Post-Nobel Prize in Literature 2020 Thoughts

 

Hello Gentle Reader
 
Finally, after another year, and a few days that felt like they took longer to get through then normal, we reached the announcement of the Nobel Prize for Literature. This year’s laureate is the American poet Louise Glück, with the citation that reads: “for her unmistakable poetic voice that with austere beauty makes individual existence universal.”
 
Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the announcement of the prize was scarcely populated by a few journalists who were properly distanced within the reception room of the Swedish Academy. There were no cheers. There was no applause. In lieu of any celebratory moments, the Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Mats Malm read with steady and stoic calm the announcement of the literature laureate, and explained that due to the current global pandemic the Nobel Ceremony has been postponed, and all awarded laureates for this year will be invited and welcome to attend the ceremony next year. Afterwards, Mats Malm handed over the remaining proceedings to the Nobel Committee Chairman Anders Olsson, who first read an overview of Louis Glück’s work in Swedish, and then in English. Afterwards he took questions from the few journalists (in Swedish) and answered them (in Swedish). Both men—Mats Malm and Anders Olsson—do not have particularly dynamic public personas. Mats Malm maintains his composure but does not radiate excitement or interest in the duties; while Anders Olsson is more tepid, reading off of prescribed scripted statements, and answering questions in an equally lukewarm manner. Neither one—and I mean no offense—would be called charismatic individuals in comparison to previous Permanent Secretaries of the Swedish Academy, such as Peter Englund or the late Sara Danius. Englund for example, would read the announcement with a measured approached, and then participant in the interview with anxious excitement and even glee. Whereas Sara Danius radiated warmth and engagement with those attendance the moment she stepped forth, and gracefully engaged in questions and interviews afterwards, with noticeable enjoyment at discussing the laureate in literature. I will go so far as to stay both Mats Malm and Anders Olsson pale in comparison to Horace Engdahl, who carried himself like a literary statesman. Though controversial in his tenure for statements he made later in his tenure as Permanent Secretary, Engdhal again was able to gravitate the attention towards him and maintain the attention of all in attendance with little effort. Since Mats Malm took the position of Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, the conventional formalities of the position have been shared so far with the Chairman of the Nobel Committee, Anders Olsson. Last years announcement, saw Mats Malm talk from the podium for a few moments, announcing the Nobel Laureates for 2018 (retroactively) and 2019, before excusing himself and giving the floor to Anders Olsson and Per Wästberg, along with the external members of the enlarged Nobel Committee. These brief moments and encounters with Mats Malm have therefore been limited, and do not provide dynamic portrait of the public facing member of the Swedish Academy. Perhaps in the coming years the Permanent Secretaries position as the sole public coordinator and public relations personnel of the Swedish Academy will be returned in full, and no longer shared. This will allow a better assessment of Mats Malm and offer an inclination as to what kind of Permanent Secretary he is. Though on both occasions, its clear Mats Malm is not the most extrovertedly engaging man. At best he exhumes a slight awkwardness in his deliveries; at worst he portrays himself as standoffish to the point of glacial indifference. Perhaps he’s just shy and he mitigates it with a stoic demeanor. It would be more adorable if he blushed slightly now and then and presented an awkward smile. In such event, one might even go so far to say his cheeks would be pinchable. 
 
