– LVII –

I condone and advocate for freedom of speech and expression without condition. Not only because it is the cornerstone of liberal democracy, but because I believe in the baseline reality that my fellow citizens are sensible and rational, capable of engaging in critical thinking.

Murakami Ryū Dies Aged 74

Hello Gentle Reader,

Japanese literature is a powerhouse, producing some exceptional talents and titans, which includes: Sōseki Natsume, Akutagawa Ryūnosuke, Dazai Osamu, Tanizaki Jun'ichirō, Kawabata Yasunari, Mishima Yukio, Abe Kōbō, Ōe Kenzaburō, Tsushima Yūko. All of which inevitably paved the way for other contemporary writers to find new readerships in translation. Though many of these new and contemporary writers, were entrenched and steeped in a globalised cultural environment, whereby the distinct ‘Japanese,’ identity or elements (at least in a traditional sense) had been stripped away. The hybridity and blending of traditional cultural nuance, style and elements of their literary forefathers (Sōseki, Akutagawa, Dazai, Tanizaki, Kawabata and Mishima) had been replaced by narratives that existed in a state of rootlessness or cultural anonymity. Nowhere is this more distinctly seen then with Murakami Haruki, whose detached alienated everyday men with their penchant for pasta and jazz find themselves stranded in a world of absurd and fantastical happenings, complete with disappearing cats and parrel realities. Subsequent writers have continued with the offbeat narrative (Murata Sayaka) while turning their attentions to more social-minded critiques (Kawakami Mieko). The other Murakami – Murakami Ryū – had been far darker, transgressive and edgier from the start. To quote one critic: “If Haruki is the Beatles of Japanese literature, then Ryū is the Rolling Stones.”

Murakami Ryū’s work subverted the image of Japanese society as being clean and orderly. Beneath the homogenous conformity, lied a world of depravity and suppressed inclinations, fetishes and outlets catering to the facilitation and release of these endeavors. In the famous novel “Almost Transparent Blue,” Murakami writes a plotless novel chartering ‘Ryū,’ and a group of young adults in the mid-70’s, whose lives revolve around the triptych of the times: sex, drugs and rock’n roll. The novels imagistic driven debauchery danced on the precipice of nihilism. “Almost Transparent Blue,” would go on to win the prestigious Akutagawa Prize and was later made into a film scripted and directed by the author. Subsequent novels such as “Coin Locker Babies,” “Piercing,” “Audition,” and “In the Miso Soup,” continued their pathological inquiry into the darker elements of contemporary Japanese society, often employing visceral imagery and violent actions to contrast against the neat and orderly image projected to the world. Murakami’s is recognized for charting the urban disillusionment and nihilism of the postwar youth, before evolving into a critical surveyor of Japanese and American consumerist society, placating and pacifying people with commodities. Japanese literature required the blunt and transgressive knives edge that Murakami Ryū brought. It dispelled the magical realism of Haruki, cutting to the heart and bone of the matter. This otherwise edgier and angrier writing proved to be a counterweight and balance, to Murakami Haruki’s otherwise detached dreamscapes. Though the comparison between the two is an unfair point. The two writers despite their namesake, both approached writing for different angles and with different purposes, achieving different results. Though, in this instance, the death of Murakami Ryū is a significant loss to Japanese literature.

Rest in Peace Murakami Ryū

Thank you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read
 
M. Mary

For Further Reading: 

The Guardian: "Ryu Murakami, cult Japanese author, dies aged 74,"

From the Emptiness of the Everyday

Hello Gentle Reader,

The mundane is a soundscape of competing noises. All the clattering about, with the rattle, babble and prattle. A disorganised cacophony of sound bites barreling down and around. Honking horns during rush hour. Car alarms startled and crying out along the street or in car parks. Lone dogs barking into the night. Tom cats brawling in shadow draped alleyways. Autumn leaves caught on a gust or a whirlwind skip and scratch down the pavement with hissing flicks. The geese at sunset, honking away in their flock formations, due south they do declare. Restaurants are filled with the joyous symphony of clicking, clacking, clanking of cutlery, being conducted over plates. Completed by a muted choral arrangement of hushed voices engaged and lost in conversation. The piercing, the cutting, the chewing and listening. The tinkling of melting ice against the glass bead with condensation as the meal continues, while wine glasses are topped off and are heartedly refilled. Many great conversations have been undertaken when sharing a meal. There’s no better way to catch up with someone, then at a table with drinks at the ready and a menu to order from. Now there’s an enjoyable evening or night out: dinner, drinks and good company with riveting conversation. Made all the better because you don’t have to worry about cooking or consider the washing up.

