Introduction –
Well
Gentle Reader it is that time of year once again, where Nobel Speculation is
set to begin. This year, we are to expect two Nobel Laureates in Literature,
two make up the absence of last year’s award. A thorough discussion of that is
to follow, along with a speculative perspective of how the absence of last
year’s award, and the reasons why, may affect this year’s decisions, along with
recent changes to the Swedish Academy.
Here
are the quick stats of the current speculation list:
Writers
by Geographical Area –
Africa
– 12
North
Africa & Middle East – 13 12
Europe
– 40 38
Australia
& Oceania – 1
Asia
& the Indo-Subcontinent – 18
South
& Latin America; Including the Caribbean – 11
Conventionally,
Gentle Reader, I would have the succeeding shortlist posted and published by
August 14th. Unfortunately do to the size of this year’s speculation
list, I may have bit off more than I can chew, due to time constraints,
immediate issues, and areas which require absolute, and otherwise abrupt,
undivided attention. In other words: in order to properly compile, and write it
accordingly, this year’s speculation list will be delayed; that being said:
the speculation list should—and will be published—no later than: August 23rd.
Edit: My Dear
Gentle Reader. The speculation list is in the final stages of completion, and
will be posted tomorrow: August 15 2019. Unfortunately three authors were cut for a lack of sufficient
information found on themselves, and their work to give a proper overview, which
brings the speculation list down total down to 92.
I look forward to hearing from you Gentle Reader, with all your comments, thoughts, opinions, discussions, and
recommendations! It is always a pleasure to hear from you!
A Movement of
Missteps –
In
two-thousand and seventeen, social scandal rocked the world. Due to what was
then being described as: the largest social movement of the decade and the
largest social media driven social movement in recent memory: the #MeToo
Movement. The #MeToo Movement was a social media driven social movement, where
woman took aim at sexual assault and abuse they’ve endured in the workplace,
and in their personal lives, and sought to call out men on their piggish and
predatory behaviour. The movement advertised serious issues, and levied claims
against successful men in particular, as accusers named and shamed them, via
online social media, and media sharing platforms such as: twitter, Facebook,
Instagram, and YouTube.
The
first and perhaps still most notorious case of name, shame, and blame, was
aimed at executive film producer: Harvey Weinstein, whose alleged sexual
misconduct, was wider then his backside, as his accusers shared increasingly
disturbing testament. Following
Weinstein a plethora of other men, of the Hollywood Elite, were quickly
targeted by the movement. In the beginning, the entire movement and subsequent
scandal carried the air of a tabloid bulletin. It was limited in its
perspective, to mainly the exploitation of actresses—be it veteran or up and
coming—who were expected to perform quid
pro quo services in order to advance their careers, obtain desirable roles,
or even to begin their career. Yet, the movement began to gain momentum, and
soon enough accusations were leveraged against politicians, nominees for
Supreme Court, university professors, businessmen, and even the United States
President. Not a day passed without some discussion or digression on the news
to discuss the latest accusations against a prominent male in his field, being
accused of sexual harassment, assault, or misconduct by a woman, through social
media.
The
#MeToo Movement was being described as a contemporary wave of feminism, another
strike in the progression of women’s rights. Yet, the movement became
unmanageable, and quickly began to splinter and showcase its inability to have
a uniform vision, and a complete disregard for bureaucratic impartiality, and
the laws reasoning without the passion. Accusers demanded action, but did not
want to testify in courts. They had no issue posting videos, tweets, or social
media stories, but lost the steam when legal process took hold. Rather than
seeing civilized judicial processes work; they wished to see fires at the
stakes, and naked men’s flesh blistering, peeling, bubbling and burning, as
they cleansed the world of its filthy penis ridden brethren.
Quickly,
this supposed social movement lost all nuance, relevancy, and steam.
Immediately becoming a caricature of the importance it was supposed to
represent. A generational divide took hold. Old feminists began to view the
entire movement as silly. It had grasped at straws, where it pulled a variety
of situations and examples, to provide a convoluted spectrum of competing
narratives, ranging from actual accusations of rape, to lukewarm cases of
accidental or casual workplace groping, which diluted the urgency of the movement.
The old feminist guard reviewed the situation with tepid hope, which became
concern. They offered advice, shared concerns, and hoped to support and guide
the younger generation towards reasonable expectations, and have a respect for
the judicial process. The younger twitter oriented, social media savvy
generation, looked at these perspectives as outdated, complacent, deprived of
the necessary drive and vigor. Needless to say, they did not heed or listen to
the warnings of their experienced counterparts; as the younger generation was
evidently out for blood, and a fiery reckoning.
These
winds of change, proposed by the movement, became nothing more than an
unremarkable fart—full of gas and straight out the ass. The entire movement was
riddled without unity, inability to listen or heed advice, be informed of the
workings of the appropriate institutions; but also having no clear direction,
no unity, no idea, and no notion. The entire movement failed for being
improperly managed. It lost its teeth with false accusations. It became
declawed with taking issue with everything. It lost its legitimacy when it
became a movement riddled of hatred towards the other gender. It lost its
sincerity, when it arbitrated who was a good feminist and who was a bed one.
What was supposed to be the New Wave of Feminism became a glorious failure,
which ultimately imploded on itself.
A Crack in the
Gold –
The
movement, however, gained inappropriate recognition or infamy, for why the
Nobel Prize for Literature was postponed. Though the media reports, sought to
grasp the sensationalism of the movement and apply it to the Swedish Academy’s
situation. Sexual misconduct was a mere element. It was the first crack in the
gold gilded armour of the Swedish Academy.
Jean-Claude
Arnault is the husband of the former Swedish Academy member, Katarina
Frostenson. Arnault was accused of disturbing predatory behaviour against young
women. His brazen appetite went as high as the Swedish Royal family, where it
was rumored he had made advances on The Crown Princess. The first accusation
dated back to the nineteen-nineties, when a letter was formally sent to the
then Permanent Secretary Sture Allén, who dismissed it at the time as
irrelevant. Yet it made it clear: The Swedish Academy knew about these
behaviours. Though Jean-Claude Arnault was not a member of the Swedish Academy,
he did have privileges and associations with them, thanks to his marriage to
his wife. Together, Jean-Claude Arnault Katarina Frostenson, were able to
co-own and operate a cultural club in Stockholm, which was financially
supported by the Swedish Academy. Jean-Claude Arnault also received inside
information from his wife, including who was to be the Nobel Laureate in
Literature. Due to his association with Swedish Academy, Jean-Claude Arnault
styled himself: “The Nineteenth,” Member.
With
the MeToo Movement, grabbing headlines in the United States, the accusers of
Jean-Claude Arnault took the opportunity to take aim and fire. This time they
struck, and provided the necessary crack in the gold. The accusers ranged from
female writers, artists, and even daughters of members of the Swedish Academy.
Detailed and objective accounts, articles, and testimony was released,
showcasing his perverse predator nature, and by being the unofficial
‘nineteenth,’ member, his association with the academy quickly pulled them into
the ensuring scandal as well. Interest was raised about the financial
assistance the Swedish Academy provided to Arnault and Frostenson, which became
an issue of ethics and conflict of interest. The Swedish Academy, launched an
investigation into the matter, and quickly discovered evidence that Katarina
Frostenson had breached the statutes of secrecy governing the Swedish Academy.
A Divided
Academy –
In
February of two-thousand and eighteen, the Swedish Academy held a vote on
whether or not to exclude—in other words, formally remove Katarina Frostenson
from the academy as a sitting member. Prior to this they had already cut all
associative ties with Arnault, and stopped providing financial assistance to
the club. The vote of exclusion failed.
The
vote reads as follows:
Chair
No. 1 – Lotta Lotass – No Vote Cast (considered an inactive member)
Chair
No. 15 – Kerstin Ekman – No Vote Cast (considered an inactive member)
Chair
No. 13 – Sara Stridsberg – No Vote Cast (no specified reason)
Chair
No. 18 – Katarina Frostenson – No Vote Cast (as the vote was about her)
Chair
No. 2 – Bo Ralph – Vote to Retain
Chair
No. 3 – Sture Allén – Voted to Retain
Chair
No. 4 – Anders Olsson – Voted to Retain
Chair
No. 5 – Göran Malmqvist – Voted to Retain
Chair
No. 6 – Tomas Riad – Voted to Retain
Chair
No. 9 – Jayne Svenungsson – Voted to Retain
Chair
No. 14 – Kristina Lugn – Voted to Retain
Chair
No. 17 – Horace Engdahl – Voted to Retain
Chair
No. 7 – Sara Danius – Voted for Exclusion
Chair
No. 8 – Jesper Svenbro – Voted for Exclusion
Chair
No. 10 – Peter Englund – Voted for Exclusion
Chair
No. 11 – Klas Östergren – Voted for Exclusion
Chair
No. 12 – Per Wästberg – Voted for Exclusion
Chair
No. 16 – Kjell Espmark – Voted for Exclusion
As
the vote failed, three members excused themselves from the academy:
Chair
No. 10 – Peter Englund
Chair
No. 11 – Klas Östergren
Chair
No. 16 – Kjell Espmark
Spring is The
Season of Scandal –
With
the symbolic resignation of three members, the Swedish Academy fell into chaos,
as the Swedish Academy grew increasingly divided. The then Permanent Secretary
of the Swedish Academy, Sara Danius, sought to maintain composure within the
Academy. The inactivity of Peter Englund, Klas Östergren, and Kjell Espmark
were publicly noted, with statements offered to the press going over the
rationale behind their decisions. Suddenly, the Swedish Academy—the gilded gold
academy of secrecy, high culture and literary values—openly vented and vexed
their frustrations publicly, and against each other.
Chair
No. 3 – Sture Allén
Chair
No. 5 – Göran Malmqvist
Chair
No. 17 – Horace Engdahl
Took
to the stage and immediately began to criticize the then Permanent Secretary Sara
Danius for her management of the situation. Horace Engdahl in particular was
especially vocal, going so far as to call Sara Danius the greatest failure in
her position. The Swedish Academy had finally entered full crisis mode, with
Sara Danius left to hold composure of the otherwise silent and stoic
institution. Unfortunately, every week the scandal continued to grow, with no
allegations, and slanderous remarks thrown across the table. The situation
gained the ire of the Nobel Foundation—the protector of the Nobel Prizes—who
saw the conflict as damaging, and its infective stain tarnishing the Nobel
Prize for Literature.
By
May of two-thousand and eighteen, more members had taken a symbolic ‘leave,’
from the Swedish Academy. A deal was struck between the two opposing sides:
Sara Danius would relinquish the role as Permanent Secretary, and Katarina
Frostenson would step aside from the academy. Sara Danius, not only recused her
role, she became inactive from the Swedish Academy, and Sara Stridsberg
followed. The Nobel Foundation, remained concerned and furious over the lack of
proper governance being instituted by the academy, and his Majesty the Swedish
King grew equally concerned. The Nobel Prize for Literature: postponed.
Anders
Olsson became the pro-tempore Permanent
Secretary of the Swedish Academy, in the absence of Sara Danius. The crisis
though, continued to fester. Immediate resolutions need to be made. The Swedish
Academy reviewed, renewed, and revised their statutes, including conflict of
interest clauses, tightened secrecy statutes, as well as media relations clauses;
but most importantly it finally gave access for members to resign, and no
longer hold their seats for life. A mass exodus followed, and the academy no
longer had enough members to hold a quorum. Though, Peter Englund and Kjell
Espmark made passive returns, to assist in electing new members to the academy.
Members
of the Swedish Academy who formally resigned afterwards:
Klas
Östergren
Lotta
Lotass
Kerstin
Ekman
Sara
Stridsberg
Jayne
Svenungsson
Compromises
& Changes—Today –
The
Nobel Foundation remained unconvinced of the Swedish Academy’s attempts to
regain its composure, and set out its own conditions for the Swedish Academy to
meet, in order for the academy to retain its position as an awarding
institution. A compromise was made: five external members to the Swedish Academy
were brought on to assist the Nobel Committee in selecting potential candidates
for the Nobel Prize for Literature, on a two year term.
These
External Members are:
Mikaela
Blomqvist
Rebecka
Karde
Kristoffer
Leandoer
Gun-Britt
Sundstrom
Henrik
Petersen
The
issue of Katarina Frostenson also remained. Her husband was convicted of sexual
assault and sentenced to two years and six months in prison (after an appeal
convicted him two counts of sexual assault) along with financial penalities and
fines of SEK 215.000. After litigating an exit strategy, Katarina Frostenson
also formally resigned from her chair with the Swedish Academy, earlier this
year. Sara Danius followed in February, formally resigning from her seat with
the Swedish Academy.
With
their numbers depleted the Swedish Academy had made a contentious effort to
elected new members to the Swedish Academy, and now at the end of this year,
the Swedish Academy will finally have a full eighteen member active roster.
Anders
Olsson relinquished his seat as the pro-tempore Permanent Secretary of the
Swedish Academy, and one of the newest members: Mats Malm, has become the new
Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy.
The
Swedish Academy now appears as follows:
Chair
No. 1 – Justice Eric M. Runesson
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 – Åsa Wikforss (formal
induction December 20th)
Chair
No. 8 – Jesper Svenbro
Chair
No. 9 – Ellen Mattson (formal
induction December 20th)
Chair
No. 10 – Peter England
Chair
No. 11 – Mats Malm, Permanent Secretary
Chair
No. 12 – Per Wästberg
Chair
No. 13 – Anne Swärd (formal induction
December 20th)
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 (formal
induction December 20th)
The
two laureates for this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature is expected to be
announced on: Thursday, October 10th, 2019. Two months from today.
A Note on: Tua Forsström
–
When
compiling the speculative list for the Nobel Prize for Literature, many writes
are reoccurring; and unabashedly I often begin to pick my favourites to win.
Tua Forsström is (or rather was) one of them. When I began to write this year’s
list, she was the first writer I wrote about. What I had stated about Tua
Forsström is as follows:
[ Tua Forsström –
Finland (language Swedish) – Tua Forsström is a critically acclaimed and
renowned Finnish-Swedish language poet. The publication of a new poetry
collection by Forsström is often considered a literary event. She has won
numerous literary accolades, including the Nordic Concil’s Literature Prize;
and has been translated into numerous languages, including English. As a poet,
Tua Forsström eschews ostentatious lyricism and hermetic linguistic
cryptography, in favour of a language which is simple and clear. Her poetic
language is highly regarded for its graceful delivery and wise tone, as well as
its interpersonal touch. Tua Forsström
rejects philosophical digressions, pretentious pandering, lectures and
pontifications. Instead, Forsström employs an open and simplified poetic
language to offer commentary on existential themes, human existence, the
Finnish landscape, as well as thoughts regarding the everyday, the common
place, and mundane, as a theatre in which these themes are enacted and played
out. Her work is noted for being conversational in appearance and accessible by
all readers—devote poetry readers and not. Motifs such as: aging parents, new
homes and towns, winter journeys, animals, as well as pop cultural references
all make appearances in her poems and poetry collections. As a poet, Tua
Forsström values empathy and communication, over intellectual analysis, which
is perhaps why she is highly regarded as a poet and writer, for her ability to
move beyond and away from the ivory tower, and openly converse with her readers
via her works. Her work is paradoxically intimate, by being both conversational
and accessible to all readers, while also maintaining a stringent sense of
probity with regards to the poetry format, intellectual expression, and
existential concerns. To date, Tua Forsström has published twelve collections
of poems, her previous collection of poetry: “Anteckningar,” or “Notes,” last
year. The collection was again critically acclaimed for its subtlety, empathy,
graceful execution and expected wisdom. ]
Her
election to the Swedish Academy now ensures she will never receive the Nobel
Prize for Literature; though I am extraordinarily happy for her. She is a remarkable poet, and I hope her
unique perspective will carry her far within the Swedish Academy, and provide
them the necessary breath of fresh air to make some extraordinary,
announcements and choices with future Nobel Laureates—perhaps even lobby for a
Finnish writer to win (here’s looking at Sirkka Turkka then).
In Honour of
Herta Müller –
Ten
years ago, the Romanian born German author, Herta Müller won the Nobel Prize
for Literature, with the following citation: “who, with the concentration of
poetry and the frankness of prose, depicts the landscape of the dispossessed.”
Since
winning the Nobel Prize for Literature, Herta Müller has become one of my most
favourite and beloved writers; sadly, I had not known her or read her until
after she won the award. Her prose is beautiful, frightening, poetic, lyrical,
fragmented, and pixelated. Her work deals with oppressive abuse of power,
control, and authority of totalitarian governments, and the tenacious
resilience of the individual in order to survive under them, as well as the
vulnerability they experience while living under such conditions. Her literary
output is based off her own experiences as an individual, and writer who was
born into the Soviet system, where she suffered censorship and surveillance, as
well as discrimination, and exhaustive mental torture, while living in Soviet Romania,
under Nicolae Ceaușescu; before being allowed to leave, and live in exile in
the then democratic West Germany. Her Germanic heritage and language, was also
a point of contention for Herta Müller in Romania. She spoke the language of
the fascists and Nazi’s of the Second World War, and who were the ultimate
enemy of the Soviet Union, prior to the Cold War.
Despite
this, Herta Müller channeled these experiences into her work, creating a
beautiful and tortured narrative of life under a dictatorship, and the
necessary means to dissent against it, while not going insane. Her writings
classified her as an enemy of the state, where she experienced an increase in
harassment, surveillance, and interrogation from the Securitate (the secret
police). Herta Müller’s dissidence and conviction worked in her favour. By
nineteen eighty-seven, she was granted permission to leave, and her work now
being published in German, found a ready readership, who showed had a curiosity
into the workings behind the Iron Curtain.
After
the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the Iron Curtain, and the
destruction of the Berlin Wall, Herta Müller has been an adamant and active
supporter of dissident writers across the world. She is a vocal critic of
authoritarian governments, and has aligned herself with human rights groups and
liberty advocates, continually opposing the outputs of tyranny salt and
peppered throughout the world. Recently, she helped secure the freedom of Liu
Xia, who now resides in Germany, working towards rebuilding her career as an
artist, and perhaps now properly mourning her husband the late Nobel Laureate
in Peace: Liu Xiaobo.
As
a reader, Herta Müller has informed me a lot about the human potential for
cruelty and sadism; but also about the undying, unequivocal, and unimpeachable ability
of the human spirit to resist, and persist forward. The singular strength of
character, in which Herta Müller possesses, is astonishing. The ability to
remain devoted to one’s own convictions, despite the political atmosphere is
incredible. She is a testament to the power of the human spirits ability to not
only destroy, but also flourish in protest. She is by far a powerful and unique
writer, who rightfully deserved the Nobel Prize for Literature.
Two Nonagenarian
Poets –
Philippe
Jaccottet – Switzerland (French language) – Philippe Jaccottet is a Swiss born,
French language poet and translator. Jaccottet is one of those renowned but
quiet giants of Swiss and French language literature. His poetry is known to tackle
the dual theme of perception of reality and the feelings of reality. In other
words, Philippe Jaccottet endeavors to find a relation between the natural
worlds via the subjectivity, but tackles the matter in two different ways. The
first way is the way in which the world is observed and subjectively perceived
by the individual; while the second way, is grasping the emotional responses of
the observed world. This is why his poetry is often called paradoxically
simplistic and profound (other state mysterious). After the Belgian poet Henri
Michaux; Philippe Jaccottet is considered one of the most important French
language poets of the twentieth century. Due to Jaccottet’s contribution and
devotion to French literature and poetry, he has been inducted in to the: “Bibliothèque
de la Pléiade,” (Pleiades Library), in two-thousand and fourteen. This marks
Philippe Jaccottet as the fourth Swiss writer to be included in the Pleiades
Library; and in a rare, one of the few writers to be inducted while still
living.
Friederike
Mayröcker – Austria – Poetry is a difficult product to bring to market.
Translated poetry experiences greater hurdles because of its reliance on the
linguistics of its mother tongue, to show complete effect. Avant-garde and
experimental poetry is often deemed to be left untouched. Poetry is considered
a niche market; or rather, an extremely small flea market. It’s deemed an
obscure and obsolete form of communication. High school poetry segments and
lectures, have since taken the sand paper to any budding poetic pallet, and
rubbed it clean of any airy thoughts or desire to ever read or consume poetry.
Poetry is the sick man of the literary world. Its old, it’s crippled, it’s
sickly, and has since been moved to attic to suffer in silence. It’s ignored
and ostracized; it’s not welcome at the party, its conversations are either
self-absorbed in nature, or there to prove how clever it is; or it sits there
grasping at the air searching for the most perfect words to express that
particular moment, which no one has time for because the beat has dropped. Yet,
there are still those who practice the form, keeping the dying flame above a
shallow smolder. Friederike Mayröcker is
one of those poets, who doesn’t care if poetry has fallen to the way side. Her
poetry is experimental and avant-garde, and yet she is still considered one of
the greatest and refined Austrian poets and of the greatest contemporary poets
at work in the German language. Her poetry is known for its free style writing,
where liberty is taken with association, and private obsessions, all wrapped up
in her linguistic gymnastics. Friederike
Mayröcker eschews national and political association in favour of the
individual and experience. It’s through this personal language and experience,
often employing a collage like language to display her unique poetic
perspective.
Anne Carson—Canada’s
Unknown Secret –
Canada
is not necessarily known as a literary country. It doesn’t have a long elegant
literary history. Its heredity doesn’t have: Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy,
Virgina Woolf. Nor does it have the likes of: Honoré de Balzac, Emile Zola, Charles
Baudelaire, Marcel Proust, or Gustav Flaubert. There is no Thomas Mann, Rainer
Maria Rilke, or Herman Hesse.
Instead,
Canada is growing a bit of a literary identity. For the longest time, Canadian
literary was dominated by Margaret Atwood, and even now it is dominated by
Margaret Atwood’s appearance. Other writers have written works within Canada,
but few have gained the same recognition as Atwood, whose work goes beyond just
writing, but also environmental activism, innovation, and public speaking engagements.
In this sense, the ability to be seen and heard plays a part on the worth of
being read. On the contrary, there are writers like Alice Munro, who has won
the Nobel Prize for Literature, and who has been deemed by the Swedish Academy:
“Master of the contemporary short story.”
Alice
Munro, by comparison worked tirelessly and quietly in writing. She obeyed the
social conventions of Canadian society, and never made a fuss, never boasted or
advertised, and never became arrogantly prideful. When she won awards, she was
gracious, kind, sincere, and humble. When she won the Nobel Prize for
Literature, she accepted the award with casual understated grace, making no
fuss, or taking airs of grandeur, she remained humble. Well deserved, for an
author who had spent decades refining her craft, and maintaining a devotion and
conviction to the short story form, whose short stories were able to perform extraordinary
feats within a few pages that many novelists required hundreds of pages to
present. Her psychological precision was also noted as being a hallmark of her extraordinary
craft.
It
came as a surprise to me personally when Alice Munro was announced as the Nobel
Laureate in Literature for two-thousand and thirteen. I had expected that the
only Canadian to have a chance to receive the award would have been the poet:
Anne Carson.
Anne
Carson appears to tick all the boxes of the Swedish Academy: relatively
unknown, practically obscure, and a striking conviction and devotion to a
unique and experimental style of poetry, which poets decries as poetry, and
prose writers decry as not being prose. In essence: Anne Carson had blended her
own unique style, which is gaining greater international appeal, but still
overlooked by the majority of Canadians.
Anne
Carson is still defined as a poet, but her form is a blend of different forms
to create her otherwise unique style. In her poems, Anne Carson utilizes
aspects of essay, literary criticism, and other forms of prose to create a
pastiche form of poetry, which pushes poetic forms to more erudite heights.
Still, her works are still called prose in verse; poetic essays; prose poems;
and verse novels. The work of Anne Carson may employee structural and formal
experimentation, but never at the expense of the subject, or the theme in
discussion, or lessens the emotional impact the work seeks to deliver. In this,
Anne Carson has the pleasure of being both intellectually stimulating, and
emotionally moving, without compromising either. Anne Carson has no competitor who
writes quite like her; her form is her own, and she employees it with the
greatest results. A pity in Canada she’s considered an unknown secret. The work
of Anne Carson is admired across the world though; if memory serves me
correctly, Rebecka Karde, one of the external members appointed to the Nobel
Committee, has noted that she enjoys Anne Carsons work.
Lest We Forget –
Not
all great writers receive the Nobel Prize for Literature. Time is always of the
essence. Writers are mortal, and as such are at the mercy of the scythe clawing
through the sands of time. Many through illness, accident, suicide, or natural
causes succumb to the mortal inevitability which awaits us all. Despite not
receiving the Nobel Prize for Literature they are still great authors, based
off their own merit alone. However, some authors neglect or omissions from the
Swedish Academy are not always as forgivable. Leo Tolstoy for example was
praised on one hand by the Swedish Academy, for his immortal works: “War & Peace,”
and “Anna Karenina,” but, was dismissed due to his social and political
theories, as well as his new translation of the new testament, which was
riddled with ‘half mystical, half rationalistic spirit.’ The Tolstoy snub, has
been a difficult shadow to get out from behind. The American poet Robert Frost
was also refused the Nobel, on the grounds of his advanced age, and the
complications it would present. Jorge Luis Borges was tied in knots over his
neglected nod. It is theorized Borges, was often turned down do to his vocal
support of dictators like Augusto Pinochet of Chile and Jorge Rafael Videla of
Argentina; as well as being an adamant critic of Communism. Henrik Ibsen is
perhaps one of the most unfortunate writers who were overlooked. Ibsen is the
most important playwrights since Shakespeare. Ibsen did die while the Nobel’s
were still in their infancy; but he was discussed by the Swedish Academy, was
ultimately turned down because he was too realistic, and not idealistic enough.
It should be noted, in these early years, the Swedish Academy ‘literally,’
interpreted the contents of the Alfred Nobel’s will, and in doing so sought to
award writers who wrote with an ideal bent; before abandoning this approach in
favour of a contextual interpretation, which varies in its grounds of
interpretation year by year or decade by decade.
The
following writers are writers who never received the Nobel Prize for
Literature; for whatever reason, on whatever grounds. I include them here, to
honour them as worthy, powerful, and timeless. Their work in their respective
genre or field or their cultural influence be it national or international are
difficult to dismiss. But I also choose to honour them on personal grounds as
well.
Antonio
Tabucchi – Italy – Antonio Tabucchi was a giant of world literature, a
refreshing voice, with a unique perspective of the world. Tabucchi was often
called the ‘heir of Italo Calvino,’ as Italy’s greatest writer—and in becoming
Italy’s greatest writer, Tabucchi would be forced to shoulder the mantel of the
nationalistic hopes and dreams of the government, for a Nobel Prize in
Literature. This is slightly ironic, as Antonio Tabucchi, could not be bothered
by nationalistic desires, hopes or dreams; his predilections took greater
importance and priority, then anything nation interested. One such interest
would become Antonio Tabucchi’s greatest influence: the esoteric poet, and
medium of writer(s): Fernando Pessoa, and his numerous literary identities or
alter egos, the Heteronyms. Fernando Pessoa, was a unique and obscure
character, who only found his recognition after his early death; it was there
his masterpiece “The Book of Disquiet,” was discovered, as well as his poems
republished, among other miscellaneous writings. What truly separate Fernando
Pessoa, from anyone prior, was his unique use of literary alter egos
(Heteronyms), who wrote under their own names, as well as in their own writing
style. Fernando Pessoa was a writer in plural, a conjurer of the occult in the
literary; a creator of writers, held in his own body. Through Pessoa, Antonio
Tabucchi was introduced to the Portuguese language, and from there a love
affair bloomed between Antonio Tabucchi and Portugal. Fernando Pessoa makes
appearances in Tabucchi’s work, such as “Requiem: A Hallucination,” as well as
“Dreams of Dreams.” Despite being a Pessoa scholar, Antonio Tabucchi’s work
goes beyond Pessoa. Antonio Tabucchi wrote numerous novels and short
stories—and even professed the short story was his natural format. His work
deals with identity, chance and fate; enteral themes such as love, death, and
memory; as well as the accuracy of history and the individual entrapped in
historical contexts. Like any good writer though, Tabucchi had a lightness of
touch and never displayed these themes with a lead hand. Unlike Italo Calvino;
Antonio Tabucchi, was noted for being both socially committed and politically
engaged; he was an adamant critic of the former prime minister of Italy Silvio
Berlusconi; and his novels are also known for displaying political themes and
discussions, where they criticize and revolt against dictatorships, the
corruption of power, and the abuse of authority. Antonio Tabucchi was a great
writer, timeless, important, entertaining, and thought provoking. He was the
best kind of literary writer, one who had the touch of a literary magician, who
could be read with enjoyment, and still offer questions to ponder.
Mu
Xin – China – The twentieth century was one of those miserable centuries,
plagued by grand wars, political change, upheaval and revolutions, dictators
rose and fell, empires dissolved, weapons of mass destruction were developed
and released; and through it all, people sat in front of their radios or later
on their television, and listened and viewed these events as curiosities, of
tragedy and success, but always as far flung events which are of no
importance—or more accurately: of no real effect or concern to them. These
events were simply parochial skirmishes, far beyond suburbia, and therefore
were not a threat. These events and tragedies did have victims. Thousands and
millions of people died or were displaced. Families were torn apart or killed.
Hope became terror. Mu Xin is one such victim. Mu Xin, before the Chinese civil
war and subsequent Cultural Revolution, was an individual of prospects. His
family was filled with intellectuals, with no surprise; Mu Xin would receive
classical education. Then political reform and revolution took place, and Xin,
like all intellectuals and children of intellectually prosperous families, was
deemed an enemy of the state. Mu Xin would be taken as a political prisoner due
to his enemy status; his writings and paintings destroyed. This would begin the
author’s prosecution under the Communist regime, and Xin would become political
victim of circumstance, fate and family. Yet, persisted and as he survived the
Cultural Revolution, Mu Xin would enter exile, to only live an isolated and
alienated life. During his exiled years, Mu Xin wrote and painted; but his
writing had no published, and it was banned from his home country; while his
paintings were shown in his exile, they did not receive much in attention or
acclaim. Consolation though was at hand, at least in exile, he was capable of
writing and painting without fear of repercussion, prosecution, or having them
confiscated or destroyed. Despite being underappreciated and relatively
unknown, Mu Xin would eventually find success in his twilight years. All that
suffering would eventually come to their end, when he was welcomed back to his
homeland of China, where his work was published and devoured; his paintings
were on display and appreciated. Mu Xin died in two-thousand and eleven,
without a Nobel; but he would have been a perfect candidate. His masterly of Chinese, is classical and
culturally pure, beyond political revolutions. His work is uniquely Chinese,
often dealing with themes of Chinese culture, but it has a unique twist as
being reminiscent of the modernist masters of the western canon. Mu Xin was a
true bridge, he blended China’s illustrious literary heritage and history, with
modern western thought, to create a unique perspective and genre all his own.
His work (often called ‘sanwen,’) is a unique blend of essay, short story and
poetry. Despite not receiving a Nobel, Mu Xin, found peace with his soul and
his native land, and was able to leave the final five years of his life in
China. Mu Xin is perhaps one of the greatest discoveries and writers I have
ever had the pleasure of reading.
Simin
Behbahani – Iran – Being referred to as the “Lioness of Persian Poetry,” is an
invigorating honour, which reflects both grandeur and fiery spirit. Roar claws
and all. Simin Behbahani was a lioness, with a poetic career and oeuvre
reflecting the echoes and reverberations of her nuanced and beautiful observations
of Iran. Her work is known for encompassing a wide variety of themes including:
revolution, war, peace, abject class disparities, martial life, domestic
violence, gender discrimination, patriotism, aging, love, death, and global
violence. Her poetry is noted for its warmth and welcoming nature, but also for
being armed with arsenal of experiences and perspectives documenting the
difficulties and trivialities of the modern Iranian experience, while also
promoting freedom of expression, gender hegemony, and egalitarianism; making
Simin Behbahani an engaged socially aware and politically vocal writer, seeking
to better Iran and the human race beyond its petty squabbles. Behbahani often
employed mundane daily events to provide narratives for her poetry, such as
her: “From the Street,” cycle, where she recounts, depicts, and observers the
contradictions and paradoxes of the modern Iranian experience; such as woman
who gives birth while waiting for food rations, or another women who is stoned
to death. In this Iran is a mere shadow of itself; with its historical
achievements and cultural accomplishments. Now Iran is a place ruled by archaic
doctrines, while surrounded by the superficialities of modern furnishings.
Simin Behbahani is not without suffering for these causes. She was censored and
harassed. She was interrogated by the police for celebrating International
Women’s Day in the streets of Tehran; and was banned from leaving the country
to celebrate International Women’s Day in Paris. On these grounds Behbahani, is
often strictly called a feminist, meaning someone who is only concerned with
the rights and lives of women, and the social progression of women through
society. This is an inadequate description. Simin Behbahani was humanistic,
more than she was myopically concerned with the female side of the human
spectrum. Behbahani was concerned with basic principles and ideals of the human
experience; the same principles, ideals and freedoms denied to Iranians by the
government and its theocratic blindness. Simin Behbahani proclaimed, fought,
wrote, and roared about these ideals, and did her best fight for them. She
sought egalitarianism, freedom of expression and speech, social progression et
cetera; while staying free of the trap falls of partisan politics. Man, woman,
Islamic faith or not; it did not matter to Simin Behbahani, as she believed
every human being belonged to the same race, deprived of these notions which
separate and isolate each other. Her poetic perspectives are tinted with the
feminine experience and emotional responses, because that is who she was. Yet,
she fiercely protected and fought for her ideals, her perspectives, and voiced
them without hesitation. She suffered the consequences of them as well,
politically and socially. Resilient as always Simin Behbahani became an
admirable figure of resistance, and conviction in her ideals. Beyond her
socio-political engagements, Simin Behbahani, is also known for writing some of
the most important verse of Persian literature in the twentieth century. She
revolutionized poetry, by including theatrical subjects, as well as daily life
events, and mundane conversations. It is somewhat of a public record that Simin Behbahani was nominated for the Nobel
Prize for Literature twice; and it also somewhat public record that in order to
be considered, you need to be nominated [I think] three times. If only Simin
Behbahani had been nominated more, she perhaps would have had a greater chance.
Regardless, she was a striking revolutionary poet whose merit, ideas, ideals,
and fighting spirit live on in her verse.
Anna
Akhmatova – Russia – Just over fifty years ago, Anna Akhmatova found herself at
the potential threshold of becoming a Nobel Laureate. The only condition is,
should have shared the award with Mikhail Sholokhov. This all took place back
in nineteen-sixty five, when there was serious discussion about the award being
split, either between: Jorge Luis Borges and Miguel Ángel Asturias (on the
grounds they wrote in the same language), Nelly Sachs and Shmuel Yosef Agnon
(for their preoccupation with the Jewish people and spirit), or finally: Anna
Akhmatova and Mikhail Sholokhov (on the grounds they wrote in the same
language). These propositions were shot down; mainly because if the award went
out like this, it would mean the Academy was split and a compromise was the
only agreeable route. In the end, Mikhail Sholokhov, took the prize.
Nineteen-sixty five was the first year Anna Akhmatova was nominated for the
prize, and sadly would never receive the Nobel nod. Yet, Anna Akhmatova lives
on as a somewhat resilient and stoic figure of the early Soviet period. The
poet was known as the Soul of the Silver Age, before the Stalinist Terror took
hold. Her poetry is often divided into two categories, here early output, and
her later output. Akhmatova, gathered success early in her career, as she was
refreshing, daring and above all else new and exciting. Her women readers would
compose poems for her, emulating her style; and for the briefest of moments she
would experience the lighthearted joys of life. It would all change, after the
Russian Revolution during the First World War. After which the terrors and
purges would take place, the Russian intelligentsia were in shambles. It was
during this time, Anna Akhmatova’s poetry was censored, her first husband
killed, and her son would be sent to the gulags. Her friends would either be
exiled, sent to a gulag or commit suicide. Anna Akhmatova, continued to live,
despite the misery the reigning Soviet regime poured down, and she never left
Russia, she remained despite the limitations, the lack of prosperity, and the
censorship. Anna Akhmatova remained, and in her later years of poetry output
would document the horrors of Stalin’s reign and terror in her poetry,
especially the tragic masterpiece: “Requiem,” a poetic cycle detailing the
times, the fears, and the horror. Despite her being the muse and observer
watching the wretched horror of revolution and authoritarian government take
control, Anna Akhmatova would once again relieve he joys of the Silver Age, in
her longest poetry cycle: “Poem Without Hero,” it is here she recounts the joys
and kindness she once enjoyed; a complete contrast to what had come. Anna
Akhmatova is a unique figure of Russian literature. On one hand she was this
successful poet, acclaimed by readers, as lovers were once said to have quoted
her poetry; and on the other, she is this poetic chronicler and engaged
observer, who opened her mouth and a thousand mouths screamed forth. Now, Anna
Akhmatova is considered is beloved, and considered one of the greatest poets of
Twentieth Century Russian Literature. Nobel or no Nobel, Anna Akhmatova gave
voice and hope to the people during the purges, the terrors, and the
uncertainties of the time; but she also gave them hope, warmth, and injected
iron into their soul, to resist and endure.
Yves
Bonnefoy – France – People always say nice things about someone when they die.
Its honouring both the life lived and the individual who had lived it. Most
obituaries are riddled with factual information, a brief vignette of the
individual’s life, and then surviving family; if the circumstances are tragic
or extremely unfortunate, such as young, murder or accident, they mask for a
donation to a charity in lieu of flowers. Writers—or rather, individuals who
have obtained a certain prestigious position, meaning politicians, artists,
dancers, musicians—generally get a little bit more to their celebration of
life. Yves Bonnefoy was no different, and certainly anything else would never
do him justice. After all was considered the pre-eminent French language poet
before his death, not after; but he was herald as one of the greatest French
post-war poets of the twentieth century.
Yves Bonnefoy showcased his poetic genius upon his debut with: “On the
Motion and Immobility of Douve,” a poetic sequence which tackled the obscure
womanly figure, but also recounted the death and rebirth of the poetic format;
beyond its poetic themes and narrative, the debut was considered a technical feat
of mastery; and from this point on, Bonnefoy would become one of the most
renowned and respected poets of his generation. Beyond poetry, Yves Bonnefoy
was a renowned translator (Shakespeare) as well as art critic; he was also
noted for his essays and literary criticism. His poetry reflects the world in
which was born into, a world on the brink of collapse, devastated by war,
civilized culture in ashes, and man vs man the only doctrine that mattered. In
this, Yves Bonnefoy’s poems sought to find meaning in another meaningless
world, in an age and era devoid of meaning. Perception and language are the
main tools for which, the poet attempts to find meaning or give meaning or
apply meaning; such as observing the individuals place in the natural world;
while language is the key in which the individual understand and comprehend the
world, offering it meaning by naming it, and giving it a sense of identity.
Yet, Bonnefoy’s poetry is noted for being obscure and highly difficult to read;
and the poet made no apologies for the difficulty of his poems. Yves Bonnefoy’s
contribution to French language poetry cannot be overlooked or dismissed; his
work went from attempting to create or find spiritual or philosophical meaning,
in a world gone mad; to his later poetry where he found at least enough
spiritual tranquility to be at peace with it. His poetry is high and difficult,
but admired nonetheless. His criticism of literature and art, are equally well
respected. Yves Bonnefoy, was an intellectual through and through, with the
right amount of luck, grit, and intelligence to make his mark on the world.
Calling him, France’s pre-eminent poet, does not begin to do the poet justice;
but it’s a start.
Ricardo
Piglia – Argentina – Ricardo Piglia was one of the most renowned and respected
writers to come from South America; and is considered the successor of Jorge
Luis Borges. Piglia was noted for his novels, short stories, as well as his
essays and criticism. His essays and criticism, has often titled him as a pop
culture historian, as he wrote extensively on numerous authors, especially
Jorge Luis Borges, Julio Cortazar, and Manuel Puig. His critcimism and essays
on these writers, often gathered Piglia the title of a pop culture
historian. Ricardo Piglia’s fiction,
especially his novels, were known for displaying his interest in genre fiction;
but like many of his postmodernist contemporaries, it was a facade, in which
Piglia was able to exploit in order to apply his literary and philosophical
interests and knowledge. Ricardo Piglia, was a giant of contemporary Argentina
literature; his works could straddle entertaining and thought provoking; his
criticism and essays, were thorough and philosophically curious. He was a
postmodern master of South American and Argentinian literature.
Philip
Roth – United States – There can be no denying that Philip Roth is one of the
most important writers of American letters, during the late half of the
twentieth century. His work was noted for its strictly American appeal, based
around his Jewish-American identity and heritage, often providing the
semi-autobiographical components to his work. Whenever there was a literary
prize, and Philip Roth was on roster, it was undoubtedly going in his
direction. The American literati adored him. Students either enjoyed his work,
or found him insufferable and narcissistic, to the point of being bland,
boring, and asphyxiating in his continual kneading of his already traced works.
Philip Roth utilized social commentary and political satire, to engage his narratives
with a broader sociopolitical perspective beyond his own semi-autobiographical
preoccupations. In the end: Philip Roth was either a writer you enjoyed or you
despised. The literary elite praised him at every opportunity provided; such as the case when he won the PEN/Faulkner
Prize three times, and being the only writer to do so. Yet, one literary prize
did not cater to Roth’s coveting, drooling, and obsessive desire. The Nobel
Prize for Literature routinely passed over Philip Roth in favour of other
writers. This only appeared to infuriate Roth on a personal level, though
nothing confirmed beyond the usual rumblings, grumblings, and rumours provided
by associates and friends. The Western media took Philip Roth as their poster
child to continual protest against the Swedish Academy, and its perceived
European Preoccupation. Every year, when a new or unknown author received the
award, the American media would erupt in its continual pantomime, screeching
and hooting: “Who?’ at the new
laureate, and instead promoted Philip Roth as a more suitable candidate and
worthy winner. The Swedish Academy in routine indifference ignored this and
continued with its usual business, which in Philip Roth’s case, was to never
award him the prize. This, I am sure infuriated Philip Roth, who it appeared in
his later years, took the attitude of a spoiled child. Throughout his literary
career he was continually praised, and prized with great awards, it became an
act of convention and not necessarily a matter of merit. To be denied the Nobel
Prize for Literature I presume, infuriated the author, who often took an
arrogant stance towards the prize, as it took great efforts to avoid him. He
touted the superior quality of American literature to its European
counterparts, which always appeared to be the petulance of pouting child,
denied their cookie before dinner. In this Jorge Luis Borges and Philip Roth
shared one thing in common: the Swedish Academy ensured they would never
receive the award. Jorge Luis Borges was more outspoken about his disdain
towards the continual snub, and Roth resented in seething silence.
Unfortunately, I doubt I’ll live long enough to know why the Swedish Academy
hesitated (or outright denied) Philip Roth the prize; I wonder how humorous
their commentary was with its regard, did they find him asphyxiating?
Insufferable? A narcissistic blowhard? I’ll never know; but what I do know is:
he never received the Nobel Prize for Literature, which I made in qualm of stating
openly that I enjoyed it. I am one of those readers, who had tried to read and
even enjoy Philip Roth, but instead found the most insufferable individual to
sit with. Roth’s narratives and prose are lackluster, lacking in any character
or charm, and are relentless in their otherwise boring self-absorbed
preoccupations.
Eileen
Chang – China & Hong Kong & United States – When it comes to
geographical identity, Eileen Chang remains mercurial. The China of her youth
is lost to history, and has been bleached clean from the corrosive touch of
ideological standards. Hong Kong, where she had lived for afterward China
became inhospitable, has also changed now a densely populated city of steel,
glass, and people. The United States, where she lived for the remaining forty
years of her life, was nothing of either significance to the author, other than
providing her a place to live, where she died as a recluse. Home for Eileen
Chang is best only described as Shanghai, the Shanghai of the early Twentieth Century,
now lost once again only to be rebuilt anew. After her death in nineteen-ninety
five, Eileen Chang was described as a giant of Chinese literature, and yet
barely heard of in the English speaking world, where she resided for the past
forty years of her life. During the Cultural Revolution, and after the Chinese
Communist Party had cemented themselves as the government of China, Eileen
Chang’s work was banned from publication. It was only after the old guard of
the communist party and died, did Eileen Chang begin to have her work restored
for Chinese readers to enjoy once again. The works of Eileen Chang beckon a
time and an era, now gone and lost to the void. In the short time that Eileen
Chang had success, and was a literary superstar, she was a forefront writer of
Chinese modernism, in the waning years of the Qing dynasty. Chang’s novels
combined the Qing Dynasties set traditions and cultural habits, infused with
the modernizing world, including, fashion, slang, and new notions of liberty, independence,
and freedom. The author explored the middle class mentalities of the time, with
a global touch and influence, with the tint of irony. Her work is noted for its
precision, its beauty, and its preoccupation with woman at the time, and their
expectations versus expectations of the family, and society as a whole. Her
short stories, novels, as well as her screenplays, explored the concerns of the
heart, in these claustrophobic chamber dramas which often border the
melodramatic, for its concerns of the human heart. The exploration of the human
heart is the main course of Chang’s work. She preferred to fixate on the more
intimate and personal details of the world, rather than comment on the
political, despite its overarching influence—such as war separating and
dividing the populace, or ending the routine processes of life. Instead Eileen Chang
provides a portrait of an era, the golden years of its time, complete with all
the glamour, and languid luxury, which inevitably be lost in a few short years.
Glamour, luxury, and harmony, comes at price; and for women it comes at the
price of what they can sell, or other assets they can liquidate. In this (or
these) cases, it is their body. With no skill, no trade, and no education:
there is nothing but the market of flesh in order to sell, and Eileen Chang
does not ignore this reality, she openly displays the exploitation and asks the
question: is this the notion of fair enough? Eileen Chang can build
expectations before thwarting them. Her pen precise, unflinching and realistic,
even when it depicts the intimate tragedies of her chamber operas, and show the
heart doesn’t beat just with hope, but also with the cruel reality that it
knows nothing else. To read, Eileen Chang is to be blown back to a world no
longer around, but its realities are still relevant and real to the world
today.
FIN –
There
it is Gentle Reader, the preemptive beginning for this Nobel Prize Speculative
List. I plan on getting the list up sooner if possible, and if that is case,
please rest assured Gentle Reader, I will make edits here to inform you of it.
I look forward to sharing this year’s speculative list, which includes 95 writers. Your comments, thoughts, opinions, and recommendations are always warmly
welcomed. The above is simply ruminations, thoughts, and opinions, as well as
an overview of last year’s scandal.
The
decision to award two writers in memorandum of last year’s delay has received mix
response by some. Sara Danius, the former Permanent Secretary and member of the
Swedish Academy, had stated she believed only one writer should receive the
Nobel Prize for Literature in two-thousand and nineteen, and the absence of
two-thousand and eighteen, should be a reminder of the Swedish Academy’s
failings. On the other hand it has been forty-five years since the Nobel Prize
for Literature was shared between two writers. The last time, the award was
shared, was in nineteen seventy-four when: Harry Martinson and Eyvind Johnson,
shared the award. Controversy ensured as the two writers were both Swedish, but
also members of the Swedish Academy when they were awarded. The outcry and
criticism aimed at the Swedish Academy was swift and severe. It took years for
the award to regain its sense of significance after this egregious misstep. Criticism will undoubtedly follow this year’s
prize as well. If the Swedish Academy awards two women writers, then it will be
seen as panhandling to gender politics and not strictly adhering to the higher
art of literary merit. If the award does not award a female, the outcry will be
just as intense, as critics will view the Swedish Academy as harbouring a
perspective that alienates women writers, and views them as trivial or less
then. It’s a difficult situation the Swedish Academy finds themselves in, and
one in which I do not envy. The appeasement of anyone in today’s world is next
to impossible, and they have given themselves a Sisyphus like task.
This
year we will also see new Permanent Secretary Mats Malm announce this year’s
winners. It will be interesting to see how he carries out his functions and
obligations as Permanent Secretary. Two months from now Gentle Reader, we will
find out.
Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take
Care
And
As Always
Stay
Well Read
M.
Mary
