comprehend the cosmos. In this, Olga Tokarczuk is able to turn a single drop of water and force it to become a prism that refracts the multifaceted notion of reality, viewed in a new spectrum of perspective; while also being able to allow the single drop of water to reflect and echo the grander collective ocean of the universe.

“House of Day, House of Night,” is a similar novel to “Primeval and Other Times,” again showcasing the authors signature fragmentary style, but also her research capabilities as she explores otherwise forgotten, overlooked, or almost mythical elements of European history. In this case the mythological story of: Saint Wilgefortis, the female Saint who would grow a beard. The novel also passed through similar grounds of the Polish countryside, especially near the border of Czechia, and offered up some recipes for poisonous mushrooms. It’s a novel that explores both the grander mythology of the landscape, but also the personal realm of dreams, identities, and secrets.

“Flights,” however, took Olga Tokarczuk to new heights. The novel (described as a: “constellation novel,”) abandoned the skeletal scaffolding of the novel, in favour of a loose short story, fictional essay like narratives and anecdotes that orbited around themes such as: travel, movement, and border crossing. The notion of travel is not a straightforward subject in Tokarczuk’s hands, as she blends the theme with numerous conventional and unconventional narratives, which includes anatomy, the calls of home, the transport of the heart, stories, allegories, as well as personal observations and reflections. The novels continual transition between narratives ensures it remains relevant, revitalized, and interesting. “Flights,” remained a unique read from start to finish. It really was a mixed bag of nuts, offering a new kernel or thought with each chapter. It was never weighed down by a character, by a lack of action, dramatics, or intrigue. Instead, Olga Tokarczuk provides unique details about the human body, history, notions of travel, and migration. In today’s world of closing borders, shutting down, and ignoring the calls beyond the way, “Flights,” becomes a continual reminder that travel, movement, and progression have what brought us forward today, and is not a unique habit to human beings, but is a naturally developed and refined process found all over the biological world.

The decision to award, Olga Tokarczuk is not undeserved, but it is surprising. Her literary reputation and recognition had just begun to grow, with publication of the English translation of “Flights.” While her recent novel “The Book of Jacob,” (originally published in two-thousand fourteen) caused a political stir in Poland, when it not only questioned but openly exposed, the nations identity as a victim of larger powers, and a sanctuary for the underdog, to be false. Far-right politicians and nationalist groups immediately saw Olga Tokarczuk as an intellectual enemy, one which denied the nationally accepted treatises on such matters. Politicians casually would slander, deface, and decry Olga Tokarczuk as a means of political maneuvering. Some of these politicians have gone so far as to gloat they haven’t even read one of her books. All of this only increased the authors reputation and profile. Being such a high-profile author, riding on recent waves of success and exposure, it seems odd for the Swedish Academy and the Nobel Committee to award Olga Tokarczuk at this time, whereby in previous years they’ve waited, until the coals had cooled before reigniting the fire once again. Being a female writer certainly did not harm Tokarczuk chances either. Gender in this event, appears to have played little of a role—though it cannot be denied as being a contributing factor. As a writer though, Olga Tokarczuk has remained either indifferent or quiet on the matter of gender and identity politics. She does not limit her perspective based on these otherwise ubiquitous subjects. Instead, Tokarczuk focuses on the human experience as a whole, one not incumbered or limited to the biological components of birth. This being said, some have attempted to fixate on Olga Tokarczuk’s gender, ensuring that she is noted as a ‘feminist,’ along with other credentials to follow up the cause. This fixation on such a myopic matter diminishes and insults Olga Tokarczuk and her work. Its an attempt at trying to politicize the award further, by insinuating that the Swedish Academy and the Nobel Committee had made an example that they’ve taken the previous year of scandal, as a serious acknowledgement to their mishandling of the situation, and the documented decades of failures leading up to the abrupt postponement of the Nobel Prize for Literature. Taking this viewpoint does a disservice to all involved: from the Swedish Academy, to Olga Tokarczuk, and any reader who seeks out her works for an enjoyable and enlightening read.

