The Golden Booker Prize, Shortlist

Hello Gentle Reader

This year’s Golden Booker Prize, has released its short list. Five different novels and their respective authors, from five decades have been brought forward for the public to vote on, which one, they deem to the worthy winner of the Golden Booker Prize.

The following are the shortlisted authors and novels for the Golden Booker Prize (presented in no particular order):

V.S. Naipaul – “In a Free State,”

Hilary Mantel – “Wolf Hall,”

Michael Ondaatje – “The English Patient,”

Penelope Lively – “Moon Tiger,”

George Saunders – “Lincoln in the Bardo,”

The Golden Booker Prize has been called a publicity stunt by many; an attempt to renew the Booker Prize in to greater relevance, as well as to take attention away from the smoldering resentment bubbling up about the decision to including American authors into the prizes eligibility. Yet, the Golden Booker Prize has unfortunately created a unique issue on its own. Only five novels and authors could be selected, from the five decades, which means the process of selecting a diverse, reflective and representing shortlist amongst the previous winners would be difficult. For example of the five writers chosen there is no winner from India or Ireland; on the flip side only three authors have won the Booker Prize twice, only one however has made this shortlist: Hilary Mantel (neither Nobel Laureate J.M. Coetzee or Peter Carey were included). Yet, the excluded author getting the most pondering glance is: Salamin Rushdie, and his novel “Midnight’s Children,” which has previously won the “Best of the Booker,” Award. Perhaps though the most curious writer included on the list is last year’s winner: George Saunders, and his novelistic debut: “Lincoln in the Bardos.” Perhaps freshness has a more crisp and agreeable quality, then old and outdated.

Now it is up to the public to cast their vote on who they think is the most deserving writer and novel for the Golden Booker Prize; while they may (or may not) wait in muted enthusiasm for this year’s Booker Prize to release its longlisted candidates.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

The Nobel Prize for Literature: A Questionable Future

 Hello Gentle Reader

Throughout April and earlier this month, the Swedish Academy, the institution who announces and awards the Nobel Prize for Literature, has been plagued by a scandal which has obliterated the cultural institutions façade of being pristine and princely, only to reveal an institution suffering a poor lack of formal objective governance, petty and petulant perspectives, and an almost frightening dirty political game of power. The scandal has also brought into question members of the Swedish Academy’s ethics and moral pedigrees and principles (specifically: Sture Allén, Göran Malmqvist, Horace Engdahl and Katarina Frostenson). Now, as you already know, the scandal has centered on the alleged sexual assaults committed by Katarina Frostenson’s husband, Jean-Claude Arnault. The allegations themselves, however, were merely the initial wedge and fracture which eventually revealed a larger scandal concerning ethics and moral integrity.

Katarina Frostenson cannot be held liable or at fault for the allegations concerning her husband. However, she can be held responsible for numerous other dubious arrangements she had made while a member of the Swedish Academy. The first being: she knowingly accepted (and perhaps lobbied) financial assistance from the Swedish Academy, for a prestigious and exclusive cultural club, she co-owned with her husband in Sweden, called the Forum. The second being: she has been accused (or perhaps knowingly proven) to have prematurely released the names of future Nobel Laureates to her husband, beginning in 1996 and ending in 2016; which breaks the cardinal rule of the Swedish Academy’s statute of silence. Yet, there is no official consensus on whether or not these leaks had proven to be monetarily lucrative.

Early in April, the Swedish Academy voted on whether or not to exclude Katarina Frostenson from the Swedish Academy, by considering the above transgressions she had committed against the Swedish Academy as an institution. The votes swayed to stay in her favour, and soon after the scandal became a public storm, showing how incapable the Swedish Academy was able to operate and govern itself. Three members publicly stepped down (Peter Englund, Klas Östergren, Kjell Espmark) in protest. Sara Danius (then Permanent Secretary) went on damage control; but the wedge only grew wider, and others within the academy took the opportunity to voice their disproval of both the protesting members and Sara Danius herself (Horace Engdahl and Göran Malmqvist). The crisis only thickened before royal intervention, and the Swedish Academy met and found a compromise: Katarina Frostenson will step down on the condition Sara Danius relinquishes her position as Permanent Secretary. Sara Danius did relinquish her position and then voluntarily stepped down, while Katarina Frostenson stepped down as the conditions of the compromise were met. Following Sara Danius’s departure, a few weeks later Sara Strisdberg also stepped down.

Since then and in between, the King of Sweden (and royal patron of the Swedish Academy) Carl XVI Gustaf, has rewritten the election statutes of the Swedish Academy, meaning now where members served for life, they can opt out to voluntarily resign or being removed and replaced if they are inactive over two years. Sweden itself has erupted in support of Sara Danius, who has become something of an icon; all the while Horace Engdahl and Göran Malmqvist have opened their mouths and inserted their foots—on countless of occasions.

Finally, it was announced the Swedish Academy would postpone this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature, considering the crisis which has deeply divided and struck the Swedish Academy to its core, and will allow them to re-elect new members and regain the public’s trust in itself as a culturally prominent and worthy institution. Yet questions remain: what extent has this crisis and scandal done to the Nobel Prize for Literature itself?

[ For Previous Blog Posts, thoughts and perspectives on the issue please see the following links ]

Shocking News From the Swedish Academy 

Swedish Academy Controversy (Cont)

Horace Engdahl Speaks Out 

A Shadow Over the Swedish Academy Darkens

A Compromise Which Ends in Tears

Swedish Academy Statutes, Amended

A Statement from the Swedish Academy

Sara Stridsberg Officially Leaves the Swedish Academy

Nobel Prize for Literature 2018, Postponed

On: The Postponed Nobel Prize for Literature

The question: what extent has this crisis and scandal done to the Nobel Prize for Literature itself? And: What is the Future of the Nobel Prize for Literature? And: What is the Future of the Swedish Academy? Are now being asked publicly, and answers are perhaps being eluded too; as it is now apparent: the storm may have passed, but the flood waters are still rising.

In an open letter delivered to the pro tempore Permanent Secretary: Anders Olsson; Sara Danius, Peter Englund, and Kjell Espmark, stated they will return to the Swedish Academy to assist in electing new members to the Swedish Academy (as they currently lack the 12 members to hold a quorum), on the condition Horace Engdahl resigns. Horace Engdahl of course refuses to resign, and has stated the other three can return as they see fit, and at any time; without making grand or delusional statements. Further more another member of the Swedish Academy, Kristina Lugn, stated she would resign if Horace Engdahl, resigned. 