People watching is another great way to pass the time. A café, park bench, table in a restaurant, seat on the bus, seating in a mall. Then all you need to do is watch and listen. The dramas of the everyday, be it you creating the narrative for them, or they tell their own stories. The other day, while out of lunch and waiting for the other party, I busied myself with my book after pursuing the menu; but I got hooked in on a conversation happen four tables down, where two women sat over coffee waiting for their food. One woman was in the forays of detailing a dreadful incident from the night before. After watching the late-night news and putting down her knitting, she decided to call it a night. Checked the doors as one might do; can’t be too careful these days, with all the hooligans out and about. Entering the kitchen to get a glass of water before heading up for bed there it was, she said. Bold as brass and brazen as daylight. A mouse! Filthy little rodent, sizing up the pantry. Upon being spotted, the vermin scurried behind the fridge with pussyfooting shadow speed. All of us listening to the conversation, shuddered at the thought. A mouse scampering about is enough to make anyone squirm. Now, rather than getting an exterminator or pest control professional in, the neighbour has been kind enough to send over his cat. Fat axen thing, she says, but its now on the prowl, something having been stirred inside of it. A call from the wild perhaps? She hopes, she says, that when she gets home the catch is laid-out dead, right there on the kitchen floor. Done and did. Then the cat can go back to its lounging indolent lifestyle next door, basking in sunlight in the bay window. But what about how the rodent got in, is that not a concern? A well measured point by the companion. First things first, get rid of the mouse. Anything else is secondary. Though a professional’s opinion may not be a bad idea. What a kerfuffle; though all sympathies to her. As the conversation continued towards repellants and traps, my own company arrived. After an exchange of quick hellos then getting situated its down to business: “any news?” and “what have you got for me today?” As for the two women four tables down, they fad into the murmur.

This run down of the unexpected discovery of a mouse in a house, could easily have been the opening remarks of one of Alan Bennett’s characters from his famous play series “Talking Heads.” Whereby the character would take the incident as the point to springboard off and recount in a slow drip cursive way the mundane tragedies that make up their lives. In “A Woman of No Importance,” Peggy, opens the monologue with the following, then proceeds to carry on providing a brief anthropological detail of the office environment, which she sees herself as Queen Bee:

“I was alright on the Monday. I was alright on the Tuesday. And I was alright on the Wednesday until lunchtime, at which point all my nice routine went out the window.”

As far as postwar playwrights go (or dramatist, depending on your orientation) Alan Bennett is by far one of the most recognizable and satirised. Bennett himself has become somewhat a national treasure for the English. The term national treasure, rather summons an image of an endearing trinket. A point of pride, but is best tucked up safely in the china cabinet, brought out only when company is over. One critic went so far as to call Bennett cosy, comparing the now nonagrian playwright to a teddy bear. While its true, Bennett does not share in Stoppard’s linguistic brilliance and his satire and comedy lacks the prickly threatening edges of Harold Pinter (in addition to Pinter’s later unapologetic political posturing and positions), or Caryl Churchill’s experimentation with form. But to disregard Bennett as twee, is rather dismissive, considering the sharpness found within Bennett’s “Talking Head,” monologues. Which on their own are a master class example of Bennett’s observational and tragicomic storytelling. They are pitch perfect in the gradual disclosure of the information, whereby the unreliable narrators illuminate the depths of their loneliness and isolation.