On a personal note, I’ve read all of Olga Tokarczuk’s work currently translated. In this event, having a Nobel Laureate on the shelf before they get the: ‘Nobel Prize,’ sticker on their book comes as a somewhat of a feather in the cap.

___________________________________________________________________________ 

Second: Peter Handke

In two-thousand and four, when Elfriede Jelinek learned she had become the Nobel Laureate in Literature, she immediately stated her contemporary and compatriot, Peter Handke was more deserving. Fifteen years later, Peter Handke would receive the Stockholm Call. The decision to crown Peter Handke as a Laureate, has been met with divisive reactions, leaving little room for one to stake out their middle ground. Despite the white noise of the political bruhaha currently surrounding Peter Handke’s win, it would be prudent to discuss his work first.

It has been fourteen years since a playwright has received the Nobel Prize for Literature. The last one Harold Pinter in two-thousand and five, had made a long and outstanding career as a proponent of postmodern and experimental theatre, exploring the bounds of language and communication, as well as memory, and only later took to more political agitation. Following Pinter’s win, there was a gap in a playwright receiving the award. Previously though: Gao Xingjian and Elfriede Jelinek, had received the Nobel, and they were both renowned for their works for the stage. Gao Xinjian blended western theatrics with traditional Chinese theatre, which included dance, shadow puppetry, as well as introduced absurdist theatrical works to a Chinese audience, gaining the reputation as an avant-garde writer. Elfriede Jelinek has received acknowledgement with her highly vicious and unsettling novels, but is more renowned for her theatrical work. Jelinek’s plays are noted for their overt political caricatures, themes, images, and criticism of society. They’ve been described as grotesque, shocking, visceral, and thoroughly experimental, as well as magnificent works of theatrical genius. Her theatrical plays are noted for their precise attention to detail regarding language. They’re linguistic gymnastic performances, employing high, low, and commercial cultural tropes to create a schizophrenic collage of societal expectations, ideals, and believes, which shape and configure the individual in societal standards; and all of this is displayed through the careful musical and rhythmic structure of language of her work. Elfriede Jelinek’s ‘post-dramatic,’ texts eschew the traditional framework of a play. Characters are thinly designed, acting more as severed voices in search of their body. Narrative, stage plots, blocking—the meat and potatoes of the theatrical world, absent. Instead Elfriede Jelinek entrusts these earthly details to the directors, stage hands, artistic producers, and even the consultation of actors, who in turn embody the mercurial language of Jelinek, giving it form.

Peter Handke in companionship with: Gao Xinjian, Elfriede Jelinek, and Harold Pinter—is a mammoth of global literature, and one of the most influential playwrights of the latter half of the Twentieth Century. His debut for the stage: “Offending the Audience,” first published and performed in the late Sixties, put Peter Handke on the map as a rising heavy weight of German language literature. The play itself—often deemed a “antiplay,” for its disregard of conventional theatrical tropes—was praised for its thought-provoking premise and delivery, where the audience became an active participant, and would be ensnared and encircled by how language is used within the theatrical context. The play was not a representation, but engage the audience in questioning the arbitrary confines and institutions of both language and theatre.

“Offending the Audience,” was followed up with: “Kasper,” another play that took questioning stances towards language, as the foundation of human identity, experience, as well as torturous device employed by society and individuals to instate conformity, normalcy, and perceivable notions of the acceptable self, which only negates the individuals ideas of themselves, reducing it to the acceptable concept imposed by the collective. “Kaspar,” is lightly based off the story of Kaspar Hauser, the historical character, of a young German man who allegedly lived in a secluded imprisoned life the first seventeen years of his life. In the work of Peter Handke, this dear Kasper only knew how to speak a few words, and one complete sentence, and was quick in emulating the language, body language and behavior of those around him. The titular Kaspar is a creature of curiosity, and how language becomes a cruel inventive tool of torture, negating and destroying the individual, and its tyrannical force exploiting Kasper, and others who are more formed within the womb of the language. Once again, Peter Handke was able to preoccupy himself with the use of language as the focal point of the play, showcasing the terrible power that language possess over people, and the tyrannical force it has when applied by societies against the individual. “Kaspar,” was a phenomenal follow up to Handke’s debut theatrical work. Handke would go on to write more plays and screenplays, each time exploring the boundaries of the mediums.