The Nobel Foundation (the absolute administer and guardian of all the Nobel Prizes) has already expressed its grave concern over the current atmosphere of the Swedish Academy’s inability to appropriately govern and control itself. Now, the director of the foundation, Lars Heikensten, has taken a more public and serious bent with regards to the current situation and crisis. Lars Heikensten, has stated there very well might not be a Nobel Prize for Literature in two-thousand and nineteen either, depending on the crisis currently facing the Swedish Academy, as well as pending on the academy’s ability to reclaim and acquire the public’s trust in it as a cultural institution. Lars Heikensten, had also eluded on two other matters. First: in polite and veiled terms, Mr. Heikensten, had eluded to the idea that it may be in the best interest of the Swedish Academy that all members resign in order to restore faith in the institution. Second: Lars Heikensten, eluded to the notion and thought, that the Nobel Foundation, will find a more reputable institution to award the Nobel Prize for Literature instead of the Swedish Academy.

The former Permanent Secretary, Sara Danius, also agrees with Lars Heikensten’s eluded view that all members of the Swedish Academy should resign. In a recent interview, Sara Danius has stated that in order for the Swedish Academy to renew itself and rebuild the trust and confidence of the public, it would be in the best interest of all members of the Swedish Academy to resign, and allow third party institutions to appoint and elect appropriate members to the Swedish Academy, and allow the process of renewing and regaining trust to happen without interference or hindrance of those currently presiding.

In the meantime, Gentle Reader, the Swedish Academy is working with a mediator to help resolve the issue. Yet, will the issue actually be resolved in the court of public opinion? As it currently stands many members of the Swedish Academy, have ultimately failed and disregarded the trust of the public—reading and otherwise; over their failure to appropriately govern themselves, without personal dealings of friendships coming into play or being taken into consideration. Sture Allén, Göran Malmqvist, Horace Engdahl, as a trio have ultimately continued to deface and destroy the remaining fragments and remnants of the Swedish Academy, with their churlish behavior, negligence, or public statements regarding former members or their personal relationships. The fact is, as a member of the Swedish Academy, their words, their relationships, their actions, and opinions are weighed heavily, as they in a sense have become public and cultural figures who are no longer entitled to behave in outlandish or negligent manners. They must take firm and defined stances on issues where issues of morality and ethics are concerned, or risk destroying their own reputations and that of the Swedish Academy—which they have already done. First: by Sture Allén, neglecting to act on a letter he received back in the 90’s, where a accuser of Arnault's, sought the Sweden Academy's assistance and appeal in dealing with Jean-Claude Arnault. Sture Allén dismissed the letter as non-important, which has only strengthened criticism of the academy's lack of moral pedigree or ethical direction. Second, during the entire crisis, Göran Malmqvist and Horace Engdahl, acted as power starved vultures, who exploited the crisis as an opportune moment to criticize Sara Danius in her role as Permanent Secretary (and continue to), which only moved the Swedish Academy closer to implosion. Third, Horace Engdahl specifically refuses to distance himself from Jean-Claude Arnault, and remains an advocate and supporter of his friend. In the end: as I already mentioned when one becomes a public figure—be intellectual, cultural, political, or even ‘pop culture/celebrity,’—your behaviour is noted and scrutinized when it is placed in a moral or ethically precarious situation, and you risk your reputation being damaged, decimated, or destroyed in the process and in this case the Swedish Academy as well. Perhaps the only way for the Swedish Academy to truly renew and reinvigorate trust with the public both in Sweden and internationally, is for the current members to resign; and allow for a fresh perspective of intellectuals, writers, scholars, academics, linguists, and historians to steer the Nobel Prize for Literature, without being tainted or touched by the scandal.

For now though, Gentle Reader, only the Swedish Academy can truly decide on which moral and ethical ground(s) it stands as does its best to whether a passing storm and the impending floods. Though, it is obviously clear: the Nobel Prize for Literature’s reputation has been unprecedentedly been questioned and even marred by the Swedish Academy’s current member’s behaviors and a very fresh scandal.  

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

For Further Reading Please See the Following Links –

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/26/world/europe/swedish-academy-nobel-prize-literature.html

https://www.svt.se/kultur/danius-englund-och-espmark-kraver-horaces-engdahls-avgang

https://www.svt.se/kultur/bok/kristina-lugn-efter-sara-danius-utspel-har-hittills-lost-alla-problem

https://www.svt.se/kultur/sara-danius-1

The Franz Kafka Prize, 2018 Winner

Hello Gentle Reader

The Franz Kafka Prize is a relatively new literary award; established in two-thousand and one, where it was first awarded to the recently departed Philip Roth. Over the past seventeen years, the award has gathered attention for its unique list of laureates, which blends both world renowned authors and still yet unknown. Previous winners include: Elfriede Jelinek, Harold Pinter, Amos Oz, Peter Handke, Arnošt Lustig, and last year’s Margaret Atwood.

The Franz Kafka Prize has outlined the following as the criteria that the judges use to evaluate the winning authors:

“The basic criterion is the quality and exclusivity of the artwork, its humanistic character and contribution to cultural, national, language and religious tolerance, its existential, timeless character, its generally human validity and its ability to hand over a testimony about our times.”

[Retrieved from the Franz Kafka Society Website: Franz Kafka Society]

This year’s winner of the Franz Kafka Prize is the Czech poet and collage artist: Ivan Wernisch. Wernisch has been publishing poetry since the early sixties. His poetry is known for being diverse and chameleon like in nature, moving from playful, to tragic, absurd and dreamlike, to imagistic haikus and lengthy monologues, to metaphysical meditations. He has been called a postmodern poet of the first degree, where his poetry is painted with skepticism, and a certain fascination with both high cultural pursuits, and the populated world of low culture. Over the past five decades, Ivan Wernisch, has been one of most critically acclaimed contemporary Czech poets. The sheer diversity of his themes, forms, and style, has earned Ivan Wernisch this award.

Congratulations Ivan Wernisch.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

Philip Roth, Dies Aged 85

Hello Gentle Reader

When someone dies it generally removes any veil of prejudice one held of them beforehand. Death is the ultimate leveler of the playing field. I’ve made no qualm or secret about general distaste for Philip Roth’s novels, which I found self-absorbed, suffocating, and in the later years carrying a certain authoritarian arrogance. This had often put me off in reading his novels, which always struck me as repetitive and suffocating preoccupied with their own narcissistic themes and plots. In his later years, it was a poorly hidden secret, how Roth viciously craved and vied to be recognized as a great of American literature—and by extension international literature—by coveting the Nobel Prize for Literature. Philip Roth, however, was doomed to forever be the Nobel bridesmaid, never the actual laureate. This point of contention infuriated his supporters, American literary critics, and even (it is rumored) the author himself. Yet, yesterday at the age of eighty-five, Philip Roth died due to congestive heart failure; where he was surrounded by friends. With his passing, it is difficult not to take note and stock of Philip Roth’s success as a writer, and his undying and unyielding influence on American literature cannot be ignored or denied. Roth’s stellar career began in nineteen-fifteen nine, when he published his first short story collection: “Goodbye Columbus,” which would set the stage for one of the most endeared and controversial writers of late American twentieth century literature. The novel won the National Book Critics Award, and it tackled ideas of assimilation and differentiation in suburbia through the eyes of middle-class Jewish Americans, who struggle with their identity and morality, and concepts of ‘Jewishness.’ Beyond being hailed as a major voice of an up and coming writer, it also received backlash from others who called Roth a ‘Self-Hating Jew,’ and the work antisemitic. Ten years later he released his smash hit comic and erotic monologue “Portnoy’s Complaint,” about the erotic release of the titular character and being held back by his Jewish upbringing. The stellar acclaim and the media scrutiny forced Roth to retreat further into literary fiction and become as some would call: reclusive and aloof, in order to evade and dodge any media scrutiny made against him.