For those who believe playwrighting and screenwriting are interchangeable forms, Alan Bennett’s “Talking Head,” series, proves there is inherent differences between the two forms, especially with how they engage with text. Writing for cinema is concerned with capturing action and visuals. In a film there can be long periods and scenes of minimal to no dialogue, but the silence is filled with what they call 'needle drops,' (music) to provide atmosphere and context. Cinema and film are less concerned with text. It’s a visual medium; whereby poor writing can be disguised or masked through painterly or pictographic material, distracting viewers from a lackluster script. In a play, however, the entire production pivots off of the quality and strength of the script. Dramatic text, also require playwrights to understand the limitations of space and the mechanics of stage. Film can now employee computer generated imagery or graphics which translates seamlessly to the screen. Such luxuries do not exist in in the realm of stage, whereby narrative is propelled forward through dialogue and character interactions, or the in the case of Alan Bennett’s “Talking Heads,” the onion peeling confession of one character to the camera.

Alan Bennett’s writing shines in his “Talking Head,” monologues and their progenitor piece “A Woman of No Importance.” Each one a self-contained intimate chamber piece, with only a single actor acting and inflecting as they recite the text. The intimacy between character, camera and viewer, creates a confessional disclosing atmosphere. A release of information, from a narrator who perhaps is unaware of their own tragic circumstances. The late Dame Patricia Routledge in “A Woman of No Importance,” and “A Lady of Letters,” rips along with an almost gossipy disclosure. In “A Lady of Letters,” Routledge (originally; Dame Imelda took on the role in 2020) plays Irene Ruddock, a prolific correspondent, who has a letter at the ready for everyone: from crematoriums, chemists, her MP to the police. Ms. Ruddock believes the key to correct civil errors, is by participation; yet fails to realise conjecture and unfounded theories are rarely tolerable. A visit from the police reveals the depths of Ms. Ruddock’s participation, and how concern is corroded into acid accusations and venomous slander. Later on, Ms. Ruddock’s assessment of social work is quite the shot: “Social work; I think its just chiming in.” Despite their attempts at quelling or steering Ms. Ruddock to more productive – or at the very least, harmless ways of participating in the community – she inevitably relapses. Then Bennett flips the script with vicious irony. Incarceration would be a soul-destroying prospect for most people, but not Irene Ruddock. Oh, heavens no, she confesses with giddy delight she’s never been happier or freer behind bars. This unconventional sense of sanctuary, connection and place, pulls the curtain back further on Irene Ruddock’s loneliness and social estrangement.  

In “Bed Amongst the Lentils,” the legendary late Dame Maggie Smith plays a disillusioned vicars wife named Susan – also known as Mrs. Vicar – who appears positively exhausted. The rip-roaring gossiping tone of Routledge’s Irene Ruddock, is no replaced by the steady steeled control of Maggie Smith embodying Susan’s wearied neglect and hollow existence. Here again, Bennett’s text shines. If “A Lady of Letters,” can almost be read and viewed as a dark comedy in it how skips along; “Bed Amongst the Lentils,” is comedically more subtle, while being psychologically acute, in probing the mundane oppression Susan endures with the support and assistance of alcohol; while her husband Geoffrey is ambitious. The clergy is a ladder to climb and he envisions himself a mountaineer. Then there is Geoffrey’s fan club: devote parishioners, which may as well be described as a gaggle of women, who flock and fawn over him. Susan’s quip about the competitiveness of flower arrangement (“if you think squash is a competitive activity; try flower arrangement.”), is the dry deadpan humour employed. This particular arranging session proves to be a fatal slip for Susan, with the constraints on her life only tightening thereafter and appropriated and exploited by her ambitious husband. Susan’s tragedy is perfectly outlined when she contemplates what her life was all planned out to be:

“Once upon a time, I had my life all planned out, or part of it at any rate. Wasn’t clear about the first half; but at the stroke of 50 I was all set to turn into a wonderful woman. The wife to a doctor or local architect; chairman of the local parish council; pillar of the WI. A wise, witty and ultimately white-haired old lady, who always stood on her own feet. Until one day at the age of 80, coming out of the county library she falls under the weight of her improving book, breaks a hip and dies peacefully and continently without fuss under a snowy coverlet in the cottage hospital. And coming away from her funeral, in a country churchyard on a bright winter’s afternoon, people would say: ‘Well, she was a wonderful woman.’”