Peter Handke’s greatest renown, however, has been his prose works, specifically his novels. The novels of Handke are much the same as his plays; they eschew conventional notions of narrative, and instead fixate on language and its engrossing power over the human experience, as well as the psyche of the individual and the collectives’ recollection of the experience. Identity, alienation, truth, the wasteland of the modern world, and the ability of how language frames, forms, and provides a mercurial understanding are the tropes of Peter Handke’s work. He is a first class postmodernist, one who could entertain, baffle, irritate and dazzle in the span of but a few pages. The quantity of his translations into other languages, confirmed his reputation as one of the most invigorating and prominent writers on the international literary stage. His plays were performed on theatres throughout the world. His screenplays screened at international film festivals. His novels consumed by the young and curious readers, who sought to find a writer who could adequately describe the world they inhabited. Personally, I’ve read Peter Handke—not to the same extent as Olga Tokarczuk as the availability and quantity of their works is not comparable—and have enjoyed him. His work showcases the immediate originality of his debuts, his boldness in experimentation, and his immediate preoccupations and themes have never failed to inspire, shock, and test audiences and readers alike. He remarkable literary output cannot be denied or overlooked.

Over the past few decades, Peter Handke has made a reputation for himself beyond his literary output. Much like compatriots, Thomas Bernhard and Elfriede Jelinek; Handke could often been described as an enfant terrible; in German Nestbeschmutzer (Nestbeschmutzerin). His literary tone has always been unapologetically confrontational. His early sparring partner was of course was the German language; which in the same vein as Thomas Bernhard and Elfriede Jelinek, had become diseased and stained by the Nazi’s. This was cemented further by Austria’s limpid response to being a collaborative state with the Nazi Reich, and even attempting to hide its enthusiastic and complicated past from being discussed openly. In this event, Thomas Bernhard, Elfriede Jelinek, and Peter Handke, worked independently to rebuild the German language, from the abused conduct of the previous decades. IN doing so, however, they became extraordinary provocateurs. Elfriede Jelinek openly discussed Austria’s shadowy Nazi past, and its lingering sentiments, which only infuriated the political and the public. Despite the criticism Jelink continued to provoke with added gusto. Thomas Bernhard famously called Austria:

“A brutal and stupid nation … a mindless, cultureless sewer which spreads its penetrating stench all over Europe.”

Peter Handke is by no means any different. His issues with language immediately sought to shock and offend the audience. His eye for detail and desire for examination, often make him a literary pathologist, whereby he examines the autopsied remains of the German language, and seeks to find the cure for its future, in its ideological poisoned remains. When compared to Thomas Bernhard and Elfriede Jelinek, Peter Handke often appeared moderate. Thomas Bernhard took issue for the sake of taking issue, and often at the expense of others. Elfriede Jelinek did not only poke the ulcers of the past, she created new ones in which to drum on. Peter Handke had the allure of being experimental, profound, moderate, offensive and postmodern while being successful.

Peter Handke took startling political stances with regards to the Yugoslav Wars. The Yugoslav Wars were one of the bloodiest fallouts during the collapse of the Soviet Union. After the death of Josip Broz Tito in the nineteen-eighties; the ethnic nationalism which he forcefully quelled, begun to reignite, in particular: Serbians, under the instigation and political machinations of Slobodan Milošević. With historical injuries from the Second World War still festering, the Serbs manipulated the political uncertainty of the time, and began to reform the autonomy the ethnic dominated provinces, which inspired former Yugoslavian territories to seek independence, which the new Serbian nationalist’s forces fought against—especially when it came to Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina. The following wars fueled by ethnic hatred, would be one of the most troubling conflicts to happen in Europe since the Second World War, and marked the nineteen-nineties as a decade of genocide, with both the Bosnian Genocide and the Rwanda Genocide.