After becoming a scandalous literary celebrity, Roth began to write the works of fiction which would cement his name as a great modern American writer. His later works depict the lives of Nathan Zuckerman and David Kepesh, which allowed Roth to trace the line between author and his work. However, many found these works autobiographical and confessional in nature, which annoyed and disappointed Roth, who continually refuted these claims, and asserted his novels were imaginary and purely fiction, there were no shadows or parallels to his work as being autobiographical or confessional in nature.

In the nineties, Philip Roth once again reinvented his literary imaginings. After a series of personal collapses and marital failure, Roth resigned himself to a farm house in Connecticut, and teaching, and the works he began to draft from there took another distinct directional turn. Moving away from the introspection of Nathan Zuckerman and David Kepesh; these later works were externally focused and discussed American cultural blunders, the Vietnam War, McCarthyism, as well as the dangers of fascism; and how these external factors enter the private and personal homes of bystanders who are unexpected and ill prepared for the sudden instruction be it ideological or cultural in nature.

In two-thousand and twelve, Philip Roth announced he was retiring from writing, making “Nemesis,” (2010) his final novel. Throughout the years Philip Roth gave a few interviews, but never wrote another novel or story (at least none published). He caused minor controversies here and there (the final one being the Man Booker International Prize, in its former format) and his name repeatedly as a contender for the Nobel Prize for Literature. In the end he did not win the Nobel; but reviewing a varied and lengthy career, it can be seen Philip Roth had written some of the well-achieved books of the later part of the twentieth century American literature. He moved from erotic liberator (or perhaps retained these provocative predilections), to a introspective chronicler and historian of American ideologies and cultures, and how these external factors affect the private and personal. In the end, you just have to tip your hat Philip Roth, and say: well done.

Rest in Peace, Philip Roth. It is well deserved.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

Man Booker International Prize Winner, 2018

Hello Gentle Reader

The winner of this year’s Man Booker International Prize is: Olga Tokarczuk for her novel “Flights,” translated expertly by Jennifer Croft. In winning the Man Booker International Prize, it can be clear that Olga Tokarczuk has solidified her place as an established author now translated into English. This being said, Olga Tokarczuk is no stranger to the English language, as prior to her novel “Flights,” being translated and published, two of her previous novels were already translated: ““Primeval and Other Times,” and “House of Day, House of Night.”

The Man Booker International Prize judges, have praised Olga Tokarczuk as a writer of great imagination and wit, with acute literary sensibilities. Her novel “Flights,” is drafted on interconnected fragments and micro narratives, which weave into each other, and sometimes remain in their own solitary orbit; but each one is connected by the themes of travel both literary and figurative, as well as human anatomy (and its own connection to the idea of travel). The novel has been self-described as a “constellation,” novel, built up varying fragments and micro narratives, to depict a grander whole. This same literary device can be seen in “House of Day, House of Night,” and even “Primeval and Other Times,” but “Flights,” does away with unified characters or a singular narrator as a reference point, and instead buzzes and glows with a multitude of different voices, narratives, stories and tales; each one shined like a individual firefly, only to have another shine back in response. To describe “Flights,” accurately, would be like a beehive, buzzing and dancing in a symphonious orchestration, each one dying to tell its tale or release its narrative. It’s truly an extraordinary mixed bag of nuts, and each narrative, essay, story, or grander novelist trope, is a literary delight to take in. How, Olga Tokarczuk fragments the novel keeps it fresh, exhilarating and the momentum moving. Rarely, is there a place for the novel to dip down or move into a sluggish pace because she is bored; on the contrary by presenting some new narrative, some new story, or by describing dissection and the art of anatomy, she maintains relevance and interest.

Of the longlisted and shortlisted novels for this year’s Man Booker International Prize, Olga Tokarczuk was the only writer I had read prior to the lists. I had strong suspicions she would be the biggest contender for the award, and would most likely take it. However, I am well aware that the Man Booker Prize judges are generally rather prudent and conservative in the nature, when they judge novels, and had slight concerns over how fragmented and even slightly postmodern Olga Tokarczuk’s novel is; not to mention the Booker Prize in particular, does enjoy reveling in its own sense of status quo, and often seeks to retain and maintain this perspective when choosing winners. However, in the end she beat out previous winners: Han Kang and László Krasznahorkai.

In the coming months and year(s) the English language is expected to be treated to two more novels by Tokarczuk: “Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead,” and “The Book Jacob,” which had caused controversy back in Poland, for its discussion of the darker aspects of Poland’s history, but also Olga Tokarczuk candidly and openly discussing these facts and matters. For this she received death threats and blatant and vicious criticisms from far-right nationalists in Poland, who felt her views, betrayed the country and its national points of pride.

Congratulations are certainly in order for Olga Tokarczuk, who is by far a unique and powerful voice on the international literary stage. Her establishment in the English language is overdue, and to this day “Primeval and Other Times,” remains one of the most wonderful and enjoyable books I have ever read, and secretly desire to re-read but can never bring myself to do it again out of fear the same magic and beauty would be lost.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

P.S. To read my review of "Flights," follow the link below: 

Flights

The Best Translated Book Award Finalists, 2018

Hello Gentle Reader

Just over a month ago snow tenaciously clung to the ground, refusing with conviction to melt or thaw. Now bushes and trees are in leaf, weeds are green and have sprouted and the grass has shaken off its winter shawl and growing with renewed fervor. The sky is expansive and blue, peppered with clouds; while the sun oppressively shines and the heat grows tiresomely tyrannical. The Best Translated Book Award has released their finalists for this year’s award, and much like in years past, the judges have been tasked with reducing the extensive and impressive longlist down to its chosen final ten. Much like the longlist, which was praised for its success in including a wide variety of books which tackled a multitude of themes and perspectives, the finalists reflect this same venture.