This never manifested for Susan, whose life instead remains in constant orbit of her husband and his ambitions, who even falsifies Susan’s supposed outgoingness to further his career along and grasp the appointment of Archbishop. The vicarage is only base camp. What Geoffrey details is an itinerary that is positively herculean in its saintly efforts. Its no wonder Susan begins to have an extramarital affair with an Indian grocer, which brings her real joy. The piece ends, however, with Susan no better off. Perhaps even worst so, now trapped between too rigid institutions seeking to provide direction and salvation. Meanwhile Geoffrey finds another step up in his quest for to be promoted to archbishop. While Susan is resigned to her stifling life.

Other plays such as “Playing Sandwiches,” “The Outside Dog,” and “Nights in the Gardens of Spain,” reveal a darkness that slips into the otherwise banal and mundane. Of the three, however, “Playing Sandwiches,” is disturbed and masterly acted out by David Haig. It’s a daring piece; which is sad to say in today’s world, but the proclivity for outrage has swung so wide now into the moralistically puritanical on both ends. It is difficult to imagine any writer writing about this topic with such human nuance and tints of tragedy. While the actors in each of the pieces are phenomenal, it is Alan Bennett’s scripts which provides them the wet stone to sharpen and showcase their talents. Bennett’s text is natural, with a particular flair for the idiosyncrasies and turn of phrases the English employee, but rather then being a source of irritation or bafflement, its woven naturally into the speech, revealing more about the character. Though to Susan’s detriment, I still have no idea what: “Its Mary Magdalene in the nivea cream, all over again,” means. To the more scripture versed, I’m sure this amusing anecdote will produce a smirk if not a smile. What I do happen to enjoy the most about Bennett’s pieces is the ricochet recital of the mundane. These beautiful details of everyday life ground the characters into a sense of reality, establishing their routines; provide texture regarding their life; perhaps disclosing their place within society. The following from “A Lady of Letters,” I found rather amusing. As the literary is often meant to rise above the weeding view of the everyday.  

“Card from the opticians this morning. Saying their records indicate that its two years since they supplied me with spectacles and that by now, they most certainly would be in need of verification, and suggesting I call at my earliest convenience.”

And while Bennett’s monologues are indeed set and fixated within the banal and everyday, they operate in the fashion of a suburbia tableaux, revealing the darkness, isolation, disillusionment, disenfranchisement and anxieties that exist within the everyday, the commonplace, the unnoticeable. Bennett illuminates the cracks in the teacups, the chips in the sugar. The daily oppression of life. Rediscovering the “Talking Head,” series often felt like a peep show into the depraved, dark and lonely lives of other people. It just so happened to be where beautiful writing met great acting. An absolute pleasure to watch or just listen to. Then you look past your window and wonder about everyone else all tucked up their own homes. What life they’re leading, if any? Does the discovery of a mouse in the kitchen spiral into a revelation; or perhaps it leads to an affair with the young rough and tumble pest control technician.  In the vast emptiness of what we are often summarised as: the everyday; Alan Bennett reveals with confessional candor the tragedies of otherwise ordinary lives.

Now then, when out and about, you can’t help but be reminded that every passerby is living a life completely parallel to yours. While grocery shopping, they’re fretting about their divorce; approaching middle age, a man has decided to take up swimming to stave off weight and the impending understanding that he’s over the hill; a woman turns off the vacuum and is informed that her estranged son has been found dead from a suspected overdose; an old woman says goodbye to her house, as she’s packed off to the retirement home. Their lives are their own; however eventful or uneventful it is. I think great writing is capable of pulling from the emptiness of the everyday, which is the shapelessness of what we call: the human condition.

