The Greatest Time Spent is With a Book

Hello Gentle Reader

There is always a pleasure of purchasing books. The entire process is an enjoyment: from discovery, research, reflection, deliberation and internal debate, to the final purchase. A book carries between its covers, enclosed in its pages, and held in the binding, a personal dialogue that transcends the conventional and basic forms of communication, and in my reading habits: geography, culture, and linguistic boundaries, through the tiresome and invisible work of translator, who work toward erecting bridges through translation. Recently my mailbox has sporadically been filled with packages of books—so far though only on a singular level. Yet three of the seven ordered authors have arrived! What pleasure it is have them in my company now. Sadly my reading wish list grows, while the purchases and procurement of these parchment beauties can only happen on sporadic moments, when the financial forecast is favourable. This means the pleasure of purchase and procurement is immediate and fragile. The purchases must be precise. There is little room for regret or resentment. The books must be of the highest merit to the point they border on the impalpable realms of perfection; which means care and consideration is undertaken when reviewing and contemplating any book purchase. Buying a book is not like buying a lottery ticket there is no room for hope, faith, luck or chance. The final purchase must be absolute certainty. This means reviewing the author’s biography, reading or listening to interviews, reading reviews of previous published book, if none exist: read reviews via poor automated translations in their native language to try and decipher literary themes, tropes, ideas, and predilections, what endears them to their readers at their home? Surely, this same admiration and adornment can be transferred if even in the smallest percentages across linguistic and cultural waters. When it’s all said and done with, there should be enough evidence and testimonial to reach a verdict and pass judgement. If for the time being an author doesn’t reach the requirements this round or time, they are merely put back on the wish list. It should also be noted, even if an author strikes the marks, and when it comes to find a copy of their book and it’s too expensive, they too must fall back to the wish list. In some situations not all authors go through the bureaucratic process of analysis, review, and rumination. These authors who bypass the preliminary screenings have precedence on their side. Anytime I see a new release for such authors as: Antonio Tabucchi or Herta Müller, I am filled with the urge and desire to procure, purchase and devour their books with ravenous and gluttonous haste. Of course neither of these two has released any books of recent memory—though the late Tabucchi, does have a new collection of short stories coming out next month, and with grace and fortune I’ll be able to purchase it without issue.

Of course the seven books chosen for this round—and why—will be disclosed below:

(i)                 Han Kang – “Human Acts,”

(ii)               Han Kang – “The White Book,”

(iii)             Annie Ernaux – “The Years,”

(iv)             Jacques Poulin – “Autumn Rounds,”

(v)               Patrick Modiano – “Paris Nocturne,”

(vi)             Ersi Sotiropoulos – “What’s Left of the Night,”

(vii)           Olga Tokarczuk – “Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead,”

There is no denying Korean literature is finding its steadfast foothold in the English language and other foreign markets, in large part thanks to the Korean governments grants and investments. Publishers all over took immediate advantage of the grants and financial assistance to bring Korean writers and their works into new markets and languages. Dalkey Archive Press is one of the major examples of this, their series: “Library of Korean Literature,” has twenty-seven titles under its banner, which includes novels and short stories from a multitude of writers. It should come to no surprise other publishers took advantage of the opportunity including: Granta Books, Deep Vellum Publishing, Open Letter, and White Pine Press. Ko Un the famous Korean poet, no longer held the exclusive monopoly on the market, as the sole Korean writer available to be read and reviewed. Soon he was competing with other writes such as: Bae Suah, Hwang Sok-yong, Yi Mun-yol, Kim Hyesoon, Eun Heekyung, Kim Yi-deum; and of course: Han Kang.

I’ve sampled a few books from Korean writers over the past couple of years and have researched others. Bae Suah has had the most sample and review with two novels. Her work is striking, autodidactic, and refreshingly strange, making her the dark horse of contemporary Korean literature. Eun Heekyung is more linear by comparison, her stories and novels are socially topical, meticulously crafted rather than expansively abstract, and cynically observe and criticize contemporary Korean society. Yet despite these two writers, they were completely eclipsed by another. Han Kang continually circled above. She won large literary prizes, including the Man Booker International Prize with her novel: “The Vegetarian.” The following year she was shortlisted again for her personal and strange novel “The White Book.” She became a bestseller, and was sought after for reviews and interviews. There was little another author could do in order to compete.  Yet, comparisons would be made between Bae Suah and Han Kang. The two authors began their debuts around the same time and have made the largest impacts in the English market. Bae Suah gained notoriety when she was longlisted for “The Best Translated Book Award,” in two-thousand and sixteen for her novel “Nowhere to Be Found.” The novel was praised for its striking juxtapositions, stream of consciousness surrealism, and its budding interest in experimenting with narrative. Since then, more and more of her experimental works were published, ensuring Bae Suah was known as a vivid force of uncanny literature reigning from (South) Korea.

On the flipside, Han Kang, is considered less daring and experimental then Bae Suah. Her novels are equally as surreal, socially critical and observant, but they do not jar and juxtapose; unsettle and eviscerate. Rather they gracefully meander through the passages with emotional intensity, rather than the cerebral vigor employed by Bae Suah. Han Kang, however, has received greater success then Bae Suah. When she won the “Man Booker International Prize,” for her novel: “The Vegetarian,” Han Kang, became a striking success. All over readers clamored to read the novel, which had been described as poignant surreal novel addressing our unique times. From there, Han Kang’s subsequent works: “Human Acts,” and “The White Book,” were received with warm and favourable reviews. She is considered a writer of powerful emotional intensity, with an acute eye for social commentary and reconciliation, and graceful precise prose.

Of course, with no surprise, the immediate success of Han Kang played against her, for me as a reader. I didn’t want to follow the immediate reactions of others, and decided to let the waters settle before I decided to read her work. Now they have certainly settled, and I reviewed her three books currently translated into English: “The Vegetarian,” “Human Acts,” and “The White Book.” When I researched and read about each one, I knew immediately “Human Acts,” would entice me with its discussion of political protests and uprising and subsequent violence. This treatise and testament discussing power and authority as well as revolt and resistance, would fit in with my usual reading interests and habits. I probed and pondered “The Vegetarian,” with muted interest, deciding to forgo it for now; while “The White Book,” piqued my interested for its unique premise, before ensnaring me in its poetic language and reflective passages. Through it all though, it’s the works that as of yet have not been translated into English (such as her short stories) that interest me the most in author, which each vary in length or format or narrative, they all maintain the delicate gentleness, austere atmosphere, and keen predilection towards narrating and presenting the world in its poetic state of fluctuation between Zen and zeal, to discord and despair.

Many books have already be superficially scanned and considered when they have been inducted on a reading list. From there they casually orbit in a chaotic trajectory, stumbling and staggering into each other, before retreating to the wings and the peripherals, until the cycle continues and they fling themselves forward for consideration and rumination. Others, however, are not always initially conceived on the list, whereby they seek chance and opportunity. Rather they boldly come to ones attention through other haphazard means and measures. Annie Ernaux is one such writer.

I am sure Annie Ernaux has come to my attention on a multitude of different occasions, and each time there was a failure in connecting and registering. As a writer, Annie Ernaux is famous for her personalized memoires, diaries, and autobiographical fictional accounts. She is considered one of the greatest writers in the French language, and is praised by critics, academics and readers as an unflinching recorder and documenter of society over the past half century. Despite this she never registered. Perhaps it’s the format? There is something discomforting about publishing what is generally regarded as private and personal. In today’s world they are but discretionary terms, as people everywhere confess and rejoice in their liberating freedom of ‘sharing.’ Yet, the notion carries connotations of self-absorption and narcissism, along with a dose of histrionics. Meaning, no matter how many times Annie Ernaux was introduced and reintroduced, the associations surrounding her output and format would be deemed distasteful.

Yet as this years “Man Booker International Prize,” released its longlist and shortlist, happened to change my mind as I did a quick overview of the candidates nominated. There is no denying Ernaux had made an immediate impression. Critics and readers alike where singing praise for her unique memoir, which has been deemed her magnum opus in France, and had been compared to Marcel Proust’s “In Search of Lost Time,” due to its forceful exposition on time, history, age, and memory. Further research revealed, that Ernaux eschewed the highly personalized first person narrative discourse, in favour of objective and mercurial ‘one,’ or at times the third person perspective of ‘she,’—while in English this has been translated as a plural chorus of ‘we,’ ‘us,’ and the peppered  perspective of ‘she.’ Furthermore, Annie Ernaux only uses the personal or the private, as a vantage point, and anchor to the passage of time taking place throughout the work. The goal is not to document the personal or share the private, rather the immediate objective is to provide a social commentary as the world changes, from the perspective of the ghostly unknown narrator, only alluded to being Annie Ernaux herself.