As for the Nobel Laureate in Literature for this year, my initial reaction and thoughts were muted. This could be partially because neither Mats Malm nor Anders Olsson would be considered crowd warmers; but it was also a slight sense of disappointment that it went to another English language writer. After coffee and an early morning nap, I was able to digest the news with a more reasonable constitution. One not clouded with my own petulant demands, whims, or desires—though let’s be frank, the Swedish Academy should make a better effort to meet them. Sarcasm aside now, I took the opportunity to read the articles floating around the internet by journalists and critics; forum posts by adamant readers and Nobel speculators; and found a common trend. Beyond the bleary-eyed weariness of the early morning hours (in some cases) there was a generally positive response. This may be due to Glück being an English language writer, who carries the scent of familiarity. But the praise goes beyond conventional tributes, relayed in the usual boilerplate fashion. No, in lieu of preconceived praise lies a genuine endearment to the poet and her work. Writing for The Guardian poet Fiona Sampson heaps odes of admiration on Louis Glück. Sampson traces the evolution of Glück’s themes from her initial debut through to her sophomore breakthrough, which initially focused on familiar ties, relationships, and domestic observations, to her later works which incorporate myth and philosophical preoccupations that has characterized her recent publications. While reading Sampson’s article, it becomes clear that one particular facet that remains potently consistent despite the gradual fermentation and maturation of themes and perspective is that Louis Glück retains a crystalline poetic voice, one that is written in clear, minimal, and austere language (to quote the Swedish Academy’s citation). There is no pomp, pretense, or sentimentality in her work. Of course, Glück keeps a keen attention to detail to the mundane and its complexities, and uses these conundrums to provide greater insight to the shared universal questions each individual experiences when they question notions of existential meaning, mortality, as well as tenacity of the human spirit to overcome trauma and adversity, while providing a remedial and renewed appreciation towards life and the act of living.
 
Rather nebulous praise for a poet who is also called earthbound, unpretentious, and modest in approach. Perhaps one of the most endearing qualities of Glück’s poetry is its otherwise clear and concise language. Glück completely abandons pretense and poetic purple sentimentality to etch on the crystal her severe and authentic poetry. There are no airy dandelion seeds drifting in the green spring breeze, where the poet circles and cycles around the point while maintaining an elusive approach to getting to the heart of the matter. There is no preference to the roundabout nature of innuendos to insinuate at the greater ieda. There are no cheap sentiments. The are no wisecracks. None of it. What remains is the sober, solemn, unillusioned perspective is only betrayed by the rejoice of life renewed.
 
Sometimes writers are best left alone. At least that appears to be the way for Louis Glück. Mats Malm had mentioned that he gotten in touch with the poet and said that the news appears to have been taken rather well—or something along those lines. Following suit, it could be seen why the Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy showed apprehension in providing a detailed response to how Glück has taken the news. There is agitation, irritation, and annoyed exhaustion. The poet openly admitted that when she received the news with suspicion, and she was not prepared to receive it. Following suit was an onslaught of journalists and reporters who have called her home requesting interviews, request for comments, entreating the poet for any word on the matter. If the phone is not ringing with a journalist on the other end, its ringing with congratulations from friends. When the Nobel Prize website phoned with a request for an interview, Louis Glück showcased an otherwise embittered resentment at once again being interrupted. Her responses were curt, acerbic, and to the point. Perhaps her austere poetic language is not just limited to her poetry but is a matter of her character. She offered the Nobel Prize websites Adam Smith two minutes to talk, where she answered his questions as fast as she could. She looked at the prize money with prudent and pragmatic potential in a fiscally responsible matter. In the end she asked if their two minutes were up and that was that. I didn’t find Glück’s response all that gracious. Instead it pulsed with irritation disguising itself as indifference. In other videos posted online she is visibly annoyed with the attention being showered on her by journalists outside of her home. She wasn’t as acerbically disagreeable as Doris Lessing was in 2007; but she appeared apathetic to the point of annoyed by the whole brouhaha. To be fair it is understandable that one may be slightly ornery when their entire daily life has suddenly been usurped. Then again other laureates both in literature and other categories have shown greater gratitude towards receiving the news. Her temperament may change in the coming weeks. Her engagement with the award may be warmer when she delivers her Nobel Lecture electronically to the Swedish Academy, and then its all over.
 
I won’t lie Gentle Reader, when I initially heard the news that Louis Glück won the Nobel Prize for Literature I was not immediately impressed. I was not outraged either. Still it struck me as disappointing in the moment. Once again, another English language writer had received the prize, and what a shock it seemed? They had awarded two English language laureates in 2016 and 2017. Of course, Anders Olsson had stated that the Nobel Committee for Literature was taking a more global approach to the award, but one begins to question if this global approach is just limited between Europe and the United States of America. I highly doubt it; yet one can’t help but wonder at times. Before the award Gentle Reader, I had no interest in Louis Glück, and maintain an otherwise indifferent attitude towards her work. Though at least she appears to be a full-fledged Nobel Laurate in her own right, one that does not carry the nauseous stench of compromise like Kazuo Ishiguro. There can be no denial that as a poet, Louis Glück has maintained a strict adherence to her personal craft and form. She has refused hyphened titles and associations with movements, or fashionable thoughts of the era. She is not a confessional poet, she is not a feminist poet, she is not a nature poet, she is not a classicist’s poet. What Louis Glück is, is simply: a poet. This does recall that perhaps in the mere twilight days leading up to the announcement that the journalists and critics who had theorized that the Swedish Academy would seek to award a ‘safe writer,’ may have been right.  Glück would not be described as a political or dissident poet. She has no political vocations or allegiances that have been publicly aired. She is not a poet of social causes either. She does not wield the pen with social acumen in mind. She does not seek to rectify or expose injustices, and in turn inspire social or political change through this. No instead Glück is devoted to the intrapersonal poetic form which transpires into interpersonal communication with her readers. Glück is only interested in poetry when it comes to her literary pursuits. Everything else is either secondary or peripheral. With the current state of the world, it is easy to concede that yes, Louis Glück is a safe choice; one that is based around literary preoccupation solely. This also being said, Louis Glück is also a surprise on a couple of different levels. After reviewing the previous Nobel Laureates in Literature, it is apparent that Louis Glück is the first female English language laureate whose main literary output is poetry, followed by two collections of essays. In other words: Louise Glück is the first Female English Language Poet, to receive the Nobel Prize for Literature. Not a bad accolade for the poet.
 
Though Louise Glück has won the Nobel Prize for Literature, and my initial feelings and thoughts were muted, tepid, and indifferent—and persist in that manner—I will concede that I am happy to see that readers, journalists and the public respond with warming welcomes to the award. I have had the opportunity to read a few of Glück’s poems online, and found the experience hit and miss. My favourite poem is “Snowdrops,” from the collection, “The Wild Iris.” It’s a remarkable little poem, which takes the voice of the snowdrop flower and presents its own relief and apprehension at life returning as winter recedes. Other poems have been as revelatory. I do appreciate, Glück paired down and plain diction in her work. Its pleasant that a poet appreciates poetry without ostentatious ornamentation. Louise Glück is by no means on par or have any poetic relation to Wisława Szymborska. I maintain that Szymborska is by all accounts the superior poet; though the two have their own strengths. I appreciate that Wisława Szymborska was more engaged in otherwise universal themes, which she wrote about with gentle candor, and sly ironic twists. From what I am currently able to gather about Louise Glück is she’s more solemn and somber, then Szymborska; where one used irony and paradox as humour, the other perpetrates bitter and cutting acerbity. Where Szymborska’s hand is light and reserved from making any immediate assertion of herself in the poem; Glück has chisel in hand and carves out her poetry with her persona stitched within. In time, I may give Louise Glück an opportunity. I am by no means a great lover of poetry, but her essay collections have piqued my interest. Final thoughts on the matter: I had my own preferences for a poet to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, both personal tastes, but also certain poets whose contributions to poetry have been far reaching and more influential. Secretly, I harbored further desire in seeing Anne Carson take the award as well. I enjoy Carson’s chimeric approach to poetry, as well as being the most experimental poet currently at work in the English language. Carson’s win would have been well deserved and earned. Louise Glück, however is a poet within her own right. the award does not appear to be a compromise, but a thoughtful retrospect of the poet, and her decades of work behind her.
 
Congratulations are still in order to Louis Glück. The Nobel Prize for Literature, I am sure is well deserved. Hopefully life will get back to some semblance of normal for her, while I also hope that she will be able to head to Stockholm next year to receive the award in person and experience the rich pageantry that is the Nobel Prize Ceremony.
 
Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read
 
 
M. Mary