 

Thank you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read
 
M. Mary

Post-Nobel Prize in Literature 2026 Thoughts

Hello Gentle Reader,  

The Nobel Prize in Literature for 2026 was awarded to the Canadian author Anne Carson with the citation:  

“for her bold and inventive oeuvre that, in playful dialogue with the classical tradition, has created new forms for contemporary literature.”  

The run up to 1:00pm (CEST) sits in muted anticipation. Virtually, the video captures the polite mumming of the assembled crowd, while running a few interesting facts about the Nobel Prize in Literature: number of times it was awarded and to how many laureates; the handful of times the award has been shared; in addition to the oldest Nobel Laureate being awarded at 87. There’s the little white picket carrel placed in front of the two legendary gilded doors. In the right corner of this sanctioned space, a pedestal cocktail table draped in a black tablecloth. Apparently, the announcement will be conducted once again in this fragmented and fastidious fashion. As it has been since 2019, when Olga Tokarczuk was announced as the Nobel Laureate in Literature for 2018 and Peter Handke the Nobel Laureate in Literature for 2019. Any hope that with a new Permanent Secretary this itineration will change are dismissed as hopeful at best. Then unseen, a bell chimes, now then, it’s a matter of time.  

For the past 7 years and 8 laureates, Mats Malm has been the Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy. Coming out of the scandal, Mats Malm’s secretaryship was one which favoured administrative reserve and brisque delivery. This often leads to heavy criticism to Malm’s tenure as Permanent Secretary as noted for being stoic and wooden in its officiation. Were previous Permanent Secretaries: Horace Engdahl, Peter Englud and Sara Danius, each brought their own sense of style to the role, be it a literary statesmanship reticence, bustling dynamism, or poised grace. Mats Malm’s formalistic endorsement came across as more suitable for presenting updates at a board meeting, rather than presiding over the announcement of a literary award.  

Though, after a rip-roaring bruhaha of a scandal that caused an existential crisis for the Swedish Academy, forcing the Nobel to unceremoniously be postponed; members resign in protest; the academy's bylaws and statutes to be reviewed and updated to allow formal resignation and removal (as elections were lifelong commitments or sentences); then the election of new members and restructuring; it is not difficult to see the Nobel Foundation demanding to see some change in conduct and protocol after a yearlong suspension, whereby the Swedish Academy was expected to get its house in order and do a bit of soul searching. Carrying on as if nothing happened would be a flagrant display of arrogance. And so, the announcement format changed. The public relations functions of the Nobel Prize in Literature announcement, is no longer the sole charge of the Permanent Secretary. During the past 7 years, Mats Malm punctually stepped through the doors, announced the laureate followed by their citation, then passed on a more detailed overview of the years laureate to be read out by the Chair of the Nobel Committee, which can be found verbatim on the Nobel Prize website for the laureate under the tab titled “Biobibliography.”

Curiosity provoked, a survey of the laureates from 1990 to 1997, revealed there was no specific biobibliography tab in their laureate pages. Biographical notes and their bibliography were delineated from one another. Whereas the press release section of their pages, provided what would later operate as the biobibliography section. From 1998 – 2003, a biobibliography section was added to the laureate’s pages, though they were succinct in composition, with the press release section retaining its function as being the comprehensive overview of the laureate’s introduction to the world and the Swedish Academy’s rationale for their decision. From 2004 until 2019, the biobibliography section replaced the press release as the Swedish Academy’s initial overview of the Nobel Laureate; relegating the press release function to encompassing merely the announcement, laureates name and their citation. Regardless of what area housed this introductory cursory information, authorship remained anonymous or was attributed to either: The Swedish Academy or Swedish Academy, Permanent Secretary. Starting in 2020, the biobibliography section of the laureate has authorship attributed to Anders Olsson, Chairman of the Nobel Committee.  