Below Gentle Reader, are this year’s ten fiction finalists, listed in no particular order:

Guðbergur Bergsson – Iceland – “Tómas Jónsson, Bestseller,"

Anaïs Barbeau-Lavalette – Canada (Quebec) – “Suzanne,”

Fleur Jaeggy – Switzerland/Italy – “I am the Brother of XX,”

Wolfgang Hilbig – Germany – “Old Rendering Plant,”

Marie NDiaye – France – “My Heart Hemmed In,”

Wu He – China – “Remains of Life,”

Mathias Énard – France – “Compass,”

Romina Paula – Argentina – “August,”

Santiago Gamboa – Columbia – “Return to the Dark Valley,”

Rodrigo Fresán – Argentina – “The Invented Part,”

The diversity of the longlist has now been condensed into the shortlist. The novels range from the postmodern, historical, to the personal, as well as novels and short stories. My two favorites on these years shortlist are: [the late] Wolfgang Hilbig with his stream-of consciousness and postmodern novel about childhood set in the former East Germany; and the Swiss Italian language author, Fleur Jaeggy, with her newest collection of steel scalpel precise stories “I am the Brother of XX.” Of the two, I only own “I am the Brother of XX,” and have read a couple of the stories within the collection—which range in both length, but never constrained intensity. First impressions with Fleur Jaeggy’s newest collection is as startling, frightening, and claustrophobically controlled and desolate, less gothic then “Last Vanites,” but just as violently delicious. We He also makes the shortlist with his stream of consciousness historical novel reviewing the genocidal actions committed by the Japanese military against an aboriginal tribe who had committed a head hunting ritual which killed soldiers in the ranks. The novel is a postmodern historical exploration of these atrocities. Mathias Énard also comes onto the list with his large sprawling novel about orientalism, music, philosophy, history, among a multitude of other themes and preoccupying reminisces. Marie NDiaye is no stranger to the Best Translated Book Award, being shortlisted last year for the prize; her newest translated novel “My Heart Hemmed In,” is considered psychologically potent, devastating,  and frightening novel on social issues, discrimination, prejudices, and persecution in a world gone slowly divided and made. “My Heart Hemmed In,” is a novel with keen social insights and a pointed perspective on a world continually divided and concerned with distinctions and differences. The Southern continent is well represented on this year’s shortlist with two books by Argentine writers and one from Columbia. Romina Paula writes a poignant novel about coming of age, identity and grief in her novel “August.” Santiago Gamboa is considered one of the most influential young writers to rise out of “Columbia,” he is in complete contrast to the Latin Boom writers of decades past, and instead moves in the same vein as the late Roberto Bolano, writing in a striking style both noir and populated by the desperate and colourful characters who are both ideal and realistic. The world of Gamboa is violently turbulent and beautiful, liberation is continually sought and always on the cusp of explosion.

The finalists for this year’s poetry portion of the Best Translated Book Award are as follows, again listed in no particular order:

Ursula Andkjaer Olsen – Denmark – “Third-Millennium Heart,”

Aase Berg – Sweden – “Hackers,”

Ana Ristović – Serbia – “Directions for Use,”

Eleni Vakalo – Greece – “Before Lyricism,”

Wilson Bueno – Brazil – “Paraguayan Sea,”

Hirato Renkichi – Japan – “Spiral Staircase,”

As is a well-known fact—I am no poetry reader, and therefore cannot offer much comment or commentary on the poetry finalists, but once again it appears to be a unique longlist, perhaps the most striking of the finalists is the Greek Eleni Vakalo and her monumental and striking display of linguistic acrobatics in her poetry collection “Before Lyricism.” Aase Berg also returns to the poetry shortlist with her newest collection of poetry: “Hackers.”

There you have it Gentle Reader, this year’s Best Translated Book Award Finalists for two-thousand and eighteen. Once again the judges have drafted a wonderful list of finalists for this year’s award with many worth winners. It’ll be interesting to see who will win this year’s award.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

On The Postponed Nobel Prize for Literature

Hello Gentle Reader,

[My column has been established to operate on a biweekly basis, however, considering the pressing need I felt for this column I’ve decided to publish now, rather than next week.]

Since the embattled Swedish Academy announced that this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature, will be postponed until two-thousand and nineteen, where two laureates will be crowned, there has been the crowing and cooing of many, who have felt the need to exercise an excessive amount of schadenfreude towards the Swedish Academy—or rather its smoldering remains. This has all reminded me of the words of a dear friend: “Never fret, when you hit rock bottom, someone always graciously passes the shovel.”

(i)

Since the announcement rang last Friday, that this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature would be postponed, many journalists, editors, columnists, cultural and literary critics, have all snickered and hissed their vitriol and criticism (justly and unjustly) towards the brow beaten and now severely depleted Swedish Academy. Tim Parks a writer and translator (and an excellent translator may I add) was first to take the shot. Writing in The New York Times, Mr. Parks takes aim at the scolded, burned, and marked Swedish Academy. He opens his opinion piece, with almost cheers about how much entertainment the Swedish Academy had offered the public over the past few weeks. He continues to go over briefly the scaffolding of the scandal, to provide a bit of context, both contemporary issues facing the academy, and its antiquarian principles. He concludes, the Literature prize in itself is a scandal of sorts. How can one compare different languages, cultures, and literary methods against one another, and then crown a winning author over so many other viable candidates. As Tim Parks points out, literature is not a sport. It is not a footballer or hockey player, decked out head to toe in pads, helmets and the instinctual or testosterone competitive urge to seek out and get a goal or touch down; it’s not a speedo clad water polo player or a bikini flaunting volleyball player; it is not soccer (football) or rugby—it is literature, a activity completely deprived of human connection (in its conception, drafting and creation). It is produced in solitude or via the sole hand of a singular individual. There is no uniform—no helmet, no skates, no speedo or bikini. There are no regulated instruments—no bike, no stick, no bat, no cap, or suit—just pen and paper, or pencil and paper, or typewriter or computer (all preference oriented than organized and issued by decree or governance or regulation). Literature is not a competition. Tim Parks argues that making a literary prize of such a stature like the Nobel Prize is a scandal, as it attempts to place Literature in the same vein as any sport, like baseball, or football, or hockey or water polo. The Nobel by design is both scandal and failure, which apparently most do not see.

I disagree with Tim Parks on many ends and yet understand the validity of his points. However, I do not view the Nobel Prize for Literature as a competition. Mainly because no one is aware who is a contestant. It is not like a Miss World (or Universe) pageant, where everyone is judged and pleads their case for world peace (that is after all the Peace Prize’s place). Those who watch the Nobel Prize for Literature (myself included) do enjoy the speculative process, the research conducted, and the exchange of writers new and old, and of course it always provokes a unique discussion—much like discussing politics or economics at the dinner table (though once again that is reserved for, The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel). The Nobel Prize for Literature has the unique ability to crown and offer the golden dream and paycheque to its chosen writer and laureate. This is an opportunity which is not offered by any other literary prize, which by comparison could be described as parochial or myopic in perspective. On a personal note, without the Nobel Prize for Literature, I highly doubt I would ever have had the unique ability to discover Wisława Szymborska or Herta Müller or Patrick Modiano; without the speculative process I would never have had the opportunity to learn about Svetlana Alexievich, Magdalena Tulli or Yasunari Kawabata or Tua Forsström, or Antonio Tabucchi or Jon Fosse or Sirkka Turkka, or Adunis, or Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, or Mia Couto, or Yoko Ogawa. Though perhaps I would have learned about them at later dates, but the fact the Nobel Prize for Literature, requests (or demands) one broaden their horizon beyond their linguistic and cultural island and seek to take an interest in the distant shore.