In this Annie Ernaux writes beyond the entrapping pitfalls of memoires and autofiction, due to her discourse being more societal in dissection and discussion, rather than exposing and exploiting the cheap sentiments of emotional trivialities with tabloid sensationalism. The fact that she writes about sociological issues, showcases the changing societal values and ideals, provides palpable political presentations, all distilled through the private viewpoint of a curious, observer, moves the narrative beyond just another memoir. In return it becomes a codified decree and testament, encapsulated as a palpated record for the future, showcasing the progression and evolution of sociological standards of the time, through their routine discourse of history. Now that, Gentle Reader, interests me. In this my immediate distance turned to interest. Annie Ernaux is not a panhandling pauper, seeking pity through penance, and in return absolution. She’s scribe positioned to document, record, and archive the experiences, progresses, and evolutions of the personal, the immediate, and society, with a resistant pen against the passage of time, the decaying futility of mortality, and the eroding whiplash of the sands of history, in order to erect the monument of what has been as an exemplary understanding of where to continue. In this, Annie Ernaux shares the same space with authors such as: Herta Müller or Svetlana Alexievich. Müller for instance, took her own experiences and perspectives from life in Ceaușescu’s Communist Romania, and created striking narratives that depicted the land of the dispossessed, recounted the horrors and the paranoia, the rampant disenfranchisement, disillusionment, and the destructive power of ideologies, political corruption, and social exploitation of language, to create a portrait of a world now lost to history, due to the little supporting information with regards to the mundane, everyday banalities of life behind the iron curtain. It is thanks to Herta Müller’s pixelated poetic language and experiences that the lost is not forgotten, and remains relevant. Svetlana Alexievich is the ear and oral historian of the gritty and shadowy world of the former Soviet Union. Alexievich does not just review the documents, the reports of the incidents or life; she seeks the find the seeds and stories of the people who lived and experienced the times. Their stories are riddled with the disordered complications of life: war, nuclear disaster, political oppression et cetera—but in each one beats the human heart, unchanging, unwavering, and unapologetic in every circumstance. In this Svetlana Alexievich is able to listen to, record and document the unsung heroes and stories of those who lived through the times, providing a complete overview of a society through its population. Annie Ernaux is much the same: an observer of the times and society, who with a personal perspective and a steady hand recounts the times.

The four remaining authors are not new here. Each of them has two or more books read and reviewed. Despite this, they are still enjoyable authors and their returns, with a new book is eagerly anticipated. Jacques Poulin, for example, is no stranger here. I’ve read three of his novels:

(i)                 “Mister Blue,” – First read in 2012

(ii)               “Wild Cat,” – First read in 2014

(iii)             “Spring Tides,” – First read in 2015

I’ve enjoyed them all the same and for their own reason. “Mister Blue,” and “Spring Tides,” are both published by the amazing: Archipelago Books. While “Wild Cat,” is published by Cormorant Books, who also published the newest acquisition: “Autumn Rounds.” The covers of both “Wild Cat,” and “Autumn Rounds,” are what originally drew me to both. “Wild Cat,” is deeply blue—almost indigo in colour; and in the middle of it, sits a small box, which inside shows the golden hour through a window with a cat gazing outside. “Autumn Rounds,” swings to the opposite end of the spectrum: a deep burgundy, framing a small square opening to a misty autumnal day on a country road, ubiquitous and easily forgettable. Jacques Poulin is one those undervalued and under stated writers. His work is minimalist in style with an added homage and admiration to Hemmingway in may circumstances. Yet his prose is more airy then bare bones. He teases the tropes of sentimentality and melodrama, like a cat toys with a mouse before killing it with instinctual amusement or growing bored of the hunt. Yet his work is a particular flavour, which echoes in the back of one’s mind now and then. After seeing that Archipelago Books was seeking to print “Autumn Rounds,” again in the near future, I decided I needed to procure this version. After finally finding a affordable volume—some were asking for a hundred plus dollars—I quickly scooped up my used copy (which is in wonderful shape), and am ready to devour it. It’ll be nice to enter the minimal airy world of Poulin again, where there is the inclination all is possible, but it nothing mystical or magical or supernatural happens, but the threat exists, before submerging into the impossible once again.

Patrick Modiano could not possibly be considered a new name either! How many books have been read and reviewed(?) ten. If so he is the most read and reviewed Nobel Laureate in Literature on this blog—if only due to the volume his work is translated into English. Though of all the Nobel Laureates in Literature of recent memory, Patrick Modiano, is perhaps one of my favourites alongside, Herta Müller. His novels are not huge, the prose is minimalist and simple, his narratives and plots are almost always tracing and retracing the same ground, the anamnestic wastelands, the unreliability of one’s self, the duplicity of others, the short comings of life, disappearing people, absent parents, and disappointment—all wrapped up in the austere noir atmosphere. Another Patrick Modiano novel added to set is never a poor reading venture. He’s always delivered, and adding another ‘chapter,’ to his oeuvre spanning novel is always a welcomed prospect.

Ersi Sotiropoulos is an author who I find is under translated. Her first collection of stories translated into English “Landscape with Dog,” was a unique collection of stories, showing her powers as a author, one who quickly showed a keen interest in dissecting and vivisecting the traditional and conventional notions of human relationships. She pulled back the skin to reveal the sinew, muscles. Pulling further she strummed the tendons, and splayed the nerves. She removed organs for immediate inspection. She showed the complete failure for people to conduct meaningful communication, and presented the unique quiet lives of her characters as prone to immediate changes in temperament, connection and meaning. Her prose is riddled with surgeon’s precision, as she acutely depicts the changing landscape of her characters, showcasing just the slightest environmental change—be it light or scenery—can immediately render the familiar into the foreign. “What’s Left of the Night,” appears to move in a different trajectory, this time recounting the three days of the modernist homosexual Greek poet Constantine Cavaf in Paris. The novel I hope, will blend the stylistic precision of Ersi Sotiropoulos’s already noted work, with the historical imaginings of the days of the Greek poet, while also being a lesson in character development, depiction, as well as historical lesson in the private and personal poetry, of a poet otherwise unknown.

The last author is none other than: Olga Tokarczuk, a personal favourite. I first had the pleasure of reading Tokarczuk in two-thousand and thirteen with: “Primeval and Other Times.” I fondly remember the novel, as being bright and baroque, as it provided the account of the residents of the small Polish village Primeval through the latter half of the nineteenth century through the twentieth century. It was written in Tokarczuk’s famous fragmented consciousness prose, and had was riddled with an ensemble cast of characters, each one eccentric, troubled, and bound to their own fate all the same. It was a riot of a read! I enjoyed the first half with an overjoyed pleasure. Even now it’s easy to imagine the world of primeval with its hermetic mayor huddled away from the world, playing a divine game; or the river that overflowed every spring, much the priests irritation; or the abandoned Cornspike wandering to get food from whoever had any to spare; or the woman gone mad with alcohol and anger, who would shout at the moon with her pack of dogs. “Primeval and Other Times,” is not considered Olga Tokarczuk’s breakthrough novel, despite it being a beautiful baroque romp, showcasing the authors unique prose, her use of multilayered narratives and perspectives, and her ability to provide psychological and philosophical insight through the use of anecdotes, dialogue, and Jungian symbolism. Rather, it was her most recently published novel “Flights,” which gained Olga Tokarczuk immediate attention in the English language. “Flights,” or in Polish, Bieguni, was a major with the reading public, winning the “Nike Award,” and was considered a masterful example of Tokarczuk’s fragmented prose and episodic consciousness. The novel details through vignettes, excursions, discussions, tangents and deviations, all recount the idea of traveling in its numerous fashions—literal and metaphorical. There is no denying it was a immediate marvelous novel; but “Primeval and Other Times,” remains special, for its simple baroque beauty, its own treasured hide way, that remains mine alone on the bookshelf, where I tantalizing go to re-read once again, but find myself frightened at the idea of trespassing the grounds once again. What if the solicited response is altered or muted, will it destroy the memory? With trepidation it is always placed back on the shelf, restricted from rereading in the immediate future.