As Permanent Secretary, Mats Malm took a fair bit of flak for his stilted and uneasy demeanour with announcing the Nobel Laureate and their citation to the world; but good God, Anders Olsson has as about as much charisma as unbuttered toast. To be fair, however, coming out of a scandal and on the heels of the secretaryship of Sara Danius – who was ungenerously forced out of the role – it was apparent whoever took on the position would face an uphill battle. This being said, I did not always appreciate or condone the laureates Sara Danius had the pleasure of announcing, but I could admire how she handled the affairs with a grace and diplomacy, charmingly answering questions and disarming or sidestepping questions of one exceptionally controversial laureate. Despite this, Mats Malm’s quietude quickly raised questions regarding suitability for the role, where a main function is public relations. While I maintain Olssons continued presence and now inked authorship of the laureates “biobibliography,” is nothing short of a residual power grab from the post-scandal years. Then again, the argument can be proposed that it was the Nobel Foundation who demanded a ‘shared structure,’ of the announcement format, in an attempt to ground the event in a more controlled ceremony, or at the very least have standardised talking points or script to offer to the press. Rather than have one individual announce and then do a short impromptu interview providing some insight into the laureate and their work. Here again, though, there are some out there who don’t mind the new announcement format, and while there is no accounting for taste, it is the litmus test of whether or not one has a soul, which sadly those poor individuals severely lack in addition to personality and character.

Regardless, this is all disappointing, as late last year Mats Malm announced his resignation from the role and the appointment of Ingrid Carlberg as his replacement. Not to be dismissive of Mats Malm or his meticulous approach to the role, but Ingrid Carlberg proved to be a breath of fresh, despite her role within the afternoon’s proceedings being limited in scope when compared to previous office holders. What can be ascertained from the brief appearance made is Ingrid Carlberg came across as warm and gregarious. It is not difficult to see Carlberg having hold and command of the room, not just because of the position but also on the faint inclination of how open and at ease she was with being the master of ceremonies. When it came to the announcement itself, Ingrid Carlberg’s annunciation was clear and strong, there was no mistaking who this year’s laureate was. The pity is, any perceived ability of Carlberg to hold and command the room dissipates when she steps aside for Olsson to rattle off his sermon. It would have been nice to have seen more of Ingrid Carlberg to gauge how she would conduct the announcement and handled the affair; but alas, this is not the format of the announcement now. Instead, it’s an inefficient breakdown of roles and responsibilities. Fragmentedly passed off from one to another, giving the entire announcement the feel of an annual shareholders meeting. Not what is expected of a literary award announcement, which on its own should be an occasion of excitement, rather than the etherized affair that it currently is. Then again though, there are those out there who don’t mind this new announcement format. May we take pity on their soulless characterless husks. Such sad lives they must lead.

With regards to this year’s laureate, it’s difficult to imagine a writer who writes quite in the same fashion or way as Anne Carson. While always categorised as a poet; early in Carson’s literary career, other poets viewed Carson’s work as anything but poetry. While prose writers equally viewed Carson’s work as a chimeric oddity, which did not quite fit within their wheel house either. As for Carson, she remained unperturbed and unconcerned with the pedantic concerns and questions regarding literary classification and categorisation, while continuing to breach the borders of what could be considered purely poetic or prose oriented, while flirting and taking inspiration from other artistic forms, be it dance or opera and visual arts. No where is this exemplified as clearly as in “Nox.” Of all of Carson’s books, “Nox,” goes the farthest in its physical display of pushing the book as a medium beyond the literary into a physical object of art with its accordion structure. Filled with collage material (old letters, family photos, sketches) pasted in it, accompanied by Anne Carson’s text. Then there is the poetry or text itself refusing to operate on one dimension. At first, it’s an elegy and epitaph for Carson’s estranged dead brother, which is then distilled and viewed through the classicist lens of translating Poem 101 by Catullus, which is another poem about grief and mourning a brother.

While “Nox,” may reside on the extreme end of what Anne Carson accomplishes in her interest of pushing against the boundaries of what is typically defined as literary in the conventional sense, it does provide uninitiated readers a purview or a forewarning what Carson does with the written word, as she continually tests the malleability of the literary form as a construct.