Early on Peter Handke had taken a strong stance favouring the Serbs during the wars, and expressed support for Slobodan Milošević, going so far as to offer continual support while Slobodan Milošević faced charges of war crimes, and was detained at the Hague in the Netherlands.  After his death from heart failure, Peter Handke would make a eulogy at Slobodan Milošević’s funeral. After Milošević’s death an investigation was conducted by the International Court of Justice, whereby Milošević was acquitted of the charge of committing genocide. However, Milošević was found guilty in violating Genocide Conventions, by failing to actively prevent the genocide from taking place, and not cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in persecuting the perpetrators of the genocide. Despite the acquittal and new findings, this continual fevered support, made Handke a literary leper; or persona non grata. His previous literary output could not be considered strong enough to outweigh his otherwise controversial political statements. Handke never backed down, nor apologized for his stance. He remained firm. Ever the provocateur, it seemed Peter Handke had kicked the hornets’ nest, and this time was stung beyond recognition of his former literary glory.

Now for Peter Handke to receive the Nobel Prize for Literature has come as a shock; and a controversial one at that. I thought the possibility of Peter Handke receiving the award after his previous comments with regards to the Yugoslav Wars, next to impossible. After just rising from their own bruise ridden scandal, it would seem curiously masochistic for the academy to dive into another one. Yet they have; though they have completed thorough research on not only Peter Handke’s literary work, but also his well noted political commentary.

In an interview Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy Mats Malm, and fellow member   Eric M Runesson defended their choice with a more rational stance, then Anders Olsson did during the ‘press conference,’ when asked about Peter Handke’s political views. Anders Olsson stated abruptly the award is literary and not politically motivated. On the contrary Permanent Secretary Mats Malm and Eric M Runesson, instead defend the decision with careful rationale. They describe the political commentary of Peter Handke being less black and white as it has been painted. They defend their choice first and foremost, by stating that under no circumstances has Peter Handke promoted, advertised, vouched, or condoned the atrocities of the Yugoslav Wars. Instead, Peter Handke at worst is playing devil’s advocate, and at best: his statements were misconstrued.

Still, the stance, position, and perspective Peter Handke has taken, does make me uncomfortable. The more research I’ve done on the Srebrenica Massacre, the more horrified it is to think how this terrible tragedy has gone unannounced, unremembered, or even declared with abrupt honesty that it was a horrific genocidal attack on the Bosniaks, is egregious. It makes me more uncomfortable to think that a writer would involve themselves in stating with affinity (loose or otherwise) that they believe it was anything but a genocidal act. Slobodan Milošević may not have been convicted of Genocide, but his rabid dogs: Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić were; and there are plenty of others who have also been arrested, tried, and convicted on equal charges. These convictions by otherwise impartial judicial systems, cements the fact that the Srebrenica Massacre was not only a war crime, but also an act of Genocide—even if the UN Security Council, refused to declare it as such.

Peter Handke’s remarks are questionable. They are difficult to swallow. They are made even more complicated because I enjoy Peter Handke’s work. Despite this, the separation of the literary work and the writer is not always a possible task. In years past, I’ve made decisions not to read certain writers for what I saw as a lack of intellectual integrity, such as the Chinese writer and apologist: Mo Yan, who would receive the Nobel Prize for Literature. Mo Yan was noted for cozying up to his political masters, essentially becoming a tool of propaganda, one which praised the efforts of communism in China, while ignoring the current states nationalistic aggression (past and present), as well as other deplorable behaviours. He was an insult to writers such as: Gao Xingjian, Mu Xin, and Bei Dao, who were persecuted relentlessly by the red communist machine, which was hell bent on destroying them. Defenders of Mo Yan came to his defense stating he had no choice in choosing to become close with party officials in China, in order to maintain his position and his limited freedoms, while ensuring his work would be published. This defense still does not appease me. Many writers have risked life and limb to expose, revolt, rebel, and stand on integrity by openly and directly opposing oppressive regimes, such as: Herta Müller, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Duong Thu Huong. The stance Peter Handke takes is different than Mo Yan. Peter Handke does not have the otherwise literary responsibilities to defy an oppressive regime who suppresses human rights and freedom of speech, in favour of maintaining a cruel ideology. Rather Peter Handkes’ response is on par with Jean-Paul Sartre, who in his own self-absorption lost all intellectual integrity and credibility when he denied the existence of the Soviet Gulag system, despite the rampant evidence produced. Sartre’s inability to recongize, comment and decry the Soviet Gulag system cost him his integrity and his legitimacy as one of the great minds of the Twentieth Century. Peter Handkes’ fevered support for the Serbian antagonistic role in the Yugoslav War is much the same. Handke just happens to be an extraordinary writer, where Jean-Paul Sartre was mediocre at best.