For the meantime, “Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead,” will have to sate ones appetite. In her native Poland, ““Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead,” caused a minor controversy with some, who believed, Olga Tokarczuk advocated for the vigilante killing poachers and hunters, and the zealotry for ecological terrorism. Of course the critics missed the point, as they often do.  Olga Tokarczuk merely wished to discuss the concept of how people treat animals, and affect the environment with little to no thought of the consequences. It’s a novel of green perspectives, imbued with the playful postmodern use of genres—specifically mysteries and suspense—coupled with the proliferation of astrology, Jungian psychology, and a pinch of mysticism for interesting effect.

I look forward to reading these books in the coming months, Gentle Reader, and expressing my experience of each of them in reviews. I am excited to read each of them with bitter sweet enjoyment, and cherish the experience whole heartedly. For now though, we wait for them to arrive, and once they do begin the experience only reading can offer. Aferall: The Greatest Time Spent is With a Book.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

The Man Booker International Prize, Shortlist 2019

Hello Gentle Reader

After a startling and strong longlist of books and writers, the Man Booker International Prize judges had the daunting task of refining and reducing the longlist to a more manageable shortlist, which will be deliberated, ruminated, and debated over until a winner has been decided and declared on May 21^st.

The previous longlist glistened with striking writers from all over the world, such as Can Xue from China, to Jokha Alharthi from Oman, touring Europe with such writers as: Hubert Mingarelli in France, Sara Stridsberg from Sweden; before moving down south with writers such as Samanta Schweblin from Argentina, only to return to the far east once again with (South) Korean author Hwang Sok-yong. Despite this, the adjudicating authorities set to work and begun the process of deliberating the longlisted authors and debating who would make it to the shortlist.

Without further delay, Gentle Reader, the following is this year’s shortlist for the Man Booker International Prize: [listed in no particular order]

Annie Ernaux – France – “The Years,”

Jokha Alharthi – Oman – “Celestial Bodies,”

Alia Trabucco Zeran – Chile – “The Remainder,”

Mario Poschmann – Germany – “The Pine Islands,”

Juan Gabriel Vásquez – Columbia – “The Shape of The Ruins,”

Olga Tokarczuk – Poland – “Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead,”

Immediately after reviewing the shortlist there is no denying the immediate fact: it is dominated by woman. Five of the shortlist writes are woman, while the singular male outlier is Columbian author, Juan Gabriel Vásquez. This female dominated shortlist has since grabbed headlines and the attention of critics and readers alike, who do not disagree with the strength of the shortlist, despite the peculiar gender gap in what is often seen as an extremely rare event.

Of note for this year’s shortlist, last year’s winner, Olga Tokarczuk makes an immediate return with her ecological mystical novel playing with the idea of a murder mystery. If Olga Tokarczuk wins, she will be the first author to receive the Man Booker International Prize twice. The only other author who has won the prize and been shortlisted a second time has been Han Kang and Laszlo Krasznahorkai.

This year’s favourite to receive the award is the French memoirist and social geographer Annie Ernaux, with her publicly attuned memoirs and social and contemporary historical commentary: “The Years,” which has been described as her magnum opus. “The Years,” had initially raised eyebrows when it was included on this year’s longlist, due to it not being a work of fiction, but rather a strange memoir written in a plural narrative, eschewing any intimacy of a typical memoir or diary, in favour of cold clinical detachment and observation delivered in sharp and acute insight with prose that disregards sentimentality and sensationalism, to deliver a formulated account of the changing decades.

Omitting the inclusion of Olga Tokarczuk and Annie Ernaux from deliberations, the shortlist remains vivid and strong. Jokha Alharthi’s novel “Celestial Bodies,” is a multigenerational historical epic recounting Oman’s modernization into the world. Marion Poschmann’s offbeat novel “The Pine Islands,” is a humorous account of sadness, traveling, and cultural dialogue which received great applause. Juan Gabriel Vásquez’s novel is a testament to the long and bloodied history of Columbia, giving reflection to its current cease fire and political stability. Alia Trabucco’s novel recounts and traces themes of family, politics, history, violence and redemption into a narrative that is original and needed.

The shortlist retains it’s the quality of the longlist. Some omissions were interesting to note, such as Can Xue and her novel “Love in the New Millennium,” Sara Stridsberg “The Faculty of Dreams,” Hubert Mingarelli “Four Soldiers,” and Samanta Schweblin “Mouthful of Birds.” Despite this it’s a wonderfully crafted shortlist with an invigorating group of authors.

The best of luck to all writers who have received their rightful place on the shortlist!

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

The Trivialities of Transgressive Literature

Hello Gentle Reader

⟨ I would like to offer and extend my apologies to you my dear Gentle Readers, as I have no written a proper column in the Tea on a Tuesday cycle. I have not published the promised bi-weekly column of eclectic and eccentric topics, since late last year. Unfortunately the New Year appeared to be rung in with hurricane speeds which left me little time to type out future columns as planned and for that I do apologize and will make a much more concerted effort to rectify and remedy in future. ⟩

Transgressive literature, or works of literature in that model, are best summarized as writing which offers social commentary and critique of the constrictive conforming demands of social conventions, norms, and accepted social structures and hierarchies as they are presented, adapted, and adhered to. Authors of transgressive literature provide a necessary scathing analytical overview of society by detailing its: flawed structures, power struggles, the dichotomy of domination and subjection, the abject humiliation, and the otherwise normal processes of everyday life, which go unchallenged and accepted. The authors then present characters or situations or ideas which then push the boundaries of the social structures which govern society by convention, proxy or by codified means. The characters themselves vary on the spectrum. Some are sociopathic in their anti-social ideals, whereby they eagerly see the cage and rattle it by committing vandalism, assault, rape or murder. These characters operate under the author’s authority at which point they see the frivolity of society—or rather the ulcer—and then poke it. Through their anti-social behaviours they revolt and vivisect the confines of society’s conventional demands for conformity, peeling back the layers of hollow falsities to reveal the otherwise insincere nihilistic void which the everyday citizen subscribes to. This blatant disregard for the normal perspective that is prescribed and administered with ease to the masses, and by extension is accepted without complaint or question, seeks to treat the cataracts and blindness and lead individuals or society to a more aware state of being. On the flipside, it’s a grotesque caricature and satirical performance exposing the absurdities of society, individuals, and the relentless hopelessness that engulfs their existence, as they readily obey the structures and protocols in place to govern their hapless lives. These characters are underground revolutionaries, providing enlightened and unpopular orations and monologues on the plight of the modern man. In other instants they are the jesters of psychosis, satirists and jesters, who revel in Bacchus debauched glory, as they strike the societal ulcer and reveal the plight and hopelessness of the world. Examples of this literary lunatics and revolutionaries include: Fydor Dostoevsky’s the Underground Man [From: “Notes from the Underground,”]; or Albert Camus’s Meursault [From: “The Stranger,”]; and of course Anthony Burgess’s Alex [From: A Clockwork Orange,”].

On the contrary end of the spectrum, showcases the characters in a different light. These characters are not the invigorated and mad revolutionaries, nor are they the clownish caricatures of society’s oppression now finding release in the most illicit and provocative of ways. These characters are frighteningly normal or even model citizens in their exterior display and facades. They are teachers, doctors, businessmen; respectable in dress, manners, and profession. Yet beneath their veneer lies a perverse desire to lash out and unleash their frustrations, inclinations, and penchants for destruction against others or themselves. They revolt in maddening miniscule manners. They voyeuristically attend peep shows, or watch people perform sexual intercourse in park benches with fascination, delight, and infatuation. They can be both blatant aggressor, where they attack a loved one with striking force; as well as subtle, such as kicking a stranger on the subway and blaming it on another. They are afflicted with the most perverse desires, and in their rational monologues and sincere soliloquies provide a logical explanation for their otherwise deranged behaviour. They revolt in subtle measures, as they buckle under the restraints of their confinements and obligations. They conform, but only on the surface, as they secretly explore their own innate and perverse desires, either through psychosexual measures, degradation, mutilation, addiction. Some are mere products of circumstances, falling into the cracks of desperation, transgression and addiction on the nihilistic excuse of what else could they do? Others entrapped in the confines of their own power structures and struggles release their pent up energy by degrading their students, watching random sexual encounters (be it orchestrated peep shows, or casual encounters in public), kicking or striking out at members of the public or animals, orchestrating rape, or simply participating in transgressive and illicit behaviour. These deranged and disenfranchised souls include: Elfriede Jelinek’s Erika [From: “The Piano Teacher,”], Vladimir Nabokov’s Humbert Humbert [From: “Lolita,”], and Irvine Welsh’s Mark ‘Rent Boy’ Renton [From: “Trainspotting,”].

Despite the otherwise violent and degrading subject matter, which forcefully greets the reader, it provides social commentary on the issues of society’s structure, both codified and conventional. It shows the failure of policies, legislation and government; it provides a disturbing overview of the accepted notions what is considered appropriate. Take Elfriede Jelinek for example. The controversial Nobel Laureate in Literature has made a career as a provocateur, agitator, satirist, and commentator on social, political and economic issues with her evocative and disturbing novels and dramatic works. Branded as a confrontational feminist author, Jelinek has often taken issue and aim at Austria, through its efforts to deny its Nazi past and collaboration, the enslavement of capitalism and commodity driven consumerism, as well as the destructive impact of human relationships, and their fatalistic dive into sexually violent codependent cycles. Jelinek’s vitriolic pen does not spare character, society, or reader from her scathing analysis. Men may be the perpetrators of the initial violent actions against others—mainly women as they are wives, mothers, receptionist, waitress (a position of no to little authority—but she crucifies the victim with equal venom. In the case of women, she finds them lackluster, debilitated, masochistic, and desiring the protection and power of men, at the cost of assault, abuse and degradation. By Elfriede Jelinek’s deductions women enter the entrapment with the innate desire for the dependent and destructive relationship it is doomed to produce. In return, as Jelinek depicts with equal scorn, women become accomplices to other travesties and acts of degradation on to others. In some situations and cases, they revel in their own humiliation, while then attacking and abusing a helpless and hapless child whereby the cycle of violence perpetuates and palpitates into another generation.

Reading such novels or short stories would not be considered a pleasurable or enjoyable experience. They are forceful, uncomfortable, and uncompromising in their assault and societal analytical vivisection. These writers expose the trials and tribulations of a world overlooked, ignored, denied or forgotten. Though their works are shocking, they do not exist on the superficial level of pushing their reader’s faces into the glass or feces for them to stand humiliated and subjected to the horrors of the show. Rather they keenly survey and present the situation, the circumstances, and the realities with a needed commentary to introduce and promote a desire to rise above, reconcile, or change the situation and create a better world—and if not at least mock with satirical wit, the absurdity of existence as a whole. They write with purpose and a mission. The mission or the purpose is the necessary element of what makes transgressive literature relevant. It’s the desire to present and display the realities of the disenfranchised, the disposed, and the degraded in hopes that by agitation and provocation their criticism will provoke a shift in perspective or ideology to rectify and remedy society’s blights and blunders. Transgressive literature without that immediate notion to provoke or inspire, is then just flagrant. It’s the self-absorbed soliloquy of a solipsistic narcissist, whose work is merely tepid trivial trash.

Sadly that is the direction transgressive literature and fiction appears to have moved towards: a narcissistic self-absorbed monologue, where the author is able to grandstand and openly expose themselves with confessional prose, at which point they conspicuously declare without poetry or commentary, their own perverse inclinations, humiliations, sadistic torments, and masochistic delights. They offer no social commentary beyond the superficial utterance. This dreadful debilitating and degrading dribble would even make Sylvia Plath blush with embarrassment and the sheer self-indulgence being exhibited. Yet, somehow this act of self-flagellation through prose, is praised by critics and readers alike. These torrid tales of trial, tribulation, torment and tragedy are somehow being considered appropriate or revolutionary. Where in reality they are but a mere exercise in self-indulgent degradation and confession be it fictional otherwise. They lack the appropriate commentary to be called revolutionary; where in actuality they seek to merely provide an overview of their otherwise deranged sexual escapes, or tortures, or torments, or tragedies with debauched nihilism. They expose nothing beyond their own intrapersonal monologue and crucifixion. There is no interaction with society beyond the meaningless mechanical capitulation of sex and its inherent instinctual demand to either dominate or submit. Sex in itself is often the main outlet and exercise in relationships, communication, and topic of choice, when it comes to these books. Then again sex is an otherwise halfhearted subject in itself, one which can entice, enchant and disgust a reader. It is a convenient mode in which to explore the idea of power in a purely physical and nihilistic manner. Sex as already mention is but the mere mechanical capitulation which each character submits to in some manner or otherwise. They forfeit consent, self-respect, and meaning in favour of engaging in an otherwise meaningless act of penetration, subjection and dominance.

Of course that being said these writers perhaps are attempting to follow in the footsteps of their crass forefathers who incited revulsion and loathing with the general reading public and critics, while in return gained respect and admiration from the dementedly inclined. Jean Genet is an immediate example. There was a writer who sought to defy all normal social conventions and literary protocols, by elevating violent criminals to sainthood; guiding tours through the social underground; and declaring and advertising bohemian sexual culture in all its colourful light. He questioned and provoked the idea of traditional moral values, and caustically solicited the ire of any institution which governed and promoted such moral attributes and standards. Jean-Paul Sartre famously called Genet’s novel “Our Lady of the Flowers,” an ‘epic of masturbation.’ Yet, Genet was different from these contemporaries. His debauchery was never intrapersonal or confessional degradation. His work provides an explicative social commentary on society’s rigid and outdated sense of structures, moral probity, and stiffing lack of expression. He was not, however, a self-indulgent nihilist who documented or fictionalized homoeroticism or murder. Rather, Jean Genet embodied Nietzsche’s ideas on ‘Transvaluation,’ or revaluation of values. He was an uncomfortable existentialist who promoted all the pains and joys of liberty—sexual and otherwise. But the message was always clear, in its own strange romanticized manner. He questioned, he defied, and he revolted, against society’s traditional ideas, ideologies, perspectives, and moral codes.  Unfortunately this sentiment is not shared by his contemporaries, who instead recount in autofuctional flagrancy their own demented experiences or perhaps desires, dreams, and even fantasies. I fail to see the point of such novels or books; such as Christine Angot’s: “Incest.” These are books and novels—or perhaps fictional autobiographical narratives—which deny social commentary or any motivation beyond their own self-indulgent absorption into narcissism. These authors tackle the taboo not with any real reason or meaning, beyond perhaps playing out their own misconstrued desires and fantasies, and then turn them into these degrading confessional narratives, which border on a pornographic mass of nihilistic meaningless shoveled together in a patchwork of prose, and then deemed of reasonable literary merit. Perhaps its due to the content or perhaps its due to the authors own identity the work is somehow, praised as being an exemplary work of fiction, which should be applauded and praised as revolutionary, where in reality it is revolting in its sheer self-indulgence. If transgressive fiction is to be taken seriously it requires itself to provide the necessary social commentary to gain its merit. Anything else is just second rate and would best be suited for other media mediums.

The truth about transgressive fiction and literature as a whole, is it’s often a rather one trick pony. Once it’s released and has shocked and awed the masses, the act cannot be repeated. It does not age like fine wine—rather it spoils like milk. If an author continues on the path of trying to shock via their prose work, with ever greater demented prose and confessions, they merely become a relic of their former self, where they rattle their chains and no one takes either stock or notice. In the end they become repetitive, bland, and boring; which is the fate of most if not all transgressive writers such as: Jean Genet, Christine Angot, and Chuch Palahniuk, to name but a few. Some, like Elfriede Jelinek appear to retain some relevancy for their avant-garde mediums in theatre; but even she always risks falling off the razors edge to the point of irrelevancy.

Transgressive fiction is at best a youthful experiment to revolt against the establishment. It’s a way to throw a rock through the window and then scream with added glee: “fuck you!” After that it becomes the usual shenanigans of a bloated humorless jester. In order to be taken seriously, however, it requires commentary on the social constraints and conventions, if it cannot analyze and dissect the debilitating expectations, then it’s merely self-indulgent solipsistic nihilistic pornography, which lacks any engagement of an external sense, and merely fixates on the myopic intrapersonal self.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

The Swedish Academy Elects Two New Members

Hello Gentle Reader

The Swedish Academy is working diligently to rebuild its roster to a full eighteen member capacity. Recently the vacant seats: Chair No. 9—formerly held by: Jayne Svenungsson; and Chair No. 13—Formerly held by: Sara Stridsberg, will now be held by the two newly elected members: Ellen Mattson and Anne Swärd. These new appointees will be formally inducted on December 20^th (two-thousand and nineteen) alongside the Finnish-Swedish language poet: Tua Forsström.

Gender is an obvious contender and component to the appointments of, Ellen Mattson and Anne Swärd, as the Swedish Academy continually attempts to change its image as a male dominated institution, after recent events and scandal. Anders Olsson, the current Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, has also stated—and attempted to mitigate the conversation away from gender politics—that the two newly appointed members are great prose stylists in their own right, and should help balance the perspective of the Swedish Academy; as both Tua Forsström and Jila Mossaed who are renowned and recognized for their poetic activities. Beyond their prose work as authors, Anders Olsson has credited both, Ellen Mattson and Anne Swärd, as experienced literary assessors, and important readers.

Both the new appointees are best described as writers, rather than academics. However, Ellen Mattson has written more than just novels. She has expanded her writings into the theatre and dramatic texts for radio, and is an accomplished literary critic. Anne Swärd by comparison is a working and living author, and is renowned for her intense narratives and novels. Their induction to the Swedish Academy will be unique and interesting to observe in the coming years.

Their appointments have not gone unnoticed by critics, who feel that the desire to appointment new members based on gender is rather egregious, something akin to the pity diversity hire, where a candidate is chosen because they minority social factors rather than core competencies. Björn Wiman of Dagens Nyheter viewed the inclusions as a slight step down for the Swedish Academy, as he believed the two authors chosen was based on gender rather than competency and merit, and found that neither novelist had truly made a signifigant or lasting impact on Swedish literature or language in the same fashion as Sara Stridsberg, or going further Tua Forsström. Personally, I believe Goran Sonnevi an accomplished poet and academic would be a suitable choice for the academy, but then again as it stands he is not a woman, a matter the Swedish Academy will need to carefully consider as they choose to induct new members: is it based off competency or off social perspective or social pressure?

Currently the Swedish Academy hosts the following members, with a seventeen strong roster:

Chair No. 1 – (Justice) Eric M. Runesson (also a Supreme Court Judge)

Chair No. 2 – Bo Ralph

Chair No. 3 – Sture Allen

Chair No. 4 – Anders Olsson

Chair No. 5 – Göran Malmqvist       

Chair No. 6 – Tomas Riad

Chair No. 7 – Vacant

Chair No. 8 – Jesper Svenbro

Chair No. 9 – Ellen Mattson (to be inducted: December 20^th)

Chair No. 10 – Peter Englund

Chair No. 11 – Mats Malm

Chair No. 12 – Per Wästberg

Chair No. 13 – Anne Swärd (to be inducted: December 20^th)

Chair No. 14 – Kristina Lugn

Chair No. 15 – Jila Mossaed

Chair No. 16 – Kjell Espmark

Chair No. 17 – Horace Engdahl

Chair No. 18 – Tua Forsström (to be inducted: December 20^th)

The final chair to be filled is Chair No. 7, formally held by the former Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Sara Danius. It has not been announced or decided when this seat will be filled, but there is precedence and speculation that it will be also be filled by a woman to help round out the numbers and ratio of male to female in the academy.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

For Further Reading—

Expressen :"New members of the Swedish Academy,"

Svt: "Ellen Mattson and Anne Swärd are elected to the Academy,"

Rathbones Folio Prize, Longlist 2019

Hello Gentle Reader

The Rathbones Folio Prize has released its longlist for this year’s prize this past Monday on March 18th. The Rathbones Folio Prize—often just shortened to the Folio Prize—is often considered the Booker prize’s rival as a literary award, due to the award being an immediate reaction to the sign that the Booker Prize was abandoning its focus and fixation on literary fiction in favour of popular narratives and fiction. The Rathbones Folio Prize created further distinction between itself and the Booker Prize, by allowing entry regardless of form (short story, novella, or novel), while the Booker Prize has retained its established practice of awarding the prize to a singular novel, and had opened the prize up to any country where the literary work was written in English and published in the United Kingdom—meaning the Rathbones Folio Prize had been available for American writers to win since its inception, long before the Booker Prize had opened its criteria and borders to American authors as well.

Despite its reputation as a rival prize, the Rathbones Folio Prize has failed to make the waves intended to make it a headlining literary prize. Its overshadowed by the Man Booker International Prize, and because it failed to award and take considerations in two-thousand and sixteen, has failed to gain the necessary exposure to be considered immediate and relevant in the literary worlds glitz and glamour. This year, however, the Rathbones Folio Prize has created waves with its longlist, because it has included high profile authors of the recent year: Anna Burns (last year’s Booker Prize winning author) and Sally Rooney, who considered a favourite for last year’s Booker Prize, and would later win the Costa Book Award, earlier this year. Despite its attempt at being recognized as an independent and noteworthy prize of its own merit, the Rathbones Folio Prize still resides largely in the shadow of the Booker Prize.

Without further ado though Gentle Reader, the following is the longlist for this year’s award:

Anna Burns – Ireland – “Milkman,”
Ashleigh Young – New Zealand – “Can You Tolerate This? “
Guy Staff – United Kingdom – “The Crossway,”
Bob Gilbert –United Kingdom – “Ghost Trees,”
Novuyo Rosa Tshuma – Zimbabwe – “House of Stone,”
Eue Prideaux – United Kingdom – “I am Dynamite!”
Georgina Harding – United Kingdom – “Land of the Living,”
Edward Carey – United Kingdom – “Little,”
Nancy Campbell – United Kingdom – “The Library of Ice,”
Chris Power – United Kingdom – “Mothers,”
Alice Jolly – United Kingdom – “Mary Ann Sate, Imbecile,”
Will Eaves – United Kingdom – “Murmur,”
Diana Evans – United Kingdom – “Ordinary People,”
Raymond Antrobus – United Kingdom – “The Perseverance,”
Mohammed Hanif – Pakistan – “Red Birds,”
Tommy Orange – America – “There There,”
Zaffar Kunial – United Kingdom – “Us,”
Sally Rooney – Ireland – “Normal People,”
Carys Davies – Australia – “West,”
Anne Wrote – United Kingdom – “Francis: A Life in Song,”

A survey of the longlist immediately gives on pause to reflect and review the United Kingdom centric perspective that has been established with the collection and consideration of this year’s prizes preliminary list. Of the twenty authors and novelist listed:

Two writers come from Ireland
One writer from Australia
One writer from Zimbabwe
One writer from Pakistan
And One writer from America

Which means the remaining fourteen authors all hail from the United Kingdom. Then again the award should be based on literary merit more then diversity or where a writer hails from.

For now though Gentle Reader, this year’s judges will mull over the longlisted authors as they deliberate the shortlist in the coming weeks and prepare to name the winner in the coming months.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read

M. Mary

W.S. Merwin, Dies Aged 91

Hello Gentle Reader

Of the twentieth century American poets, there are few giants and greats. Among their number include the indisputable and transatlantic poets: T.S. Eliot (Nobel Laureate) and W.H. Auden; as well as the great African American poet and memoirist, Maya Angelou; the complicated, the beatnik and bohemian poet of an America liberated, Allen Ginsberg; the divisive, confessional and tragic Sylia Plath; the poet who dances with fire, Sharon Olds; the complex and academic postmodernist Susan Howe; the naturalist and curious commentator of animal life, Mary Oliver; and the divisively uncertain postmodern surrealist John Ashbery, who remains controversial even after his last breath drawn, perplexing and infuriating critics. Among this pantheon of great poets of American literature of the twentieth century and early twenty-first century is: W.S. Merwin, who died March 15^th 2019, at the age of 91 in his home in Hawaii.

Since his youth, W.S. Merwin was in possession of two inclinations and interests, which came forth through his talents of language. The first was his enamored admiration for the natural world, where as a child Merwin had been noted taking a keen interest in the natural world, going as far as having conversations with old trees in his family’s backyard. The second was a fascination with links and monuments to the past. Those ever unflinching and fanatical staunch signs of solidarity, who resist the corrosion of time and history, to remain resilient and resisting to the sweet coercion and passing’s, while solidifying with stone like memory of notice and mark to what had existed. In his youth, Merwin showed an innate feeling and talent for language, whereby he composed and wrote hymns for his father, a Presbyterian minister. These talents of his youth and his noted interest in the fragile and withstanding natural world would later shape the poet and writer he would become.

Along with John Ashbery, W.S. Merwin is often credited as being one of the most distinct and defining voices of American poetry and literature in the twentieth century. His poems from the Vietnam War Era and generation gained immediate recognition alongside Adrienne Rich and Allen Ginsberg. Yet, his poetry was all his own, and was renowned for its plain spoken form which was sprinkled with grace and mysticism which came from his interest in Buddhism. His poetry could move between cautious optimism to elegiac forewarning, as he praised the natural world begging in silence to be saved, and yet stationary as it’s ripped up, burned down, chopped up and done away with. Merwin spent a career forcing his readers to find introspection and then understand the world was falling apart around them, but not by some celestial or external chaotic force, but by their own two hands or their own two feet. Despite his environmental insight (or perhaps for it) W.S. Merwin won the Pultizer Prize twice as well as the National Book Award for Poetry, and was named the Poet Laureate of the United States, from two-thousand and ten until two-thousand and eleven.

Throughout his career, W.S. Merwin was a striking and powerful voice for conservation, environmental sustainability, political pacifism and deep introspective philosophical ponderings. His mark on poetry and American Poetry cannot be overlooked or swept aside. His passing though will leave a massive void, which can only be filled by his long lasting and enduring poetic compositions and volumes of writing.

Rest in Peace, W.S Merwin

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

                                                    

The Man Booker International Prize Longlist, 2019

Hello Gentle Reader

The Man Booker International Prize has released its longlist for two-thousand and nineteen. The longlist contains thirteen novelists and their respective work. The longlist spans both linguistic barriers and geographical boundaries, offering a plethora of perspective from all over the globe. An interesting note for this year’s longlist is the vast majority of the writers and books being considered for this year’s prize have all been promoted and published by independent publishers, which is a testament to what independent and small publishing houses bring to the table when publishing translated fiction into the English language, versus larger publishers.

The longlist for this year’s prize is as follows: [in no particular order]

Olga Tokarczuk – Poland – “Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead,”

Hwang Sok-yong – (South) Korea – “At Dusk,”

Can Xue – China – “Love in the New Millennium,”

Juan Gabriel Vásquez – Columbia – “The Shape of the Ruins,”

Sara Stridsberg – Sweden – “The Faculty of Dreams,”

Hubert Mingarelli – France – “Four Soldiers,”

Jokha Alharthi – Oman – “Celestial Bodies,”

Alia Trabucco Zerán – Chile – “The Remainder,”

Mazen Maarouf – Iceland/Palestine (language Arabic) – “Jokes For The Gunman,”

Marion Poschmann – Germany – “The Pine Islands,”

Tommy Wieringa – The Netherlands – “The Death Of Murat Idrissi,”

Samanta Schweblin – Argentina – “Mouthful of Birds,”

Annie Ernaux – France – “The Years,”

On the longlist are familiar names and new names as well. First up is Olga Tokarczuk, the recent Polish breakout novelist who won last year’s Man Booker International Prize with her phenomenal novel: “Flights.” She reappears on the longlist with her most recent translated publication: “Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead,” which is hailed as an inverted and twisted mystery novel with an environmental and ecological perspective. The novel also enjoys probing the mystical and slight magical realism with commentary on astrology. “Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead,” was slightly controversial in Tokarczuk’s homeland of Poland, as it was viewed by some as promoting environmental or ecoterrorism.

Following the previous winner and returnee, is the (South) Korean novelist Hwang Sok-yong. In recent year, there has been a steady and readily available translation(s) of Korean literature into English, which has boasted and advanced the careers of many, including: Bae Suah, and former Man Booker International Prize Winner, Han Kang. Hwang Sok-yong is not, however, a new name on the international literature stage. Hwang Sok-yong is one of the most well-known Korean writers working in the language today, whereby he reviews and analyses the socio-political climate of contemporary Korea from war to its contemporary divisions and divides, as well as rapid industrialization, urbanization, and strong economic impact in the Eastern world, rivaling neighbours and competitors: Japan and China. “At Dusk,” the novel longlisted for this year’s award takes stock and reviews (South) Koreas rapid industrialization and urbanization from the perspective of an architect and director, which discusses the poverty and uncertainty of the past with its war torn holes, to a glittery glass ridded future of skyscrapers stability and success.

This is the first time (to my knowledge at least) that Can Xue has been nominated for the Booker International Prize for Literature, but this does not diminish her claim as one of the experimental and innovative writers currently at work on the world stage. Can Xue and her works have been nominated, shortlisted, and won a plethora of literary prizes, including the Beast Translated Book Award four years ago. When discussing contemporary Chinese literature it is impossible to overlook the surreal, experimental, abstract and unconventional narratives of Can Xue, which are both praised and despised in China, with some critics stating she is certifiably insane. Her new novel “Love in the New Millennium,” traces the many facets of love—tragic, fleeting, transient, fulfilling, nebulous, and satirical—through lives of a group of woman, who exist during a backdrop of total absurdism surveillance, which normalized a society to accept the mass surveillance and societal paranoia without issue. This coupled with the usual blend of the outright surreal never fails to shock and empower readers to look beyond the tangible and probe the psychologically uncomfortable. As always Can Xue writers with cracking form, pushing the bounds of what can be accomplished in the limitations of literature, and then supersede from there.

Sara Stridsberg is not a new name to this blog or the literary award. She’s an acclaimed Swedish writer, who won the Nordic Councils Literature Prize in two-thousand and seven for Drömfakulteten, which has recently been translated into English as “The Faculty of Dreams.” The novel recounts with biographical acuity and fictional imagination the life of Valerie Solanas the radical feminist icon and author of the SCUM manifesto. The novel has been hailed as one of the best novels of the early two thousands in Sweden. Beyond her literary work, Sara Stridsberg was also once a member of the Swedish Academy, holding Chair No. 13, but later resigned after the scandal from last year. She was an adamant ally, friend and colleague of the former Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Sara Danius, who also resigned last month from her seat with the Swedish Academy. Her recent debuts and foothold in the English language is being welcomed. Her novel “The Gravity of Love,” also received the European Union Prize for Literature two-thousand and fifteen. Her inclusion on the Man Booker International Prize for Literature should be viewed with warm regards and applause.

The French language is represented by two authors who probe the archives and records of the past. First is Hubert Mingarelli with his restrained lyrical novel “Four Soldiers.” The novel in general terms recounts the solace found during wartime, as four Red Army soldiers sit alienated and abandoned in the far nether reaches of the Romanian countryside, camping and waiting for further orders, instruction or direction. The novel recounts with detail, their joys and their cynicism, their uncertainty and their current occupation which brings them ever closer to the shadow of annihilation. Their reprieve is welcomed and anxious, while their testimony is documented to provide trace and evidence of their existence, against the obliterating eraser of time and history. “Four Soldiers,” has been adamantly compared to Mingarelli’s earlier novel “A Meal in Winter,” which was nominated for the Independent Foreign Fiction Prize in two-thousand and fourteen. The hallmark of Hubert Mingarelli’s styles is highly praised: his restraint and acute sense of detail to offer inclination of larger dramatic events, as his lyricism to offer an engaging and otherwise poetic portrait of events imagined but more than probable. If Hubert Mingarelli probes the microdramatics of a macro historical event, Annie Ernaux instead takes the perspective of history as a form of introspective exploration; after all, Annie Ernaux has made a career of her autobiographical writings, whereby she recounts with great accuracy and detail the personal in reflection of the grand. She has been considered and called one of the most important writers of the French language, and her hybrid novel “The Years,” is being called her magnum opus, her own brief version of: “In Search of Lost Time.” The ‘novel,’ (?) is based around the autobiographical, and recounts Annie Ernaux’s life from her working-class upbringing and childhood, to her years as a teacher, but also as a mother and a wife, but also as a divorcee. The book, however, is praised for its ability to invert and contort the idea of autobiography, as the novel is presented and narrated by a choir proclaiming ‘We,’ before slipping into the third person. The personal and collective are recounted as reflections of each other and waltz around the room without complicating the independence and sovereignty of the two. History becomes tangible, concrete and lived when anchored with the personal narrative, perspective, and memories of one who experienced the march as it happened.

Marion Poschmann is a German poet and writer. Her novel “Die Kieferninseln,” or “The Pine Islands,” was shortlisted for the 2017 German Book Prize. The novel was praised by critics for its unique cross-cultural journey of a, German man who decides put distance between his wife and himself and go to Japan, a place that neither interests him or sparks any joy. Yet while in Japan he traces the footsteps of the great Japanese poet Basho, and makes the pilgrimage to see the moon above the pine islands, while accompanied by a student who is guided by a travelogue devoted to suicide. Its been praised as mordantly humorous and deeply philosophical, as the questions of western thought are juxtaposed by eastern—and more specifically—Shinto philosophy and religious concepts.

Samanta Schweblin is also a returning name to the Man Booker International Prize. The Argentinians first novel: “Fever Dream,” was nominated in two-thousand and seventeen, and was included on the two-thousand and eighteen, Best Translated Book Award longlist. Now she returns with her short story collection “Mouthful of Birds.” The collection is being praised as dreamy, surreal, and unsettling. In sparse and direct prose Samanta Schweblin quickly refracts reality as a tangible and concrete subject, while blending and transcending generic and genre narratives to create a kaleidoscope to present a unique perspective of the world and the individuals who inhabit and experience it.

Juan Gabriel Vásquez, hails from Columbia, a country riddled with strife and civil war, which has just recently reached a shifting compromise of uncertainty that, maintains a loose ceasefire. His novel “The Shape of Ruins,” provides an almost conspiracy aesthetic accountancy of two political assassinations of Columbia’s past, which ripple through time in a informal flux providing a bedeviled portrait of the Columbia that would be. Juan Gabriel Vásquez is a prominent star in Columbia’s literary culture. His novel “The Sound of Things Falling,” won the International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award, and was immediately proclaimed as a masterpiece hailing from the Southern Continent of the Post-Boom era.

Alia Trabucco Zerán is the final author coming from South America, with her novel “The Remainder.” Zerán’s debut novel is riddled with history, tragedy and pain which echoes through generations. The story is riddled with the past and the sadness of Chile’s complicated history. This same history equally turns its attention to the personal and the private, which readily ripples forth and throughout. With mordant sense of humour, and a lightness of touch Alia Trabucco Zerán is able to depict the tragedy of history and its ramifications and consequences on future generations. It has been described as a masterful debut.

In his novel, “The Death Of Murat Idrissi,” Tommy Wieringa discusses the complicated world of immigration and cultural assimilation, while probing the loss of identity that can brought on by the lack of unified identity associated with geographical positioning. Yet the novel explores with the darker world of culture and humanity, as two women set forth to their parents homeland only to find themselves engulfed in a exploitive world of human trafficking, and the advantageous opportunism that exists in the power struggle for an individual seeking a better life elsewhere, and those who control the shady gets for those dreams. It’s a novel which carries a heavy social connotations and commentary, and could not be considered more relevant in today’s world than ever before.

The longlist wraps up with two Arabic language writers: Mazen Maarouf who encompasses the dual identity of Palestine and Iceland, and the Oman writer, Jokha Alharthi. Jokha Alharthi’s novel “Celestial Bodies,” describes the national via the process of the private and personal. The novel recounts the lives of three sisters and their family, as they witness the coming of age and development of Oman as a nation in its own right from its own traditions and cultural lineages, into a unique country after independence from colonial rule, all through the microscope lens of ones families love, losses, and triumphs. “Jokes For The Gunman,” a collection of short stories by Mazen Maarouf moves in a completely different direction. The stories have been described, as unsettling, bizarre, surreal, and uncanny. They’re dreamlike in their strange maneuverings, as they recount the anonymous lives, trivialities, and bizarre interactions of people in unknown and unnamed cities, which could be seen or depicted as anywhere. The stories take influence from the early Latin American Boom writers, as they revolted against the absurd violence and strangeness of their own lands, as Mazen Maarouf does much the same, as he recounts and depicts the arbitrary violence with grand absurdity, and with Beckettian or Kafkaesque humour, exploits the absurdity in the illogical, whereby the menace creates a mordant sense of humour in which one can only laugh.

Such is the longlist for this year’s Man Booker International Prize. It is comprised of varying narratives, varying styles, and varying languages and perspectives. It blends both the well-known with the up and coming. New writers are expertly being included along with established winners and former nominated writers. The world of translated literature appears to always be on full display, with this modest depiction to show what treats exist out there, waiting to be devoured with the greatest enthusiasm. There are sadly, obvious omissions from the longlist, including Ersi Sotiropoulos with her novel “What’s Left of the Night,” which I look forward to purchasing along with other books in the coming week(s). The longlist above has also given me plenty of writers to research, review and contemplate on, while I begin to put together a list of books to binge on, before the funds run up once again.

 Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

The Nobel Foundation Agrees to the Nobel Prize for Literature

Hello Gentle Reader

As already mentioned the final chapters of the Swedish Academy’s scandal are beginning to end, which will mean the book will soon be closed and written on as a unsightly chapter of the academy’s illustrious history. Through the previous year, the Swedish Academy maintained with great confidence that they will award two laureates for the Nobel Prize for Literature this autumn. The Nobel Foundation, however, viewed the situation differently, going so far as to contemplate that this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature could very well go without a laureate as well.

Yet, through the past few months and late last year, the Nobel Foundation had consulted, counselled, and directed the Swedish Academy to reorganize and rearrange its affairs. The Nobel Foundations Executive Director: Lars Heikensten had even publicly stated the Nobel Foundation would go so far as to consider finding another institution to award the Nobel Prize for Literature. Thankfully the Swedish Academy compromised on the caveats issued to them and will be able to retain its status as a Nobel Awarding Institution.

It should be noted and reminded that one of the caveats that the Nobel Foundation issued to the Swedish Academy with regards to retaining its awarding privileges, is that the Nobel Committee will also be open to five external members who are completely sovereign and separate from the Swedish Academy. These five external members are of course prominent or up and coming critics, journalists, academicians, writers, poets and playwrights in their own right—so they are not completely ignorant or rebellious to what the prize represents. This being said: another caveat has been issued with regards to how the Nobel Committee exists and who sits on it. For the past decade or more Horace Engdahl has been a prominent member of the Nobel Committee, first as Permanent Secretary, and then as a regular member of the committee since his resignation as the Permanent Secretary in two-thousand and eight. Over the past year though, Horace Engdahl has been a polarizing figure within the Swedish Academy as well as the public, due to his blatant use of external media to vent his frustrations of the academy as well as defend his friend and now convicted sexual assault/rapist Jean-Claude Arnault. Due to this, the Nobel Foundation and the Swedish Academy agreed that Horace Engdahl will no longer be sitting as member on the Nobel Committee, and will not have a guiding opinion on who will win the prize. Engdahl will retain his seat as a member of the Swedish Academy.

The newspaper Svenska Yle, has also reported that there have been changes to how the Nobel Committee will conduct its business as well. In years past, the Nobel Committee would draft a shortlist of five authors who they presented to the Swedish Academy as potential possible Nobel Laureates for the year; this shortlist was then read and reviewed; discussed and debated by the academy as a whole, before a final decision was made. Now, it appears the Nobel Committee will only present one potential and possible laureate for review and discussion. If this is true, the future laureates could be considered more controversial then those of years past, as it limits the input, expertise, and advise of all members of the academy, from being able to choose the future Nobel Laureate(s) for Literature.

The Swedish Academy is expected to host a press release later this week (most likely Thursday) to give its perspective on the matter as well.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

For Further Reading—

The Nobel Prize (Website) Press Release 

DW: "Nobel literature prize for 2018 and 2019 to be awarded this year,"

Politiken: "Two Nobel Prizes will be distributed in literature this year - prominent member thrown out,"

Aftonbladet: "Horace Engdahl leaves the Nobel Committee,"

Svenska.Yle: "This year, two Nobel Prizes will be awarded in literature - and Horace Engdahl will be petted from the Nobel Prize work,"

Sara Danius Relinquishes Seat with Swedish Academy

Hello Gentle Reader

The Scandal that left the Swedish Academy in ruin last year is now entering its final stages of closure. The remaining smoldering hot spots have either been extinguished or are in the process of being extinguished. There is no denying that the past year had seen the once magnanimous and secretive royal institution, pushed to the brink of obliteration and implosion. Member vacancy rates were unprecedentedly high, to the point the academy could no longer hold a quorum, which resulted in Royal intervention and an amendment to the statutes, including the statute that membership was for life.

The scandal, however, was a public affair, which tantalized and entertained the public with both disgust and intrigue. The usual graceful and silent veneer of the secretive eighteen members, quickly dissolved, showcasing how human they were in their publicly advertised faults. Each new day brought a new chapter in the ensuing chaos of the scandal. Alliances were formed and allegiances were broken. Two former members are often considered the sacrificial offerings to the scandal:

Katarina Frostenson, whose husband originally caused the foundation to crumble, due to allegations and accusations of sexual assault and nonconsensual sex, which allegedly the Swedish Academy was aware of, and did nothing to dissuade or stop. The allegations grew more intertwined with the academy as the assaults allegedly took place on Swedish Academy owned property, and that Katarina Frostenson had leaked future laureate(s) and Nobel Prize winners to her husband, Jean-Claude Arnault. Further issues grew, with the fact that the Swedish Academy had been funding the Forum, a cultural club owned and operated by Jean-Claude Arnault and Katarina Frostenson, which has been called a severe ethical violation and conflict of interest. Needless to say, Jean-Claude Arnault was formally charged with sexual assault and was convicted of two counts, whereby he is serving his sentence in prison. Katarina Frostenson, however, bitterly refused to rescind her seat, until after she had received financial compensation from the academy as a whole, despite the fact, via two different external investigations had proven she had broken the statute of secrecy on multiple occasions. She has since resigned from her chair, earlier this year.

Sara Danius, was the former Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, when the scandal first broke out. As the public face and voice of the Swedish Academy, it was her responsibility to be the media relations representative of the academy as it wished to assure the public the issue was being handled internally and would be resolved without complications. Sadly, by the spring of two-thousand and eighteen, the scandal had erupted and no internal governance was in place to contain the contamination which had spewed forth. Sara Danius, as Permanent Secretary, was immediately met with mutiny by members of the Swedish Academy: Horace Engdahl, Sture Allen, and Goran Malmqvist, who publicly denounced and decried her as a failure in her position; and from there the dogs of war had been released. As the scandal grew increasingly out of control, and the academy was pushed to the brink of obliteration, it became apparent that the two warring sides needed to compromise. It was agreed, that Katarina Frostenson was to recuse herself from the academy’s work (not formally resign) and Sara Danius would relinquish her position as Permanent Secretary. Danius not only relinquished her position but also formally recused herself from the academy’s work, at which point Anders Olsson became the pro-tempo Permanent Secretary.

Now almost year later, Sara Danius has decided to also formally resign from the Swedish Academy. The decision has not been made entirely clear, but it has been reported that Anders Olsson will soon be stepping down as the Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy due to age, and Sara Danius had shown an interest in reclaiming the position she formally held. The academy is said to have declined. Danius accepted the motion as is and has decided to formally resign from the academy, which also includes financial easement.

The Swedish Academy now has three seats sitting vacant:

Chair No. 7 – Formally held by Sara Danius

Chair No. 9 – Formally held by Jayne Svenungsson

Chair No. 13 – Formally held by Sara Stridsberg

Chair No. 18 – Is currently elected to: Tua Forsström – though her induction does not take place until December 20^th of this year.

In a statement, Anders Olsson has said all three remaining vacant seats will be filled by women.

It is sad to see Sara Danius’s role with the Swedish Academy so quickly dismissed and painted over. As Permanent Secretary Sara Danius relished and thrived in the role of media relations, though the decision to choose Bob Dylan as a Nobel Laureate (though not her decision to make singularly), was controversial and not appreciated by the literary community. Yet, her handling of the situation was impeccable, though often challenging. In the end, Sara Danius’s role and function within the Swedish Academy has expired, and she will move on to other ventures. When asked about the current reputation of the academy, she had said it will most likely take ten years for it to regain its full integrity back, as the damage has rippled and been viewed globally.

This my Dear Gentle Readers, certainly must mark the closing chapter(s) of the Swedish Academy crisis and scandal. Though a torrid and dirty affair to watch, it was like a slow train wreck one could not help but continue to watch, with almost sadistic guilty pleasure. The scandal showed the internal workings of the Swedish Academy—or lack thereof—with frank and brutal honesty, as the academy severely lacked formal policies, procedures, and governance practices with regards to transparency. For all its glitz and glamour, there existed at the heart of the matter a dark and disturbing and even rotting festering fiendish culture of silence and explicit corruption, which denied all attempts at change or transparency, out of fears it would be exposed.

In the end it was exposed, with no winner to be crowned, and the world was deprived of its Nobel Prize for Literature for a year. 

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

For Further Reading—

The Economic Time: "A Year after quitting as permanent secretary. Sara Danius steps down from Swedish Academy," 

Vt.se: "Sara Danius ville tillbaka – fick nej,"

Tua Forsström, Elected to the Swedish Academy

Hello Gentle Reader

What wonderful news! What truly superior and delightful news the Swedish Academy has announced! Tua Forsström, an accomplished Finnish, Swedish language poet is the newest elected member to the academy!

Tua Forsström is not a new name to this blog. She has been a perennial writer who I included on my Nobel Speculation lists, and by my own admission is perhaps one of the few writers who I secretly held dear and always hoped would be elevated by the Nobel’s nod. Admittedly, however, I am not a poetry reader. Poetry has and is to me a rather cryptic and hermetic literary format, eschewing the basic principles of communication in favour of veiled imagistic depictions and emotional solicitation. Yet, much like Nobel Laureate Wisława Szymborska, the works of Tua Forsström are not necessarily hermetic or pompous, nor is there any evidence or inclination of pontification. Much like Wisława Szymborska, Tua Forsström’s poetry is intimate and graceful, cloaked within the mundane and the ordinary at which point the extraordinary is readily revealed. Her language is simple and conversational in tone, often pondering, reflecting and inquiring, which increases the intimacy and inclusive nature of her work. Then on the contrary, this same tenderness expressed to one reader is equally provided to another, and the quiet ruminations quickly become universal. Her topics are equally as profound: the passage of time, death, memory, nature—but they are all relayed and depicted in the same grace and simplicity that has become the hallmark of her renown and following. If poetry is to maintain any relevancy in today’s media saturated world then it should take a leaf from Forsström’s book: cease and desists its grand impersonations and imitations of eras now fallen to the wayside, and embrace honesty, veracity, simplicity, grace and refined elegance, as well as sophistication; save the drudgery of the pomp and poncy for T.S. Eliot’s pretentious predilections; and abandon the pyrotechnical proliferations of the grandiloquent exemplary showcase of one’s own dexterous pen and mind for those who lack the consideration and confidence to be direct and at ease.

Tua Forsström’s newly elected status to the Swedish Academy is bittersweet: with her election and new membership, Forsström will be considered virtually (if not explicitly) out of the running for the Nobel Prize for Literature. Though, it could be considered consolatory in a way. If one cannot achieve and receive the golden nod, then at least one has the opportunity to be a part of the decision and participate in the pronouncement of the new laureate, even if one cannot become one.

It should also be noted, her inclusion to the Swedish Academy is being welcomed with applause and cheers by all—both in Sweden and Finland, but also those who care to observe from around the world. Tua Forsström is also a unique introduction for the Swedish Academy: she is the first Finnish citizen, Swedish language poet to be included in the academy, which in itself is being considered recognition for the Swedish linguistic minority in Finland, but also a well-deserved compliment towards Finnish literature as a whole, who has produced some truly astounding and talented writers, who lay dormant and undiscovered due to linguistic barriers and borders.

Tua Forsström will take Chair No. 18—the chair formally held by the disgraced member and poet, Katarina Frostenson. Forsström will have no formal participation or activities to conduct with the academy until she has been inducted on December 20 of this year, during the Swedish Academy’s annual general assembly.

I would deny it Gentle Reader, I am thrilled by this inclusion, as well as disappointed, but more exhilarated then anything! Tua Forsström is a amazing poet and a sleeping giant of Nordic Literature, she is one of Finland’s foremost poets, and one of the greatest poets currently at work in the Swedish language! I think the inclusion of Tua Forsström will be a hurricane of fresh air (not a breeze or a breathe), as she lives and works outside of Stockholm—not saying she will not take up part time residence within the Swedish capital—but her sovereignty and distance will carry a clear and sober perspective to the academy, who could use a dusting in its self-indulgent superciliousness pomposity.

What wonderful news, Gentle Reader! What beautiful and wonderful news! How overjoying it is to see proper recognition provided to the deserving!

Congratulations Tua Forsström! Though it’s no Nobel, it is slight consolidation! Please bring sober thought to the academy, and don’t stop writing!

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

For Further Reading—

Svenska.yle: "Tua Forsström succeeds Katarina Frostenson in the Swedish Academy - first Finnish-Swedish author elected,"

Hufvudstadsbladet: "Sweden praises Tua Forsström: One of our biggest and finest,"