Readers and admires of Anne Carson are devoted to her because of her mercurial format and writings, which delight in the alchemical blending of scholarly inquiry as a classicist, to the foray into essay and literary criticism, dancing into translation then sidestepping into poetry and flirting with the literary fragment; all of which can take place by reimagining the classic myths into disorienting contemporary settings, or by engaging in a literary dance between classic text, translation, and the thoughts engaged from there, then juxtaposed with reference to contemporary settings or pop culture. This is why there is no writer who is as singular as Anne Carson in format and style, and for good reason. Any imitation would be poor and cheap, as Carson’s intertextuality succeeds because of its blended transition in addition to her academic authority.

Personally, I’ve always found Anne Carson a bit remote. Admirable, but remote. There is always a sphinx-like quality. An intellectually reserve where the author had no interest in communicating or elucidating further. In this regard, I could admire what Anne Carson did. The structures of her books have always been interesting and their back covers always provided a thoughtful and engaging description and proposition as to why read the book, but when ever one was cracked open and perused there was always an understanding that this is not the book for you. Again though, I can admire the singularity in which Anne Carson writes and the devotion of her readers is positively acolyte, but it was apparent early on that I was not the intended reader or admirer of her work. However, for the Nobel Prize in Literature to finally makes its way to Anne Carson, the sense is not necessarily surprising, but about time.

Before Alice Munro won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2013, my thoughts were at the time if any English language Canadian writer had any chance of receiving the prize it was Anne Carson, as both Alice Munro and Margaret Atwood, may be viewed as too recognizable by the Swedish Academy and therefore be open to criticism of predictability. Then Alice Munro was announced as the Nobel Laureate in Literature, which I think did wonders in recognising Canadian Literature; but more importantly it elevated the short story from beyond the novels shadow, as being a literary form with as much complexity and artistry in composition. Regardless, with limited understanding of how the Swedish Academy decides to operate, I doubted the award would return to any Canadian writer (French or English) for decades after Munro’s win. As it is not unusual for the Swedish Academy to acknowledge and then appear to turn their attention elsewhere. For example, no Japanese language writer has received the award since 1994 when the late Ōe Kenzaburō received the award. These lengthy drought periods are equally seen with the Spanish language, Portuguese, Italian and Greek languages; not to mention many languages and literary cultures who have yet to been taken notice by the Swedish Academy and graced with the Nobel.

There again though, one could argue the Nobel Prize in Literature only just began to formulate itself as a global literary award, which was never stipulated within Alfred Nobel’s will. Further defense to the Swedish Academy and its Nobel Committee, the expectation for any award is that the members evaluate writers nominated based on the merits of their work, not on a rotational roulette where there is an unwritten expectation that a writer from a specific geographic location or language family receives the award, simply because its time or overdue. Furthermore, the Swedish Academy is bound by nominations, and it’s not difficult to theorise that the academy is inundated with nominations from academics, writers’ organisations, former laureates and their own nominations. The problem is how do you whittle that down to a reasonable and manageable shortlist with a back catalogue of writers you’d like to continue to watch? It’s an impossible task.

Anne Carson, however, is in many ways the ideal (or expected) Nobel Laureate in Literature; at least when viewed in the precedence set by other laureates, and attempting to ascertain some vague picture of what the Swedish Academy admires or is looking for. For one, Carson is a innovative writer whose intertextual experimentations continually broach beyond the delineation of prose and poetry, to even the acceptable definitions of what literature is within a purely contextual format. These innovations put her right alongside Svetlana Alexviech, Elfriede Jelinek (especially in her dramatic texts), Gao Xingjian’s dramatic work, blending classical Chinese theatre with modern western drama, and it maybe argued Elias Canetti, who is best described as a polyhistor, as Canetti never quite made a literary reputation based on his fictional text or poetry, but rather his case study on the social structure and power dynamics of crowds, aphoristic fragments and his memoirs.

The saddest part to witness regarding Anne Carson’s Nobel Prize was and is how little Canadians appeared to care as a whole. There are, no doubt many great readers and admirers of Carson’s work, but for the everyday Canadian reader or citizen, the award was looked on with polite disinterest. A few half-hearted ‘oh, that’s nice,’ before carrying on. The news in turn, treated it as a minor story (at least from what I saw). A few remarks were given, then it was on to the weather. Now, this is not to say that the news should have treated this as some magnanimous occasion, but one could always hope that there would be more to it then just some paltry remarks before moving on to other pressing headlines. Though, granted its understandable considering the existential questions facing Canada with a southern neighbour turning hostile and attempting to deploy economic pressure and force to coerce or limit the nations sovereignty; while internally, quisling premiers are doing their damndest to fracture and unravel the country with separatist’s antics, if only to save their own political career. Though the level attention paid to Anne Carson’s win (and even Alice Munro’s) reveals in itself, an unfortunate incuriosity Canadians have towards their own literature and their own culture. This level of dispassion would be alarming to other nations, but to Canada, this level of disinterest is shrugged off as just an intricate part of the Canadian experience and identity; some might even go so far as to call it a part of our heritage.   

With regards to Anne Carson’s reaction to the award, it’s difficult to place. There is a sense of bemusement from the author, with also an almost cat like imperceptibility to the news. Though a photo circulating on the internet did show a surprised Anne Carson on the phone. Though even in her interviews there was an opacity to Carson’s answers, some remained held back or hidden. Though perhaps the reason I never could quite get on with her as a reader is that I never started in the middle. Still, I can admire and appreciate what Anne Carson has done. It is difficult to imagine any writer who has been as cavalier as herself in disregarding the distinction between poetry, prose, literary criticism, translation, academic review, essay and fragment, let a lone a writer who continues to find ways to incorporating new modes of expression within the literary sphere (their successes may be debatable) but the plucky grit in which they are undertaken is a marvel. Though the image of an author just sitting and listening to the wind, is perhaps the most understated way they could answer to how they received the award. Yet it suits Carson perfectly. Though I still think Doris Lessing has any Nobel Laureate beat with regards to hearing the news of being awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. Though at 87 years old, your about done with all the hoopla people make of most things.

Many congratulations to Anne Carson. Now after all these years I wish to an extent that I did pursue reading “Autobiography of Red,” but was put off by the incomprehensibility of “Nox,” (not to mention at the time the price of it). And while I don’t think this years Nobel Prize in Literature is a complete surprise or shock, considering how over the years Anne Carson had been touted as potential candidate – though I dismissed the notion of return to Canada so soon as unlikely – I think this is a well deserved and interesting award. Anne Carson is by far the most singular writer I can think of, and I completely agree with Steve Sem-Sandberg when he said “nobody writes like her.” Which is to say: for good reason. This evening, I read the poem “V. Here Is My Propaganda One One One One Oneing On Your Forehead Like Droplets of Luminous Sin,” from the collection “The Beauty of the Husband: A Fictional Essay in 29 Tangos,” I still can’t say I’m quite able to worm my way into Carson’s poetry, as I can say Wisława Szymborska’s or Tomas Tranströmer’s or Louise Glück’s, but I did smile at seeing Ōe Kenzaburō referenced in it.

The final point that is delightful to say, in addition to Krasznahorkai László from last years award and now Anne Carson, it may be considered that the Swedish Academy is no longer (thankfully) looking at writers who write in an austere, scalpel scrapped, clean, rendered down style. These two laureates in particular have a bit more depth and weight behind their work. Krasznahorkai’s magmatic text, and now Anne Carson’s singularity. While it can be argued that Jon Fosse and Han Kang moved the needle forward to begin with, and they very well may have had more meat on their bones then say the either Annie Ernaux or Louise Glück, neither of them would be described as maximalist in scope or vision. It is nice to see the Nobel Prize in Literature award greater variety in its literary subjects and styles. I think Anne Carson’s will go down as a decent choice within the retrospect of time, rather than a miss.

 

Thank you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read
 
M. Mary

The Nobel Prize in Literature 2026

Hello Gentle Reader,

The Nobel Prize in Literature for 2026 has been awarded to the Canadian writer Anne Carson

“for her bold and inventive oeuvre that, in playful dialogue with the classical tradition, has created new forms for contemporary literature.”

Congratulations are in order for Anne Carson!

 
Thank you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read
 
M. Mary