So no, the Nobel Prize for Literature is not a competition. There is not a backroom where countless potential names of writers are busy typing and scribbling; each one seeking to outdo the other in their quest for a medal and diploma and the status of Laureate. It has been claimed a competition by merely those who view it, criticize it, or begrudge the award. The idea the Nobel Prize for Literature is a competition, is merely an air which has been externally forced upon it, and has neither been endorsed or accepted either by the Nobel Foundation or the Swedish Academy or the other institutions who name their laureates in the fields of Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, Peace, and Economics—though as it stands, these prizes are considered more: respectable, more contemporary, more necessary, more required, more revolutionary. To me (again on a personal note), their endeavors, their research, their findings, their breakthroughs, their new ways of thinking, are revolutionary, ideal, groundbreaking and contemporary. But science has, and continues to occupy the empirical ivory tower. It’s almost self-absorbed and self-assured its own importance, in its own grandness, that if you do not understand or comprehend their findings, than you must be a mongolid, a troglodyte, uneducated, a useful idiot, or ignorant. Science has no time to waste on those who neither share their interests or their findings, as it quickly moves onto the next big project. Literature, reminds us of our humanity and or modesty, it builds bridges beyond language and culture, and identifies the universal ideas, concepts and perspectives of what it means to be human. The area of literature—much like the idea of humanity—is grey, and difficult to traverse. To make any firm adjudicating statement on the matter is always difficult to defend; and therefore always open to controversy and criticism. Medicine, Chemistry, Physics, Peace and Economics, these are Nobel pursuits, even lucrative pursuits; but poetry, prose, essays, novels, stories, plays and theatre, and philosophy these remind us of what we are living for. These are not just toss away concepts, or entertainment with no value; they speak to the soul and the idea of what life is however euphoric or tragic it is; however frightening or beautiful it is.

(ii)

In The Guardian, Claire Armitstead, takes immense pleasure is scathingly giving the Swedish Academy and by extension the Nobel Prize for Literature a scathing lecture (and perhaps a deserved swat and spank). She calls the Nobel Prize for Literature the anomaly among the Nobel Prizes; one in which exists as a vain bauble, which has no real statement to make other then:

“For seasoned Nobel watchers, award day often appears to be a ritual humiliation by a shadowy society of sadists. As one journalist wryly tweeted, the announcement of the first Belorussian literature laureate in 2015 was accompanied by the sound of 10,000 reporters Googling Svetlana Alexievich.”

Ms. Armitstead goes on to state that Svetlana Alexievich was one of the better decisions made by the Swedish Academy, when choosing a Nobel Laureate in Literature. Yet, I do disagree with Ms.  Armitstead, I do not personally line up to receive any ritual humiliation by the Swedish Academy, when they award a Nobel Laureate or unknown author. Rather I praise and applaud such a decision. How wonderful it is to find a new author to be introduced to—such as Patrick Modiano, who has been a wonderful discovery, thanks to the Nobel Prize for Literature.

I find the statements proposed and defined by Ms. Armitstead, speak with a pugnacious tone with regards to the English culture and languages perspective of foreign language  and culture—one met with skepticism and even a slight bit of colonial snobbery (that might be pushing it). But the truth is, English language readers, and its literati, critics, journalists and writers are always quick to promote English language literature beyond anything else. After all you never promote the other team or any other team. Take Philip Roth for example, every day and anywhere, that man is promoted as some astounding genius of late twentieth century American literature. Where in reality he is: pompous, pugnacious, pretentious, sophistic, plain, plodding, and suffocating; the man is not only convinced and self-affirmed via his own self-absorbed delusions of his genius and grandeur, he also has everyone else coned and bamboozled into the Pretentious Plodding Philip Roth Propaganda train as well; and they continue to heap praise on to him, and claim he deserves the Nobel, and he’s the best America has (oh dear), and so on and so forth. Quite frankly, he is by the far, the most unimaginative, and boring and suffocating author I have ever had the displeasure of attempting to read. Reading Philip Roth (sorry: The Great) would be best described as an arranged marriage, to a frumpy characterless old man; and the only ways out are either suicide or murder. To be honest, I’d sooner be damned to hell to read Shakespeare for the rest of eternity then ever be forced to be acquainted with the works of Philip Roth ever again.

However, now I sound like an apologetic monolingual reader, who is attempting to be acquainted with the grander world and cultures by taking into consideration the translated literature of writers from other countries. Let’s face the facts though. The English language is a predominately spoken language on this third rock from the sun; it can be heard all over the world. Due to its influence and demand as the de facto ‘universal,’ language, there can be no denying the importance the English language and literature has had on the world; but the sole desire to continually self-promote itself as superior and snub anything else is not an admirable trait. It should also be noted two of the previous laureates (2016 and 2017) were also well known (though in different circles and for different reasons) both in the English language as well as other cultures. Both Bob Dylan and Kazuo Ishiguro were surprises, but neither would be described as obscure or unknown to readers or the public. Ms. Armitsteads’ statement of ritual humiliation is once again not entirely an accurate statement based on objective fact.

(iii)

The final statement on the matter is how the media has chosen to focus on mere elements that lead to the scandal, while disregarding the entire scandal in its entirety and detailed mess. The Swedish Academy scandal is not just limited to a sex scandal or the wave and social media driven MeToo movement (which I look upon casual ambivalence, and see the movement itself has no real jurisprudence perspective, as it seeks to tar and feather, rather than seek judicial process—though they claim all legal avenues have failed them). Let’s be clear with each other Gentle Reader, the scandal affecting the Swedish Academy goes beyond a sex scandal, it goes beyond mistreatment of women, or sexual favours and bitter sweet promises of career advancements. The scandal runs much deeper and has more interesting connotations.

First, the Sex Scandal was the initial spark that led to the current crisis affecting the Swedish Academy. Ironically no specific member of the Swedish Academy was directly accused of dubious sexual activity. No member was accused of using either position or prestige to gain sexual favours. Rather it was a member’s significant other or spouse; that spouse would be Jean-Claude Arnault, a French born Swedish photographer, who is the husband of (former) member Katarina Frostenson, a renowned Swedish language poet. It has been alleged that Jean-Claude Arnault utilized Swedish Academy owned properties (both in Stockholm and Paris) to carry out his escapades and attacks. Eighteen women have come forward to accuse Arnault of his misdeeds, and these accusations go back to the mid nineteen-nineties. In fact during this time, a letter was sent to the then Permanent Secretary Sture Allén, by a young woman who has been allegedly attacked by Jean-Claude Arnault, whereupon she makes her case known and urges the Swedish Academy to do something. Sture Allén disregarded the letter; and now the Swedish Academy has been forced to apologize for this oversight and blatant act of negligence. The sexual assault scandal’s touching of the Academy is not; however, the sole reason the Swedish Academy fell from grace and crashed into its current smoldering ruin. The accusations level against Arnaut were merely the tipping point and the beginning of the fall, as they led to further investigations which caused the Swedish Academy to become divided and show its incapacity to govern itself appropriately.

Besides being married to Katarina Frostenson, and by extension having close ties with one of the most elite cultural forums in Europe (and arguably the world), meant he could utilize this position for his photographic pursuits and business ventures; with networking capabilities and marketing possibilities, through social events and reputational basis. But the plot thickens even more. Jean-Claude Arnault ran an exclusive cultural club in Stockholm called Forum, which he ran with his wife Katarina Frostenson, who was part owner. This club received grants and funding from the Swedish Academy for many years. As the sexual assault allegations began to pour in and add up, questions began to rise over the Swedish Academy’s financial assistance to not only Arnault but also his wife. These questions forced the former Permanent Secretary Sara Danius to hire a private law firm to investigate the relationship between the Swedish Academy and Jean-Claude Arnault, and any support (economic or otherwise) offered to Jean-Claude Arnault and by extension to Katarina Frostenson.

The investigation forced the Swedish Academy to face the fact that it was breaking its own statutes—knowingly or otherwise. With the findings of the investigation now being heatedly discussed and debated, the Swedish Academy voted at the beginning of April on whether or not to exclude Katarina Frostenson for her obvious abuse of position within the Swedish Academy, to seek and lobby financial assistance and funding from the institution to help her own personal capitalistic ventures. In order to resolve the issue the Swedish Academy held a vote to exclude (remove) Katarina Frostenson from her position within the Swedish Academy, in early April. The vote was divisive, and it was claimed during this vote that Katarina Frostenson, would retain her position. This decision divided the Swedish Academy—on one side there was the former Permanent Secretary Sara Danius, and the other the ‘old guard,’ headed by Horace Engdahl with vocal support from Sture Allén and Goran Malmqvist. This divide forced three members to resign in protest, and so the scandal would become a public spectacle, rivaling an Elizabethan tragedy in its second hand emotion and dramatic histrionics (which was mainly perpetrated by Horace Engdahl and Goran Malmqvist).

With the public and press taking note of the dissidence and divide, the Swedish Academy was under immense pressure to figure out a solution. The then Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Sara Danius was often in continual meetings and talks with their royal patron King Carl XVI Gustaf, in order to find some remedial approach to resolve the crisis. Week after week, the pressure continued to mount, and as the Swedish Academy’s wedge grew to a chasm, criticism began to pour from all angles and avenues. With end to scandal in sight, and criticism (external and internal) mounting, the Swedish Academy was forced to come to compromise which was presided over by its master of ceremonies Anders Olsson. The compromise was simple: Sara Danius would need to step down from her position as Permanent Secretary, and Katarina Frostenson would resign. Sara Danius not only stepped down from her position as Permanent Secretary she removed herself from the Swedish Academy; while Katarina Frostenson resigned as per end of the bargain.

During this time it became public knowledge that Katarina Frostenson had also broken the statute of secrecy with regards to the Nobel Prize for Literature. She had leaked information on serval different occasions information regarding the as of yet secretive Laureate. She had first done this is nineteen-ninety six and the last time in two-thousand and sixteen. It has been speculated that Jean-Claude Arnault used this privileged information to his advantage, financial otherwise. It goes without saying that breaking this statute is a highly reprimandable offense. Though it has been said many members of the Swedish Academy have told their significant others of who would win the Nobel Prize for Literature, but they could be trusted, and never used the information for any beneficiary or self-serving means—or so we hope.

After the resignation of these two women, Sweden reacted in outrage and protest. They believe the Swedish Academy internally had pitted two women against each other, in order to hide the crimes and negligence of men. But this is not necessarily true. It is perhaps true on the front of Sara Danius, she had been unjustly sent to the alter to be sacrificed; while on the front of Katarina Frostenson, she had dug her own grave by violating ethics, morals and the internal statutes of the Swedish Academy, knowingly. She had accepted money from the intuition to assist in running her club and she advertised privileged information, which in return could (or did) benefit her. I have no sympathy for Katarina Frostenson, as she had obviously decided to take full advantage of her position to benefit herself, and had done so for a decade plus.

Since then the Swedish Academy has been doing its best to put out the flames which have been left in the wake of scandal and resignations. Since then another member has also resigned. Horace Engdahl and Goran Malmqvist, continued to enflame the public with more comments, and the Swedish Academy continued to fail to get control of the situation. It should come to no surprise that the Nobel Prize for Literature has been postponed for a year. It’s the only logical, knowledgeable and wise decision the Swedish Academy could have done at this point.

            (iv)

The question now is: how will the Swedish Academy redeem itself, reinstitute itself, and gain the trust and respect from the public once again. Let’s slip into the vernacular for the moment and call a spade a spade: They fucked up royally. The Swedish Academy had proven a multitude of points during these ensuring events

(a)    They cannot properly govern themselves. They prove to the world that in the depths of the Swedish Academy the ‘old guard,’ still reigns supreme, with many men still refusing to acknowledge or budge on matters of contemporary reforms. Beyond that, the Swedish Academy proves that it was unable to properly take a stand on ethics and morals, when faced with facts and refused to exclude a member despite breaking its golden statute of secrecy.

(b)   They have proven that they are a fragmented entity, and when the going gets tough it’s an opportune moment to make political maneuvers; as both Goran Malmqvist and Horace Engdahl proved.

(c)    Personal friendships override all grounds of proper governance. The vast majority of voting showed this to be true—and many resisted (or still remain reistant) to the law firm to continue the investigation into personal relationships of members held with Jean-Claude Arnault.

For now the Swedish Academy is quite—and it is in their best interest to remain silent. Any comment now issued or made without official status, will only put the Swedish Academy into a further tail spin.

Moving away from the Swedish Academy, the current talk throughout the world is rather frightening to varying degrees. Many have taken the current scandal and weaponized it into a feminist and political issue. The issue is not very political and it is not feminist oriented. If any issue of feminist is to be taken against anyone, it is against Jean-Claude Arnault, who has allegedly attacked, mistreated and disrespected various women (including apparently, the Princess of Sweden). But this does not mean some opportunists are taking it upon themselves to demand concessions with future Nobel Prizes for Literature. Many believe the Nobel Prize for Literature of two-thousand and nineteen should be shared by two women, in order to repair the damage. I find this statement absurd. If it is one thing the Nobel Prize for Literature has been semi-diligent about, it is not making political statements with regards to its decisions. It has awarded (for the most part) worthy writers (not Bob Dylan) on grounds of literary merit. These decisions should not and are in fact promoted and propagated by the Swedish Academy, to be free from any external political influences—how much of that is true, I couldn’t say. To share the Nobel Prize for Literature between two women would be considered a forced sentiment. If anything the Swedish Academy needs to work on getting its self-back on its feet, and continue with the good work—which would mean Horace Engdahl and Goran Malmqvist would need to shut their mouths. It has also been reported there are three new potential members already in waiting to be inducted into the Swedish Academy as well. Who they are, is as of yet unknown. Though I believe next month (or they will be elected to the Swedish Academy in September) we will know their names and they will be officially inducted into the Swedish Academy come December, I believe (how without the required twelve member quorum I do not know).

As the good work apparently is to continue here is hoping the Swedish Academy can rectify its recent travesty and get back to work. Here’s hoping for another moment of ritual act of humiliation, as they announce two obscure and unknown authors—now wouldn’t that be double trouble and a good year of reading.

On a side note: for those wondering, I have decided to postpone my Nobel Speculation for this year as the award has been postponed. However, this gives me even greater time to compile more names, more research for the list; it will offer greater time to review and revise, add and subtract, so by August 14^th of two-thousand and nineteen it should be a marvelous list (or so I hope).

For now my Dear Gentle Reader, I wish you well.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

P.S. – It should be noted Gentle Reader, that since the statute of election for life has been amended by his majesty King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, only four members of the Swedish Academy have taken the opportunity to officially resign. They are:

Lotta Lotass

Klas Östergren

Sara Stidsberg

Kerstin Ekman

There is no word yet on whether or not, Sara Danius, Peter Englund, Kjell Espmark or Katarina Frostenson will formally resign; as they currently sit as inactive within the Swedish Academy’s records. However, after two years of inactivity their seats become void and open for new elections and inductions. 

For Further Reading --


Tim Parks - "The Nobel Prize for Literature is a Scandal All by itself,"


Claire Armitstead - "Nobel literature prize: anomalous vanity bauble scrambles for dignity."

Nobel Prize for Literature 2018, Postponed

Hello Gentle Reader

After last month’s explosive wave of resignations and in-house divides, the remaining members of the Swedish Academy have decided that it is in the best interest of the Nobel Prize for Literature of two-thousand and eighteen, to be postponed until two-thousand and nineteen, where two laureates will be announced.

The previous month has seen the Swedish Academy engulfed in scandal and crisis, as well as criticism, for their failure to handle the eschewing criticism and crisis. Since then five members have resigned from the academy, while another two where already considered in active, and the singular member who has been at the centre of the controversy has resigned; although only after a compromise which only infuriated the public even further.

Despite not awarding a Nobel Laureate for this year, the Swedish Academy has announced that they will continue to develop a shortlist and agree upon a singular laureate for this year, to be awarded next year along with the laureate for two-thousand and nineteen.

The decision is both wise and unfortunate. It is wise, due to the fact any laureate announced this year will be painted with the blemish and bruise of this current scandal, and the choice of laureate might only further push the academy into further crisis. For example, if the Swedish Academy chose a male as the laureate, the media and public might erupt once again in disfavour, stating that the academy is operating as if it were an old boys club, and is favouring one gender over another. This would mean the laureate had unwillingly been forced into a participant role within the crisis; even though gender is inappropriately applied.

The unfortunate aspect of this decision is, time. Time waits for no one, and every year the great writers of today are at risk of dying. So far the Swedish Academy has neglected to honour some of the greatest writers of the previous century, such as the Syrian poet: Adunis; who during the last half of the twentieth century has reshaped and revolutionized Arabic poetry, in the same manner T.S. Eliot reshaped Anglophone poetry of the early twentieth century. Adunis, however, is just one of many.

For now though Gentle Reader, the Swedish Academy has declined to award a Nobel Laureate in Literature for two-thousand and eighteen; a wise but unfortunate decision. For many the highlight of literary season will pass with solemn silence, as the Swedish Academy reshapes, reconfigures, and works towards regaining the trust of all involved, and reestablish the awards honour, which has been severely tarnished by its in-house disagreements and divide.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

To Read the Swedish Academy Press Release See the Following Link -- 

http://www.svenskaakademien.se/en/press/the-swedish-academy-postpones-the-2018-nobel-prize-in-literature


For Further Reading --

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/04/nobel-prize-for-literature-2018-cancelled-after-sexual-assault-scandal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


For Prior Blogposts on the Swedish Academy Saga -- 


Shocking News from the Swedish Academy 

Swedish Academy Controversy (continued) 

Horace Engdahl Speaks Out 

A Shadow Over the Swedish Academy Darkens 

A Compromise Which Ends in Tears 

Swedish Academy Statutes Amended 

A Statement from the Swedish Academy 

Sara Stridsberg Officially Leaves the Swedish Academy

Doris Lessing: Chronicler & Scrutinizer

Hello Gentle Reader

Writes are mercurial creatures. Some are as reserved as hermit crabs, who after tenacious aggravation and motivation are provoked to speak, only after being forcefully extracted from their hovel and home, whereupon they impart a few pearls and words, only to slink away, back to their retreat and hideaway, safe from prying eyes and prodding fingers. Others are more open and opinionated, who view their position as a writer to be more than just a story teller, but a social observer, and that their arguments, criticisms, and recommendations must be backed up with speaking engagements. This does not mean, however, that all writers fit into either category. There are writers who are socially observable writers who do not engage points of conversation or media rallies. There are writers who are not socially observable, but engage in social events and marketing maneuvers to sell their books and find a greater audience, and gain more money. When I imagine Alice Munro, I see a socially observable woman, with a keen eye for the extraordinary in the mundane. The short story master contemplated the mundane and the lives of her fellow people, with a curious and speculative gaze, and crafted beautiful narratives of their unique, tragic, personal and private lives, which are hidden and masked behind our shadowy encounters, and passing greetings. Yet Alice Munro was not renowned or well known for speaking engagements or attending social soirees. She sat at her kitchen table and wrote by hand, while rearing children and performing the societal expectations of being a house wife. Though she never complains about the cooking or the cleaning she did, or raising her children, she speaks of these events with a matter of fact tone, though the press and media early in her career chose to fixate and exaggerate these realities as a contrast to her creative talents and pursuits. Doris Lessing on the other hand was the complete opposite.

Doris Lessing was not a housewife, she in fact left her children and first husband behind in what was then Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) as she left for London with the manuscript of her first novel in her suitcase. Lessing was criticized for this move, as she was accused of putting her literary ambitions before her children. When Doris Lessing died in two-thousand and thirteen (shortly after Alice Munro, received the news she was a Nobel Laureate herself) many obituaries praised and offered ambivalent perspectives of the deceased nonagenarian. She was praised for her uncanny ability to slip between genres and literary modes of writing—she’s famously written with unapologetic air, science fiction, and embraced the term; but has denied and refuted the term feminist. When discussing Doris Lessing as a mother, she is famously quoted stating:

    “There is nothing more boring for an intelligent woman than to spend endless amounts of time with         small children.”

In this regard she is portrayed as a reptilian creature, lacking any resemblance of maternal warmth of mother intuition. When an interviewer inquired about her children she would respond in an irritable incisive manner, which halted any further inquiries. In her biography she justifies the abandonment of her children with sincere and naïve idealism, how she was going to change the world, be a driving force of logic and reason to end racial hatred and tensions, social injustices, and concepts of war, and bring around a greater more utopian world. She believed this at the time with great sincerity. But as she points out viciously in her autobiography, there isn’t much to be said about sincerity in itself. Doris Lessing is also the kind of writer who vouched and believed in her social causes. She as not content to sit away and write all day and remain silent on other fronts. She would voice her opinions in interviews and on televised debates; she protested and demonstrated; she even for a while was a member of the Communist Party of England, and was surveyed by MI5. As she grew older, the sincerity and overt idealism died; but her caustic, vitriolic, caustic and incisive perspective remained clear and straightforward. She would not flounder in her early youthful ideals, but instead formed her own opinions of what was wrong with the world and documented them with unflinching and scathing glare. As an individual she gathered the reputation of being steely, sarcastic, straightforward, no nonsenses, acerbic, candid, and to the point. She suffered no fool, and made a point of ensuring that was clear, and if any wished to play court in her kingdom they had better be prepared to suffer her judgements for their impudence or lack of intelligent questions.

As a writer—and on a personal note—I’ve found Doris Lessing to be one of those most coarse writers I’ve read. Her work is not polished. It lacks poetic initiative. It lakes lyrical ingenuity. It comes across as rough as gravel and plainspoken as the vernacular on the street. Her narratives are often overwrought and overwritten, and it can be clearly seen where she the fuel is dripping, and where she has realized perhaps she has bitten off more than she thought she could chew, let alone digest. “The Golden Notebook,” from my memory was both an exercise in tenacity and endurance as a reader, and has still put me off books which exceed three hundred pages. If nothing can be said in less than that I doubt it’s worth reading—there are of course exceptions. The experience, however, was draining and still leaves me shuddering. Her points were often too clear, and once again the sheer plainness of her language left something to be desired. Her novel “The Good Terrorist,” made my stomach roll. The social idealistic novel has always made me cringe, and once again its language was as plain as the day. Doris Lessing was famous for her novels of ideas, of social criticisms, and of course her candor and ironic deliveries during interviews. The woman famously touted, when she heard she had won the Nobel Prize for Literature in two-thousand and seven, “Oh Christ,” and sloughed it off as a “Royal Flush.” As a character, individual, and commentator Doris Lessing has always been a bit more interesting; her works themselves, always seem to be overwritten and the stylistic failure to apply some sense of lyricism to her language, has never helped her cause.

Doris Lessing is however remarkable as an individual. It can be clearly seen early on, how she would always find herself situated against societal norms and the moral grounds of the time. She saw injustice and racial prejudices as disgusting failure of both moral pedigree and fiber, and was mocked and told to keep her head down and her opinions to herself. She has stated she quarreled with her mother throughout her childhood, and would be described by today’s standards as a tomboy of sorts. She adored and loved her father, who was damaged by the First World War, which left him crippled and bitter. She understood then as a child, her parents were severely mismatched. Her mother was an intellectual and social creature, who loved and adored the parties and social gatherings of the time, while the family lived in then Persia (now Iran). Her father, however, moved them all to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) to seek his riches as a farmer. Needless to say they were never found. While in Zimbabwe, her mother lost her social connections and gatherings, and dotted on her daughter, which only lead to arguments and rebellions. Her parents in a way resented each other, and their lives. In her last novel “Alfred and Emily,” Doris Lessing reimagines their lives, free from the First World War’s shadow, and free from each other. Her mother Emily, goes on to live an intellectually prosperous life and marriage in London; while her father never suffered any injury during the war, and would seek and find his riches. In the end they are happiest and fulfilled when apart. But the past is not easily re-written or reimagined, and neither Alfred nor Emily Lessing, had any resemblance to the lives their daughter would envision for them eight decades later. Her first marriage at the age of nineteen to a respectable man (civil servant) ten years her senior had proven to be loveless and mismatched. As already stated, Lessing would abandon this man and her two children—John and Jean—as she left for London in nineteen-forty nine. The story is portrayed unsavorily.  Lessing is depicted as this selfish creature, who simply one day abandons her children and her husband and never returns; the truth is, Doris Lessing had moved out of the house six years prior, worked as a typist, and was barred from seeing or spending time with her children. It was punitive action by society and its moral norms of the time, to keep the two parties apart and escape any immoral and corrupting influences. Ever bull headed and convicted to personal virtue, Doris Lessing refused to sentence herself to a loveless marriage and child rearing, and left in nineteen-forty nine to create a better world—which she actively sought to do, though she never did. Her relationship with John and Jean is not well known, though it was said they were cordial with each other, but in a sense strangers at the same time.

While in London she would engage in radical circles (such as the communists and far left movements) and fight for a better world, whereupon she would toast to peace. A better world never came. She saw the rise and fall of the Nazi’s in Germany, the rise and fall of the Soviet Union, and the collapse of imperialism and colonialism. She was banned from South Africa and Zimbabwe. As she grew older, she grew more stern and more sarcastic, she appears as a no nonsense and sensible matron, though elusive in being pigeonholed. She fought on all fronts against enemies created, found, or made up; and never apologized for being vicious or vitriolic in her delivery. In her Nobel acceptance speech said it with dry wit: “there isn’t anywhere to go from here is there? Unless some exemplars—recent ones—I could get a pat on the head from the pope.”

Wizened and controversial; unapologetic and aphetic; ironic and sarcastic; idealistic and cynical—Doris Lessing has always proven to be enigmatic, and never quite predictable. She was a strong figure, in a very small and dare I say it: squat, body. She spoke plainly and wrote candidly. Much like Patricia Highsmith, I admire Doris Lessings’ character (though with much less trepidation, than I do Highsmith) her candor, straightforward, and dry wit. Despite never being formally educated, she proves that being a curious and voracious reader has its benefits, when more traditional routes are lacking. She wrote a lot of series, and I would like to read “The Children of Violence,” series; I know I have little forgiveness and endurance in order to work my way through a series. Doris Lessing is a writer to take stock of and contemplate. 

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary