Hello
Gentle Reader
The
return of the Nobel Prize for Literature is complete. On this exceptional and
rare occasion two writers have become Nobel Laureates at the same time.
Olga
Tokarczuk, received the retroactive award for the Nobel Prize for Literature of
two-thousand and eighteen, with the citation:
“For a narrative imagination that with encyclopedic passion represents the crossing of boundaries as a form of life.”
Peter
Handke, receive the Nobel Prize for Literature of two thousand and nineteen,
with the citation:
“For an influential work that with linguistic ingenuity has explored the periphery and the specificity of human experience.”
Leading
up to this monumental award, I viewed the prize with tepid trepidation. The
external factors created concerning atmospheres, whereby these external
concerns would be used as the scales in which to weigh and balance this year’s
laureates. What a dreadful prospect. The idea that social criticism, critiques,
concerns, and social media movements, coupled with niche political agendas,
influencing the literary award for apologist reasons, became a cause for
concern for the awards immediate future. Thankfully, the Nobel Committee who
held the most clout with this year’s deliberations managed a delicate
transition. Kudos and bravo to them!
The
New Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy Mats Malm also handled his new
role within the Swedish Academy exceptionally well; though his position has
been momentarily reduced in comparison to previous Permanent Secretaries of the
Swedish Academy such as: Peter Englund and Sara Danius. Despite this, Mats Malm
carried himself with stoic dignity, as he welcomed those in attendance to the
Swedish Academy’s announcement. There was a bit of confusion, in understanding the
Permanent Secretary Mats Malm (at least on my end) when he moved between speaking
in Swedish to English. Despite this, he performed his role with exceptional
ease.
The
mood, however, within the hall was subdued in comparison to previous years.
When Nobel Laureates: Tomas Tranströmer, Alice Munro, or Svetlana Alexievich, there
were cheers, cries and claps of encouragement. This year the silence became a poignant
soundtrack to the announcement. It became a biting observation, expressing
blatant judgement and acute scrutiny of the procession. The following panel
interview with members of the Nobel Committee which were:
Anders
Olsson (Chair)
Per
Wästberg
And
three members from the external branch:
Rebecka
Kärde
Mikaela
Blomqvist
Henrik
Petersen
The
mood for the interview or panel discussion was equally as quiet, lackluster and
dare I say boring. In previous years, when the Permanent Secretary had
facilitated any interview with a journalist, in the background one can hear the
mingling of those in attendance, reporting and discussing the announcement. The
Permanent Secretary would then been engaged in a conversation with regards to
the Laureates work, some reasons as to what made them standout, what are their personal
recommendation for new readers to begin with their work, as well as other
personal details as necessary. The interviews are noted for being short, light,
and provide a quick overview and personal observation of the Laureates work.
This year, this enjoyable process was absent. Instead journalists in attendance
were encouraged to ask questions to the above listed panel. The mood was not
casual. Instead the entire setup came across as stifling, controlled, staged
and uncomfortable. The discussions taking place where mainly in Swedish, which
on my end was a bit alienating—but that’s beside the point. The casual informal
release of years past was severely absent. This year’s set up came across as a
formal institutionalized stage show, reminiscent of a strangely strict school
assembly.
Before
the Dual Announcement of the Nobel Prize for Literature for two-thousand and
eighteen and two-thousand and nineteen, there were a few posts issued on the
Nobel Prize Facebook page.
·
The
first post was a picture and a quote by Nobel Laureate: Rabindranath Tagore.
·
The
second post was a quote by Nobel Laureate: Ernest Hemingway; complete with a
photo.
·
The
final post was another quote by Nobel Laureate: Nadine Gordimer, complete with
her Nobel profile photo.
The
Hemingway post worried me the most. The thoughts bubbling through my mind were
frightening. The first one was the disappointing thought was the idea that once
again there will be another English language author receiving the award; how
boring. Then these thoughts became more sinister. What if it was a writer who
admires or worst emulates Hemingway? “Oh sweet Jesus fucking Christ, not
Jonathan Franzem!” I screamed in the early dark hours of the morning. I am sure
I woke the neighbours.
The
Nadine Gordimer post offered assurance that at least one of the winners would
be a female winner; but also provoked my thoughts as to perhaps it’s an
inclination to the African continent as well? Who could that be: Mia Couto or Ngũgĩ
wa Thiong'o? Perhaps, Ben Okri or Tierno Monénembo? Being a little more
imaginative it could have been a nod to: Antijie Krog or Nawal El Saadawi. I
calmly reassured myself that due to the new dynamics of the awards—‘awarding
structure,’—the decision had yet to be decided. At least it was my
understanding that final discussions were taking place at 11:00am, Stockholm
Time that morning. Regardless there wasn’t much discussion to have, as the
Nobel Committee had already made the decision, the Swedish academy is merely
operating as a rubber stamp in the meantime.
Yet
on cue at 1:00pm Stockholm Time, Mats Malm made the announcement of the double
Nobel Prize for Literature. Their names: Olga Tokarczuk and Peter Handke; are
flying around the literary world, and even the internet. What’s missing is the
perennial hooting “Who?” of the insular journalists; which must be a sign that
these two names are familiar with the global and international literary
stage—and they are.
First:
Olga Tokarczuk
The
reception of Olga Tokarczuk receiving the Nobel Prize for Literature has been
met with a unanimous chorus of approval. Readers, critics, and journalists have
all praised the acknowledgment of the Polish author, who joins of the ranks of
previous Polish Nobel Laureates: Czesław
Miłosz and Wisława Szymborska. Though to a degree, it would have been curious
to award Adam Zagajewski; that way the Nobel Prize for Literature really could
have crowned the royal triplets of contemporary Polish poetry, for a three of a
kind. Still, I am delighted to see Olga Tokarczuk receive the retroactive Nobel
Prize for Literature for two-thousand and eighteen.
Over
the past few years, Olga Tokarczuk’s success, renown and recognition in the
wider literary world has grown significantly. After the translation and
publication of her monumental novel: “Flights,” Olga Tokarczuk, would go on to receive
the Man Booker International Prize, and be engulfed in a whirlwind of success.
Despite having two novels previously translated in the English language:
“Primeval and Other Times,” and “House of Day, House of Night,”—the Polish
author remained relatively unknown to English language readers. These two
novels though are worth just as much attention as: “Flights.” They are examples
of the early gestation of her famous writing style called: “fragmented
consciousness.”
“Primeval
and Other Times,” was the first novel I had read by Olga Tokarczuk, roughly six
years ago. The novel recounts the eccentric lives and destinies of the
inhabitants of a small Polish village called: Primeval; which is guarded by
four angels in its four corners. The novel moves through the Twentieth Century
(1914 – 1980), and recounts the inhabitants of Primeval, which is not just
limited to the human inhabitants, but also: animal, mineral, vegetable, divine,
celestial and fungal. Some characters receive more exposure then others, such
as the Niebieski family; while others only make minuet appearances. But Olga
Tokarczuk ensures each character— regardless of the length of their
appearance—remains memorable and unique, with subtle inclinations of their
story still unfolding even if it’s not recorded. The novel itself is not
massive. It’s two-hundred and eighty pages; but is able to distill the
inhabitants’ lives and their experiences into the most essential framework. The
first half of the novel alone should be read for its warmth. The tone begins
with the bright light of summer days, and warm summer nights. The pages become
tinted in this almost airy baroque gilding. Of course good times never last,
and the Second World War hits Primeval, with Nazi occupiers, neighbouring the
once beloved residents, before the black and grey coats of the Nazi’s are replaced
with the red ideology of the Soviet Union. Time, politics, social changes,
ideology—they inevitably hammer, crack, and splinter away at Primeval and the
residents. The once pastoral idyll becomes a grey, lifeless world, oppressed by
foreign powers, and strict dogmatic ideological conformity.
“Primeval
and Other Times,” also showcases Olga Tokarczuk’s ability to depict archetypes
while avoiding the pitfalls of clichés, and entering the realm of caricature. Tokarczuk
is a trained psychologist and a student of Carl Jung; who she considers to be
one of her greatest literary influences. Her exploration of symbolism and
archetypical characteristics as a reflection of both an individual’s personal
consciousness, as well as societal consciousness; and even as an echo of how
civilization and human beings perceive, identify and comprehend the cosmos. In
this, Olga Tokarczuk is able to turn a single drop of water and force it to
become a prism that refracts the multifaceted notion of reality, viewed in a
new spectrum of perspective; while also being able to allow the single drop of
water to reflect and echo the grander collective ocean of the universe.
“House
of Day, House of Night,” is a similar novel to “Primeval and Other Times,”
again showcasing the authors signature fragmentary style, but also her research
capabilities as she explores otherwise forgotten, overlooked, or almost
mythical elements of European history. In this case the mythological story of:
Saint Wilgefortis, the female Saint who would grow a beard. The novel also
passed through similar grounds of the Polish countryside, especially near the
border of Czechia, and offered up some recipes for poisonous mushrooms. It’s a
novel that explores both the grander mythology of the landscape, but also the
personal realm of dreams, identities, and secrets.
“Flights,”
however, took Olga Tokarczuk to new heights. The novel (described as a:
“constellation novel,”) abandoned the skeletal scaffolding of the novel, in
favour of a loose short story, fictional essay like narratives and anecdotes
that orbited around themes such as: travel, movement, and border crossing. The
notion of travel is not a straightforward subject in Tokarczuk’s hands, as she
blends the theme with numerous conventional and unconventional narratives,
which includes anatomy, the calls of home, the transport of the heart, stories,
allegories, as well as personal observations and reflections. The novels
continual transition between narratives ensures it remains relevant, revitalized,
and interesting. “Flights,” remained a unique read from start to finish. It
really was a mixed bag of nuts, offering a new kernel or thought with each
chapter. It was never weighed down by a character, by a lack of action,
dramatics, or intrigue. Instead, Olga Tokarczuk provides unique details about
the human body, history, notions of travel, and migration. In today’s world of
closing borders, shutting down, and ignoring the calls beyond the way,
“Flights,” becomes a continual reminder that travel, movement, and progression
have what brought us forward today, and is not a unique habit to human beings,
but is a naturally developed and refined process found all over the biological
world.
The
decision to award, Olga Tokarczuk is not undeserved, but it is surprising. Her
literary reputation and recognition had just begun to grow, with publication of
the English translation of “Flights.” While her recent novel “The Book of
Jacob,” (originally published in two-thousand fourteen) caused a political stir
in Poland, when it not only questioned but openly exposed, the nations identity
as a victim of larger powers, and a sanctuary for the underdog, to be false.
Far-right politicians and nationalist groups immediately saw Olga Tokarczuk as
an intellectual enemy, one which denied the nationally accepted treatises on
such matters. Politicians casually would slander, deface, and decry Olga
Tokarczuk as a means of political maneuvering. Some of these politicians have
gone so far as to gloat they haven’t even read one of her books. All of this
only increased the authors reputation and profile. Being such a high-profile
author, riding on recent waves of success and exposure, it seems odd for the
Swedish Academy and the Nobel Committee to award Olga Tokarczuk at this time,
whereby in previous years they’ve waited, until the coals had cooled before
reigniting the fire once again. Being a female writer certainly did not harm Tokarczuk
chances either. Gender in this event, appears to have played little of a
role—though it cannot be denied as being a contributing factor. As a writer
though, Olga Tokarczuk has remained either indifferent or quiet on the matter
of gender and identity politics. She does not limit her perspective based on
these otherwise ubiquitous subjects. Instead, Tokarczuk focuses
on the human experience as a whole, one not incumbered or limited to the
biological components of birth. This being said, some have attempted to fixate
on Olga Tokarczuk’s gender, ensuring that she is noted as a ‘feminist,’ along
with other credentials to follow up the cause. This fixation on such a myopic matter
diminishes and insults Olga Tokarczuk and her work. Its an attempt at trying to
politicize the award further, by insinuating that the Swedish Academy and the
Nobel Committee had made an example that they’ve taken the previous year of
scandal, as a serious acknowledgement to their mishandling of the situation,
and the documented decades of failures leading up to the abrupt postponement of
the Nobel Prize for Literature. Taking this viewpoint does a disservice to all
involved: from the Swedish Academy, to Olga Tokarczuk, and any reader who seeks
out her works for an enjoyable and enlightening read.
On
a personal note, I’ve read all of Olga Tokarczuk’s work currently translated.
In this event, having a Nobel Laureate on the shelf before they get the: ‘Nobel
Prize,’ sticker on their book comes as a somewhat of a feather in the cap.
___________________________________________________________________________
Second:
Peter Handke
In
two-thousand and four, when Elfriede Jelinek learned she had become the Nobel
Laureate in Literature, she immediately stated her contemporary and compatriot,
Peter Handke was more deserving. Fifteen years later, Peter Handke would
receive the Stockholm Call. The decision to crown Peter Handke as a Laureate,
has been met with divisive reactions, leaving little room for one to stake out
their middle ground. Despite the white noise of the political bruhaha currently
surrounding Peter Handke’s win, it would be prudent to discuss his work first.
It
has been fourteen years since a playwright has received the Nobel Prize for
Literature. The last one Harold Pinter in two-thousand and five, had made a
long and outstanding career as a proponent of postmodern and experimental
theatre, exploring the bounds of language and communication, as well as memory,
and only later took to more political agitation. Following Pinter’s win, there
was a gap in a playwright receiving the award. Previously though: Gao Xingjian
and Elfriede Jelinek, had received the Nobel, and they were both renowned for
their works for the stage. Gao Xinjian blended western theatrics with
traditional Chinese theatre, which included dance, shadow puppetry, as well as
introduced absurdist theatrical works to a Chinese audience, gaining the
reputation as an avant-garde writer. Elfriede Jelinek has received
acknowledgement with her highly vicious and unsettling novels, but is more
renowned for her theatrical work. Jelinek’s plays are noted for their overt
political caricatures, themes, images, and criticism of society. They’ve been
described as grotesque, shocking, visceral, and thoroughly experimental, as
well as magnificent works of theatrical genius. Her theatrical plays are noted
for their precise attention to detail regarding language. They’re linguistic
gymnastic performances, employing high, low, and commercial cultural tropes to
create a schizophrenic collage of societal expectations, ideals, and believes,
which shape and configure the individual in societal standards; and all of this
is displayed through the careful musical and rhythmic structure of language of
her work. Elfriede Jelinek’s ‘post-dramatic,’ texts eschew the traditional
framework of a play. Characters are thinly designed, acting more as severed
voices in search of their body. Narrative, stage plots, blocking—the meat and
potatoes of the theatrical world, absent. Instead Elfriede Jelinek entrusts
these earthly details to the directors, stage hands, artistic producers, and
even the consultation of actors, who in turn embody the mercurial language of
Jelinek, giving it form.
Peter
Handke in companionship with: Gao Xinjian, Elfriede Jelinek, and Harold Pinter—is
a mammoth of global literature, and one of the most influential playwrights of
the latter half of the Twentieth Century. His debut for the stage: “Offending
the Audience,” first published and performed in the late Sixties, put Peter
Handke on the map as a rising heavy weight of German language literature. The
play itself—often deemed a “antiplay,” for its disregard of conventional
theatrical tropes—was praised for its thought-provoking premise and delivery,
where the audience became an active participant, and would be ensnared and
encircled by how language is used within the theatrical context. The play was
not a representation, but engage the audience in questioning the arbitrary
confines and institutions of both language and theatre.
“Offending
the Audience,” was followed up with: “Kasper,” another play that took
questioning stances towards language, as the foundation of human identity,
experience, as well as torturous device employed by society and individuals to
instate conformity, normalcy, and perceivable notions of the acceptable self,
which only negates the individuals ideas of themselves, reducing it to the
acceptable concept imposed by the collective. “Kaspar,” is lightly based off
the story of Kaspar Hauser, the historical character, of a young German man who
allegedly lived in a secluded imprisoned life the first seventeen years of his
life. In the work of Peter Handke, this dear Kasper only knew how to speak a
few words, and one complete sentence, and was quick in emulating the language,
body language and behavior of those around him. The titular Kaspar is a
creature of curiosity, and how language becomes a cruel inventive tool of
torture, negating and destroying the individual, and its tyrannical force exploiting
Kasper, and others who are more formed within the womb of the language. Once
again, Peter Handke was able to preoccupy himself with the use of language as
the focal point of the play, showcasing the terrible power that language
possess over people, and the tyrannical force it has when applied by societies
against the individual. “Kaspar,” was a phenomenal follow up to Handke’s debut
theatrical work. Handke would go on to write more plays and screenplays, each time
exploring the boundaries of the mediums.
Peter
Handke’s greatest renown, however, has been his prose works, specifically his
novels. The novels of Handke are much the same as his plays; they eschew
conventional notions of narrative, and instead fixate on language and its
engrossing power over the human experience, as well as the psyche of the
individual and the collectives’ recollection of the experience. Identity,
alienation, truth, the wasteland of the modern world, and the ability of how
language frames, forms, and provides a mercurial understanding are the tropes
of Peter Handke’s work. He is a first class postmodernist, one who could
entertain, baffle, irritate and dazzle in the span of but a few pages. The
quantity of his translations into other languages, confirmed his reputation as one
of the most invigorating and prominent writers on the international literary
stage. His plays were performed on theatres throughout the world. His
screenplays screened at international film festivals. His novels consumed by
the young and curious readers, who sought to find a writer who could adequately
describe the world they inhabited. Personally, I’ve read Peter Handke—not to
the same extent as Olga Tokarczuk as the availability and quantity of their
works is not comparable—and have enjoyed him. His work showcases the immediate
originality of his debuts, his boldness in experimentation, and his immediate
preoccupations and themes have never failed to inspire, shock, and test
audiences and readers alike. He remarkable literary output cannot be denied or
overlooked.
Over
the past few decades, Peter Handke has made a reputation for himself beyond his
literary output. Much like compatriots, Thomas Bernhard and Elfriede Jelinek;
Handke could often been described as an enfant
terrible; in German Nestbeschmutzer
(Nestbeschmutzerin). His literary
tone has always been unapologetically confrontational. His early sparring
partner was of course was the German language; which in the same vein as Thomas
Bernhard and Elfriede Jelinek, had become diseased and stained by the Nazi’s.
This was cemented further by Austria’s limpid response to being a collaborative
state with the Nazi Reich, and even attempting to hide its enthusiastic and
complicated past from being discussed openly. In this event, Thomas Bernhard,
Elfriede Jelinek, and Peter Handke, worked independently to rebuild the German
language, from the abused conduct of the previous decades. IN doing so,
however, they became extraordinary provocateurs. Elfriede Jelinek openly discussed
Austria’s shadowy Nazi past, and its lingering sentiments, which only
infuriated the political and the public. Despite the criticism Jelink continued
to provoke with added gusto. Thomas Bernhard famously called Austria:
“A
brutal and stupid nation … a mindless, cultureless sewer which spreads its
penetrating stench all over Europe.”
Peter
Handke is by no means any different. His issues with language immediately
sought to shock and offend the audience. His eye for detail and desire for
examination, often make him a literary pathologist, whereby he examines the
autopsied remains of the German language, and seeks to find the cure for its
future, in its ideological poisoned remains. When compared to Thomas Bernhard
and Elfriede Jelinek, Peter Handke often appeared moderate. Thomas Bernhard
took issue for the sake of taking issue, and often at the expense of others.
Elfriede Jelinek did not only poke the ulcers of the past, she created new ones
in which to drum on. Peter Handke had the allure of being experimental,
profound, moderate, offensive and postmodern while being successful.
Peter
Handke took startling political stances with regards to the Yugoslav Wars. The
Yugoslav Wars were one of the bloodiest fallouts during the collapse of the
Soviet Union. After the death of Josip Broz Tito in the nineteen-eighties; the
ethnic nationalism which he forcefully quelled, begun to reignite, in
particular: Serbians, under the instigation and political machinations of Slobodan
Milošević. With historical injuries from the Second World War still festering,
the Serbs manipulated the political uncertainty of the time, and began to
reform the autonomy the ethnic dominated provinces, which inspired former
Yugoslavian territories to seek independence, which the new Serbian
nationalist’s forces fought against—especially when it came to Croatia and
Bosnia & Herzegovina. The following wars fueled by ethnic hatred, would be
one of the most troubling conflicts to happen in Europe since the Second World
War, and marked the nineteen-nineties as a decade of genocide, with both the
Bosnian Genocide and the Rwanda Genocide.
Early
on Peter Handke had taken a strong stance favouring the Serbs during the wars,
and expressed support for Slobodan Milošević, going so far as to offer
continual support while Slobodan Milošević faced charges of war crimes, and was
detained at the Hague in the Netherlands.
After his death from heart failure, Peter Handke would make a eulogy at Slobodan
Milošević’s funeral. After Milošević’s death an investigation was conducted by
the International Court of Justice, whereby Milošević was acquitted of the
charge of committing genocide. However, Milošević was found guilty in violating
Genocide Conventions, by failing to actively prevent the genocide from taking
place, and not cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia in persecuting the perpetrators of the genocide. Despite the
acquittal and new findings, this continual fevered support, made Handke a
literary leper; or persona non grata.
His previous literary output could not be considered strong enough to outweigh
his otherwise controversial political statements. Handke never backed down, nor
apologized for his stance. He remained firm. Ever the provocateur, it seemed
Peter Handke had kicked the hornets’ nest, and this time was stung beyond
recognition of his former literary glory.
Now
for Peter Handke to receive the Nobel Prize for Literature has come as a shock;
and a controversial one at that. I thought the possibility of Peter Handke
receiving the award after his previous comments with regards to the Yugoslav
Wars, next to impossible. After just rising from their own bruise ridden
scandal, it would seem curiously masochistic for the academy to dive into
another one. Yet they have; though they have completed thorough research on not
only Peter Handke’s literary work, but also his well noted political
commentary.
In
an interview Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy Mats Malm, and fellow
member Eric M Runesson defended their
choice with a more rational stance, then Anders Olsson did during the ‘press
conference,’ when asked about Peter Handke’s political views. Anders Olsson
stated abruptly the award is literary and not politically motivated. On the
contrary Permanent Secretary Mats Malm and Eric M Runesson, instead defend the
decision with careful rationale. They describe the political commentary of
Peter Handke being less black and white as it has been painted. They defend
their choice first and foremost, by stating that under no circumstances has
Peter Handke promoted, advertised, vouched, or condoned the atrocities of the
Yugoslav Wars. Instead, Peter Handke at worst is playing devil’s advocate, and
at best: his statements were misconstrued.
Still,
the stance, position, and perspective Peter Handke has taken, does make me uncomfortable.
The more research I’ve done on the Srebrenica Massacre, the more horrified it
is to think how this terrible tragedy has gone unannounced, unremembered, or
even declared with abrupt honesty that it was a horrific genocidal attack on
the Bosniaks, is egregious. It makes me more uncomfortable to think that a
writer would involve themselves in stating with affinity (loose or otherwise)
that they believe it was anything but a genocidal act. Slobodan Milošević may
not have been convicted of Genocide, but his rabid dogs: Ratko Mladić and Radovan
Karadžić were; and there are plenty of others who have also been arrested,
tried, and convicted on equal charges. These convictions by otherwise impartial
judicial systems, cements the fact that the Srebrenica Massacre was not only a
war crime, but also an act of Genocide—even if the UN Security Council, refused
to declare it as such.
Peter
Handke’s remarks are questionable. They are difficult to swallow. They are made
even more complicated because I enjoy Peter Handke’s work. Despite this, the
separation of the literary work and the writer is not always a possible task. In
years past, I’ve made decisions not to read certain writers for what I saw as a
lack of intellectual integrity, such as the Chinese writer and apologist: Mo
Yan, who would receive the Nobel Prize for Literature. Mo Yan was noted for cozying
up to his political masters, essentially becoming a tool of propaganda, one
which praised the efforts of communism in China, while ignoring the current
states nationalistic aggression (past and present), as well as other deplorable
behaviours. He was an insult to writers such as: Gao Xingjian, Mu Xin, and Bei
Dao, who were persecuted relentlessly by the red communist machine, which was
hell bent on destroying them. Defenders of Mo Yan came to his defense stating
he had no choice in choosing to become close with party officials in China, in
order to maintain his position and his limited freedoms, while ensuring his
work would be published. This defense still does not appease me. Many writers
have risked life and limb to expose, revolt, rebel, and stand on integrity by
openly and directly opposing oppressive regimes, such as: Herta Müller, Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn, and Duong Thu Huong. The stance Peter Handke takes is different
than Mo Yan. Peter Handke does not have the otherwise literary responsibilities
to defy an oppressive regime who suppresses human rights and freedom of speech,
in favour of maintaining a cruel ideology. Rather Peter Handkes’ response is on
par with Jean-Paul Sartre, who in his own self-absorption lost all intellectual
integrity and credibility when he denied the existence of the Soviet Gulag
system, despite the rampant evidence produced. Sartre’s inability to recongize,
comment and decry the Soviet Gulag system cost him his integrity and his
legitimacy as one of the great minds of the Twentieth Century. Peter Handkes’ fevered
support for the Serbian antagonistic role in the Yugoslav War is much the same.
Handke just happens to be an extraordinary writer, where Jean-Paul Sartre was mediocre
at best.
If
one is expected to look at Peter Handke through pure literary terms, he is an extraordinary
writer. His early career began as a provocateur who, rebelled and shunned the
old German language literary establishment. He called the likes of Günter Grass
and Heinrich Böll impotent, and accused them of being incapable of moving
German language and literature forward, while it maintained its moral obsession
with the past. Handke in turn became an iconoclast, who sought to forcefully
renew German literature in the company of other young German language writers,
away from the moral reckoning of the past (this does not mean ignore it). From
there on out he had accomplished these facts. His style is the slow panoramic cinematic
style of capturing detail, landscapes, and external factors to reflect the
troublesome unconscious of the individual, while language is incapable of describing
the experience in literal senses. Language inevitably fails to describe
reality; instead it influences how reality is to be perceived, through its linguistic
translation of the visual. Inevitably, Peter Handke is a writers’ writer, but
an extraordinary one all the same. Still one cannot ignore his political
statements. Handke has been accused of trivializing the Yugoslav War; ignoring
the reportage, the documentation, and the records of the atrocities conducted.
It has also been alleged that Peter Handke has explicitly denied acts of
genocide. I cannot comment on these matters, as I have yet to read the works in
question. Though ever the shit disturber, Peter Handke may have gone too far,
and in return has suffered for his miscalculated missteps. The position he has
taken leaves me uncomfortable and uncertain, without being able to form a
strong opinion one way or the other. This lack of decisive maneuvering on my
end is not only frustrating, but disappointing. I do appreciate that the
Swedish Academy had come forward to elucidate and defend their decision. Before,
the Swedish Academy would take the stance: “this is a literary prize not a
political one,” but at least now they’ve taken the step to engage, converse,
and defend their decisions, which strengthens their causes, and clarifies that
they are not just the Eighteen Olympians who guard and emit the writers of
their choices, to their pantheon. They’ve taken steps to at least become more transparent.
___________________________________________________________________________
I
won’t deny it Gentle Reader, when I heard that Olga Tokarczuk and Peter Handke
had received the Nobel Prize for Literature, I was elated, and am still content
with the decisions. Some have taken issue that the Swedish Academy—or to be
more precise: the Nobel Committee—who stated they sought to take a more global
inclusive perspective with the Nobel Prize for Literature, and in the end
awarded to two European writers. This criticism is not unjust, but minor. The two
Laureates for the years two-thousand and eighteen and two-thousand and nineteen
are deserving—even if one of the two has caused a controversial stir. Both
decisions surprised me, which is always a delight, and having read both of
them, and have known each of them prior to the award is quite a treat as well.
It
will be interesting Gentle Reader to see how Peter Handke fairs in Stockholm
come Nobel Week. I suspect without question, we will see protests. The Nobel
Lectures will also be interesting. As for next year Gentle Reader, we will see
once again how the extended Nobel Committee and the Swedish Academy fair. Next
year the Swedish Academy will have every seat filled, after the newly elected
members are formally inducted on the twentieth of December of this year.
I’ve
missed the Nobel Prize for Literature, and it is a pleasure to have the award
renewed, revitalized, and back. May the final months of two-thousand and nineteen
be filled with great literature and reading.
I
am curious Gentle Readers, what do you make of this year’s Nobel Laureates in
Literature?
Thank-you
For Reading Gentle Reader
Take
Care
And
As Always
Stay
Well Read
M.
Mary