If one is expected to look at Peter Handke through pure literary terms, he is an extraordinary writer. His early career began as a provocateur who, rebelled and shunned the old German language literary establishment. He called the likes of Günter Grass and Heinrich Böll impotent, and accused them of being incapable of moving German language and literature forward, while it maintained its moral obsession with the past. Handke in turn became an iconoclast, who sought to forcefully renew German literature in the company of other young German language writers, away from the moral reckoning of the past (this does not mean ignore it). From there on out he had accomplished these facts. His style is the slow panoramic cinematic style of capturing detail, landscapes, and external factors to reflect the troublesome unconscious of the individual, while language is incapable of describing the experience in literal senses. Language inevitably fails to describe reality; instead it influences how reality is to be perceived, through its linguistic translation of the visual. Inevitably, Peter Handke is a writers’ writer, but an extraordinary one all the same. Still one cannot ignore his political statements. Handke has been accused of trivializing the Yugoslav War; ignoring the reportage, the documentation, and the records of the atrocities conducted. It has also been alleged that Peter Handke has explicitly denied acts of genocide. I cannot comment on these matters, as I have yet to read the works in question. Though ever the shit disturber, Peter Handke may have gone too far, and in return has suffered for his miscalculated missteps. The position he has taken leaves me uncomfortable and uncertain, without being able to form a strong opinion one way or the other. This lack of decisive maneuvering on my end is not only frustrating, but disappointing. I do appreciate that the Swedish Academy had come forward to elucidate and defend their decision. Before, the Swedish Academy would take the stance: “this is a literary prize not a political one,” but at least now they’ve taken the step to engage, converse, and defend their decisions, which strengthens their causes, and clarifies that they are not just the Eighteen Olympians who guard and emit the writers of their choices, to their pantheon. They’ve taken steps to at least become more transparent.

___________________________________________________________________________ 

I won’t deny it Gentle Reader, when I heard that Olga Tokarczuk and Peter Handke had received the Nobel Prize for Literature, I was elated, and am still content with the decisions. Some have taken issue that the Swedish Academy—or to be more precise: the Nobel Committee—who stated they sought to take a more global inclusive perspective with the Nobel Prize for Literature, and in the end awarded to two European writers. This criticism is not unjust, but minor. The two Laureates for the years two-thousand and eighteen and two-thousand and nineteen are deserving—even if one of the two has caused a controversial stir. Both decisions surprised me, which is always a delight, and having read both of them, and have known each of them prior to the award is quite a treat as well.

It will be interesting Gentle Reader to see how Peter Handke fairs in Stockholm come Nobel Week. I suspect without question, we will see protests. The Nobel Lectures will also be interesting. As for next year Gentle Reader, we will see once again how the extended Nobel Committee and the Swedish Academy fair. Next year the Swedish Academy will have every seat filled, after the newly elected members are formally inducted on the twentieth of December of this year.

I’ve missed the Nobel Prize for Literature, and it is a pleasure to have the award renewed, revitalized, and back. May the final months of two-thousand and nineteen be filled with great literature and reading.

I am curious Gentle Readers, what do you make of this year’s Nobel Laureates in Literature?

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary