The Swedish Academy Compromises with the Nobel Foundation

Hello Gentle Reader

The Swedish Academy has not only been bitterly divided internally, due to the spring sexual assault scandal, but also with the Nobel Foundation. As the scandal erupted and the Swedish Academy blew into disarray, the Nobel Foundation observed with concern, before deciding to see if it could help mediate and mitigate the crisis. The Swedish Academy immediately rebuked the offer of assistance, forcing the Nobel Foundation take a different stance with the crisis, where it applied pressure to the Swedish Academy to either straighten its affairs, or have the Nobel Prize stripped from it as an institution.

Initially the Nobel Foundation expressed concern for the Swedish Academy to maintain the integrity of the Nobel Prize for Literature, while it worked to reestablish its own reputation. The Nobel Foundation had expressed concern the scandal would tarnish and if not completely deprive the award of its own merit; therefore, the Nobel Foundation proposed to the Swedish Academy that a temporary Nobel Committee would be enacted to create a shortlist of potential winners for the Nobel Prize for Literature, which would allow the Swedish Academy to rectify and rebuild itself after the scandal. Not surprisingly the Swedish Academy rejected this offer.

Today, however, Gentle Reader the Swedish Academy has come to a compromise with the Nobel Foundation, they will allow an extra five external members to sit on the Nobel Committee to help them select a shortlist of authors who may receive the Nobel Prize for Literature. This temporary extension of the Nobel Committee is as follows:

The initial Nobel Committee:

Chairman – Per Wastberg

(pro-tempore) Permanent Secretary – Anders Olsson

Horace Engdahl

Kristina Lugn

Jesper Svenbro

The new external members are:

Mikaela Blomqvist (literary critic)

Rebecka Karde (literary critic)

Kristoffer Leandoer (literary critic and writer)

Gun-Britt Sundstrom (translator)

Henrik Petersen (publisher)

This temporary Nobel committee will not begin work until January of 2019, and is set to stay in place until 2020.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary


For Further Reading --

CBC: "Outsiders join Swedish Academy to pick Nobel Literature winners,"

Ida Vitale wins the 2018 Cervantes Prize

Hello Gentle Reader

The Uruguayan poet, Ida Vitale has won this year’s Miguel de Cervantes Prize (also known as: The Cervantes Prize).

Ida Vitale is considered one of the greatest posts of the Spanish language, as well as one of the greatest writers heralding from Uruguay, though she no longer resides in the nation, which she fled after 1973 due to a military junta taking political control and power of the country. During this time she fled to Mexico City, before finally settling in Austin, Texas. During her initial literary career she belonged to the literary group, deemed: Generation 45, which comprised of a, group writers (mainly from Uruguay) whose literary careers where nurtured or begun between: 1945-1950. She is now the sole survivor of the group, at the age of 95.

The jury for the Cervantes Prize has praised Ida Vitales poetry which they called both universal and personal, while also being able to balance popularity and accessibility, while maintaining its intellectual powers and observations. Her poems are renowned for their sparseness in form and often simple language eschewing ostentatious pomp and pretense. Yet her language and form never dismiss the larger questions of life, meaning, and philosophy, as the search and discover of hope is never a wasted venture.  

The Cervantes Prize is often noted as the Spanish Language Nobel, as it considered one of the most lucrative literary awards in the Spanish language, with a prize amount consist of €125, 000 (Euros); or $186, 658..31 Canadian Dollars; or $141, 782.03 American Dollars; or £ 110,825.91 English Pounds. The relation between the Cervantes Prize and the Nobel Prize for Literature does not just end at the lucrative paycheque awaiting the fortunate author, many authors who have received the Cervantes Prize have also gone on to receive the Nobel Prize for Literature including: Octavio Paz, who won the Cervantes Prize in 1981 and would receive the Nobel nine years later in 1990 and Mario Vargas Llosa won the Cervantes Prize in 1994, and would receive the Nobel Prize in 2010; Camilo Jose Cela on the other hand, won the Nobel Prize for Literature first in 1989 and would receive the Cervantes Prize six years later in 1995.

Many great Spanish language authors have received the Cervantes Prize without receiving the Nobel nod. This includes Cuban avant-garde writer and precursor to Magical Realism, Alejo Carpentier; Carlos Fuentes the giant of Mexican literature, and considered one of the most prominent members of the Latin American Boom; the reclusive Cuban poet and pre-revolutionary lyricist Dulce María Loynaz; as well as the post-Spanish civil war, Grand Dame of Letters, Ana María Matute.

Since 1996, the Cervantes Prize had operated under a loose convention: one year the award would go to a European (Spanish) author, while the next year the award would be received by a South American author. Now over two decades later, this convention has been broken with two South American authors being awarded simultaneously after each other: Sergio Ramírez, from Nicaragua won the award in 2017; while this year’s award goes to the The Uruguayan poet, Ida Vitale.

The Cervantes Prize is not the only award; Ida Vitale has found herself accepting in recent memory. Back in September she was the recipient of the FIL Prize in Romance Languages, which seeks to award an author from one of the romance languages (Catalan, French, Galician, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian or Spanish), for a lifetime achievement in their chosen field be it: fiction or prose, creative non-fiction or essays, or poetry. Ida Vitale received the award for her commitment to the poetic form, and maintaining its vitality through her craft.

Congratulations to Ida Vitale, for her deserved honours of the year; she is a remarkable poet, chronicler and testifier to the resilient path of poetry as both a literary form of existence but also commentator of beauty.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

Fernando del Paso, Dies Aged 83

Hello Gentle Reader

Fernando del Paso was one of the giants of Mexican literature, with company including: Carlos Fuentes, Nobel Laureate Octavio Paz, Sergio Pitol, and Elena Poniatowska. Much like Sergio Pitol and Octavio Paz, Fernando del Paso also served as a diplomat for the Mexican Consul, while also working for the BBC, while living in London and Radio France. Beyond his work in broadcasting and diplomacy, Fernando del Paso forged a career in literary pursuits, and became one of Mexico’s most renowned and internationally successful authors. His most successful novel “News from the Empire,” depicts the short reign of Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico. Yet it defies traditional historical tropes, and has been described as a ‘histographic,’ novel, one in which intends to explore the multiple possibilities and versions of events and controversial moments. Beyond writing novels, Fernando del Paso wrote essays, poetry, and children’s books, as well as painting and explore the visual media arts. Fernando del Paso was awarded the Miguel de Cervantes Prize in two-thousand and fifteen, and before his death was the librarian overseeing the Octavio Paz Library.

The passing of Fernando del Paso is a loss to Mexico’s cultural and literary scene, as well as their arts. His novels were unique and exploratory; his interest in promoting and preserving Mexican cultural evident and apparent.

Rest in Peace, Fernando del Paso.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

Auður Ava Ólafsdóttir, Wins Nordic Council's Literature Prize

Hello Gentle Reader,

The Nordic Council’s Prize for Literature is such a quiet award; one is forgiven for not realizing it had been taking place. Generally speaking the Nordic Council’s Literature Prize is overshadowed by the Nobel Prize for Literature, in early October, and as the world reacts and responds to the winner; quietly in the peripherals the Nordic Council Prize names its winner for the year. Often nicknamed ‘The Little Nobel,’ the Nodic Council’s Literature Prize is awarded annually to a writer hailing from one of the Nordic nations (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland) as well as other regional areas and principalities (Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Åland Islands) as well as linguistic regions such as the Sami Language region, which includes the northern regions of: Norway, Sweden, Finland and North-West Russia.

The inaugural award was first given to, Eyvind Johnson and his famous novel: “The Days of His Grace,” in 1962. At the time Eyvind Johnson was a revered and renowned groundbreaking modernist Swedish writer. Though he is perhaps most notoriously remembered for the Nobel Prize for Literature debacle of 1974, where Eyvind Johnson was awarded the prize alongside Harry Martinson—both writers were members of the Swedish Academy.

Since then the award has gone to many prominent writers from region such as: Jon Fosse (2015) for his, “Trilogy,” Naja Marie Aidt (2008) for her short story collection, “Baboon,” Merethe Lindstrøm (2012) for her novel “Days in the History of Silence,” Sjon (2005) for his novel, “The Blue Fox,” Tua Forsström (1998) for her poetry collection, “After Having Spent a Night Among Horses,” Per Petterson (2009) “I Curse the River of Time,” and Sofi Oksanen (2010) for her novel “Purge.” Other writers of prominence who have received the award include: former Swedish Academy members, Sara Stridsberg and Kerstin Ekman; disgraced Swedish Academy member, Katarina Frostenson; Norwegian heavyweight Dag Solstad, and Swedish poet Göran Sonnevi.

This year’s Nordic Council’s Literature Prize winner is Icelandic novelist, poet, and playwright: Auður Ava Ólafsdóttir, for her novel “Ör,” which has been translated into English as: “Hotel Silence.” The novel was praised by the jury for its emotional resonance and subtle humour, as it traces an emotional disenfranchised man from contemplating suicide, to finding hope and purpose in a stateless land on the brink of political upheaval and collapse. The novel questions the entitlements and privileges of the individual versus the collective, and with vital and invigorated language asks existential ponderings about life and death, as well as purpose and meaning in a world perpetually influx. It’s a novel which testifies to the resilient human tenacity and spirit.

Auður Ava Ólafsdóttir has become the most recent Icelandic author to win the award, after Gyrðir Elíasson (2011) with his short story collection, “Milli trjánna,” or “Through the Trees,” which has yet to be translated into English.

Other writers nominated for this years, Nordic Council's Literature Prize included, the Finnish-Swedish Language dramatist, novelist and short story writer, Susanne Ringell, who was nominated alongside her short story collection: “God morgon,” or “Good Morning.” Secretly, I had hoped Ringell and her short story collection would receive the award, as she appears to be a striking and unique writer, who has yet been translated into English. Swedish dramatist, poet, literary critic and novelist, Agneta Pleijel was also nominated for the award, for her novel “Doften av en man,” or “The Scent of a Man,” which had won the Swedish Academy Nordic Prize back in the spring. She also beat the Finnish poet superstar and Runeberg Poetry winner, Olli-Pekka Tennilä and his poetry collection: “Ontto harmaa,” or “Hollow Grey.”

Congratulations to Auður Ava Ólafsdóttir, on receiving this year’s Nordic Council’s Literature Prize.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well

M. Mary  

Jayne Svenungsson, Resigns from the Swedish Academy

Hello Gentle Reader

Jayne Svenungsson becomes the latest member to formally recuse herself from the Swedish Academy.  Jayne Svenungsson was the most recently elected member of the Swedish Academy. She was appointed to the Academy in September 2017, and was formally elected December 20^th 2017, to Chair No. 9, succeeding the late author Torgny Lindgren. After her election, the Swedish Academy soon found itself embroiled in scandal and crisis. She was one of the members who initially voted against the expulsion of Katarina Frostenson; and remained silent and absent from all public discourse and dissidence that took place following the decision, which included Sara Danius resigning from her position as Permanent Secretary, and becoming inactive alongside, Peter Englund and Kjell Espmark.

Since the spring crisis, the Swedish Academy has been actively seeking to resolve the scandal crisis. Through most of it, the academy has often been reduced to putting out the fires as they begin, rather than preventing them being started. The Nobel Foundation has been vocal in its disproval and disappointment in the Swedish Academy, and has been actively applying pressure to the Swedish Academy, to get its affairs in order. In the autumn, however, the Swedish Academy has since sought to improve its situation by reviewing and renewing its statutes, and seeking to update its internal governance policies and procedures. Afterwards it sought to fill the vacant seats, and so far has appointed three new members, who will be elected in a formal ceremony on December 20^th. When it comes to the question of the fate of Katarina Frostenson, the Swedish Academy has issued a letter to the poet, asking her to voluntarily resign from the academy. As it stands, Katarina Frostenson has refused to voluntarily remove herself from the academy, and has hired legal representation to represent her case and perspective to the academy, as they bring in a new investigation with regards to allegations of her breaking the statute of secrecy and confidentiality, conflicts of interest between her own private and personal business and her membership with the Swedish Academy, as well the issue of financial mismanagement.

As for Jayne Svenungsson, she has remained polite with her resignation and exit of the Swedish Academy. She has stated she had decided to stay on with the Swedish Academy to assist in making important decisions and elections of new members. Now that the Swedish Academy has begun to find its feet again, Jayne Svenungsson has decided to withdraw from it and work full time as professor of Systematic Theology at Lund University.

With the departure of Jayne Svenungsson, there is now only one female member participating in the Swedish Academy: dramatist and poet: Kristina Lugn, on Chair No. 14.

Jayne Svenungssons resignation has dampened the mood of the Swedish Academy, with members having no desire to answer any questions regarding her departure. Yet, pro tempore Permanent Secretary Anders Olsson, did respond to a few questions, and stated he was not disappointed in Jayne Svenungsson or her departure, and stated the situation is understandable, as the academy has been at war with itself since her election. Since then, member after member has resigned after a tumultuous scandal had erupted. In her parting wards, Jayne Svenungsson hopes the Swedish Academy will regain its prominence as a cultural institution, but believes her time is best suited as a fulltime professor at Lund University.  

The departure would best be described as bitter sweet and even perhaps a sorrowful note for some. To be appointed to the Swedish Academy must ring with the sweetest silver bells. After all it’s an institution of select and few seats, and appointments are hard to come by. Yet what happens when the silver dream turns into a rusted iron nightmare? Sadly for Jayne Svenungsson her Swedish Academy dream has been tarnished by the institution, and certain members, and eventually it turned into a full nightmare. How disappointing it must be for Jayne Svenungsson, to have seen what is coveted, only to find the gold is plated and stripping to reveal rusted iron, and an academy rotting to its core.

Though the Swedish Academy has had a few success this autumn, there is still a lot of work ahead. The most pressing is dealing with the issue of Katarina Frostenson, the second retaining current members, as well as perhaps inviting and welcoming the return of others by concession and compromise.

In the end: one can only wish Jayne Svenungsson the best of luck as she peruses her academic career.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

Departing Deft Critics

Hello Gentle World

Do to the current state of the world one is often given the impression they are living in the twilight hours of the end of the world. Recent articles having shown just how unsettled and dystopian the world truly is—or perhaps via a cynics stand point: always has been. The United Nations released a frightening and eye opening report and testament on climate change, and how splinter close the world is to entering irreversible climate catastrophic measures. Those who have not opened up their eyes to the reality the danger poses are worrisome creatures. Climate change can no longer be denied as hoax or myth or scientifically unproven—its happening, and unfortunately we all live on this planet, and if it becomes inhabitable, then we will die alongside it. The current political climate would be called more divisive then it has been in recent memory. A political correct totalitarian left has in turn created a populist fueled reactionary right, which takes fascist rhetoric to authoritarian measures. Politically speaking, any centre situated politic is now longer available. Everyday somewhere in this world there is a terrible political beast rising to power. Democracy, liberty, independence, free speck—pillars of principles—fall to the wayside and are banished as afterthoughts to the attics of antiquarian values. Just the other day Brazil elected Jair Bolsonaro—a retired military officer turned politician, whose campaign style and rhetoric mirrored and shadowed a similar one seen of others in recent memory. Then of course there is the case of murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was killed inside the Saudi Arabian embassy in Istanbul, Turkey. The act has been speculated to have been condoned and even ordered by Saudi Arabian crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman. The reaction by western leaders has been vocal and verbal, but nothing beyond that. Leading one to question whether or not any action will be taken. Turkeys president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has been the most vocal critic of the entire situation, going so far as to demand the eighteen men who are suspected of participating the murder be extradited, as well as the relinquishment of the Turkish citizen who is suspected of concealing Khashoggis body. The desert kingdom has so far denied the request for extradition, failed to provide a reason or excuse for their suspected behaviour, and has no cooperated with international judicial processes. For this Turkish President Erdoğan has gone so far as to criticize and theorize the Saudi Arabian government is protecting the suspects from all judicial inquires and justice. Looking further east, the political situation in China has become increasingly frightening, as Xi Jinping has consolidated the most power within the communist nation since Mao Zedong. Jinping has also aggressively squashed dissidence, freedom of speech, as well as utilized a new anti-corruption commission to politically terrorize and detain opponents, such as Interpol’s Chief, Meng Hongwei; as well as the squashing student protests and magazines in Hong Kong. These coupled with an aggressive foreign policy which desires expansionism, has created turbulent and troubling times in the Far East. Then of course there is the nuclear position of the United States and Russia; not to mention the caprice exhibited by (North) Korea. Russian President, Vladimir Putin, recently gave scathing remarks on the unadvisable decision it would be for any foreign power to attempt or decide to begin a nuclear war with the nation. Then there is the sheer act of mindless violence, such as the recent mass shooting at a Jewish synagogue in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. The sheer act of anti-Semitism is disturbed and equally disgusting. The political response was of course asinine and revolting. No place of worship should ever be required to have an armed guard on its premises, and no politician should ever be so absurd as to make the suggestion, let alone call it a solution.

The literary world has been described by some as in equally dire straits. Though, the literary world is not sitting in the blue waiting room of waning twilight, patient and watching for the nuclear-green dawn of the of days. The literary world by comparison is sitting alone by a nearly extinguished fire, in a old and worn leather armchair which it can’t possibly part with, wrapped in a violet shawl of dusk, and starring across the room of shadows into the ultramarine and indigo nothingness of a future which may not exist—or at least not exist, comparable to the nostalgic silvery twinkle of the receding stars of its past. A casual internet search will always herald the end; be it: the death of the novel; the obliteration of poetry—often called stuffy, pretentious and uncommunicative—the dwindling importance of dramatic writing for the stage, now being replaced for scriptwriting for film; the abandonment of the short story; and now: the dismal departure and decline of literary criticism and theory, as a culturally necessary form and institution, to weigh, direct and influence the literary tastes of the era.

Back in two-thousand and nine Kirkus Reviews shut its doors and ceased to produce any new anonymous reviews. Kirkus Reviews was famous and notorious for its reviews, which both writers and agents dreaded. For this the anonymous critics and reviewers for the review were scoffed and scalded at by writers, while also simultaneously being utilized by publishers when a book received a positive review and recognition. Then there was the famous literary critic for the New York Times, Michiko Kakutani, who was revered and feared by both readers and writers. Kakutani was unapologetic, acerbic, and cared little for how established a writer was, if shew viewed their work as subpar, she had no issue in stating just that. Michiko Kakutani has also been known for being instrumental on elevating writers into more prominent positions which includes: Jonathan Franzen, David Foster Wallace, George Saunders and Mary Karr. Yet despite boosting their writing careers, some have still hissed and spat venom at her as well. Such as Jonathan Franzen, who once famously called her: “the stupidest person in New York City,” when she (perhaps rightfully) criticised his memoir, “The Discomfort Zone,” as a: “[ . . . ] odious self-portrait of the artist as a young jackass: petulant, pompous, obsessive, selfish and overwhelmingly self-absorbed.” In two-thousand and seventeen, Michiko Kakutani retired from the New York Times as its chief book critic. Recently she has published her own piece of non-fiction: “Death of Truth,” where she horrifyingly observes how the populace has decided to believe in ‘alternative facts,’ and blatant fabrications and fallacies as fact, by a man who has been elected to an office, and who is conventionally responsible to be a voice of virtue, morality, ethics, and obligations for a nation; but instead dismisses and creates divisions for further unconditional attempts at consolidation of greater power and authority. Despite not being a literary critic, willing praise and shred by the mood of the day, Michiko Kakutani has been able to maintain a skeptical mind, a potent eye, a sturdy hand and a sharp tongue turned pen to criticize and offer a sober thought on pressing matters. In this case politics—or more precisely the contemporary dirty business of politics, in an era where facts, logic and police are a mere afterthought.

As book sales (which include novels, short stories, and poetry collections) fall to the wayside in favour of other storytelling mediums: movies, television and video games—the requirement for a literary critic also falls. Do not be mistaken though: books are still important, and people still hanker for a story; though they may not be interested in literary pomp and stylistic techniques which only exist and serve the purpose to showcase an author’s powers. Readers still exist, but tolerance for any piece of work which becomes hermetic or cloistered off is less tolerable, as it cannot engage the reader or hold their attention. Then there is the select few who hanker for the more unique, experimental and literary quality oriented pieces of work—such as myself Gentle Reader, who cannot stand the idea of reading just a common novel or short story collection. Preference is for something with riveting language, unique exploration, and a good discussion of a potent theme; story and plot can always come second. Even then though attention is in demand, and it cannot be held, the book does not hold up.

If declining book sales are not the sole reason literary critics are quietly departing into the rafters, their opinions and their reviews now no longer needed, then what is the biggest driving force behind the decline of literary criticism and literary critics? The answer is: popular cultural demand. In today’s contemporary world, people distrust ‘experts,’—including doctors, lawyers, and judges and so on. The youth of today and the previous generation have all be taught they have a tongue, two vocal cords, a brain and reasonable ability which grants them the ability to speak. This has also been pumped up with a undescribed dosage of self-esteem and self-confidence. These same individuals believe that because they have an opinion and a voice and reasonable abilities that now everyone should be able to hear them or read them, and be enlightened by their opinions. In today’s world everyone has a blog, vlog, twitter account—an avenue in which they can express and proclaim their opinions. These same people are not necessarily experts, rather they share a passion or an interest, or just enjoy the activity and would just like to carve out a space for themselves to write their opinions and their reviews, and they do—and this would also include me. Subsequently these opinions, perspectives, and reviews are all online and for free. There is no need for a magazine subscription, and there is no monetary loss. Suddenly people can see what an average or passionate reader thinks about a piece of work without them being an expert. The issue moves beyond a popular culture one, where people prefer or demand or respect the opinions of those they view as equal. Part of the problem also exists with the literary world’s inability to change and adjust with the times. Literary criticism in particular failed to scrape out its own existence for itself, or renew the lease on its old market; publishers also failed to see the changing times, and are now in a reactionary mode trying to keep up with the changing climate and culture of the information age. Suddenly the book market is flooded with a glut of authors, from established, to debut, to self-published, to be recently translated, and so and so forth. There are few gatekeepers at the helm to watch over the floodgates, so the work keeps pouring out and demanding a reader of some sorts; and though they won’t admit: they also need a critic; someone to analyze and curiously review the work. It’s not always pretty, it’s not always funny, and it’s not always graceful. Kirkus Reviews may have departed nine years ago, and Michiko Kakutani may have retired. The torch is not extinguished and there is hope. It’s just monetarily put in storage.

As the rest of the world sits and waits whether or not tomorrow: is the day; the literary world immobilized in its overstuffed, well-worn leather chair, caked in cobwebs and curiously staring into the inky shadows across the room, it wonders if there is a tomorrow for itself—a tomorrow like all those tomorrows from before. Only it can make that decision for itself. With renewed novelists and writers, there most certainly must be renewed and revised critics willing to play both friend and devil’s advocate. Someone who is willing to recommend for the shelf; while also ask that a book be tossed in the waste basket. If anything from the past is to be learned from critics is they have proven the pen is sharper, more unforgiving, and far more powerful than any sword or bomb. A few strikes of a pen and the words very well may outlast both author and critic, and damn a book for an eternity.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

Further News from the Swedish Academy

Hello Gentle Reader

Last week the Swedish Academy had released they have appointed a new member to its ranks: Mats Malm, a literature professor who has a specialization in ancient Nordic languages. Professor Mats Malm, becomes the newest recruit for the Swedish Academy, and will be formally elected during a ceremony on December 20th, whereby he will take his seat Chair No. 11, along with two other newly elected members: Justice Eric Runesson, and poet and author Jila Mossaed. Dramatist, poet, and novelist Niklas Rådström, is said to have received a request to join the Swedish Academy as well, but it appears has turned the offer down. Pro Tempore Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Anders Olsson has stated that Chair No. 13 formally held by Sara Stridsberg, will most likely remain vacant for the remainder of the year. Anders Olsson believes the Swedish Academy has found greater stability with the election of the three new members. Anders Olsson had stated the goal is to host an election in the early spring to fill Chair No. 13.

The situation and predicament of Katarina Frostenson has once again been raised. Anders Olsson stated it all depends on how, Frostenson responds to the request she voluntarily resigns. In the event she chooses not to resign from the Swedish Academy, she will be investigated with regards to the accusations and allegations of her breaking the statutes of secrecy, as well as the statute of conflict of interest. Otherwise, the situation of Katarina Frostenson remains unchanged; as it sits in the precarious purgatory of ambiguity.

Despite the waters of the Swedish Academy calming, back to their reflective glassy sheen, a few grumbles and bubbles escape the recently restored façade:

In an interview with the Times Literary Supplement Horace Engdahl commented on the situation of the Swedish Academy and called the times dangerous. He linked the recent social media movement (#MeToo) to the Reign of Terror in post-revolutionary France. In this same interview Horace Engdahl, rejected the depiction of fraternization he apparently had with Jean-Claude Aranult, the man recently convicted and associated with the erupting scandal for the Swedish Academy. During this interview Horace Engdahl also depicted himself as a causality of the movement and accusations against Arnault, and firmly stands by the fact everything he has stated and acted on, was done in with the hopes to sustain and maintain the Swedish Academy through the crisis. Though I do believe Horace Engdahl has in previous years always kept the Swedish Academy’s interests aligned with his own; the events of the scandal and his behavior would be questionable as to whether or not Engdahl was completely objective in his attempts to maintain the reputation of the academy; or perhaps lost the objectivity to the twirling swirls of the emotional undercurrents, as he sought to protect his friends: Jean-Claude Arnault and Katarina Frostenson. During the scandal, Horace Endgahl made churlish and bullheaded public accusations against the former Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Sara Danius, as well as other members who left the Swedish Academy in the wake of the crisis. It became apparent that Horace Engdahl played politics during the crisis of the Swedish Academy, and he was publicly tried in the court of public opinion, where he was found guilty. During this time, Horace Engdahl was not interested in facilitating any dialogue with any member of the public of the time or the Swedish Academy itself, instead Engdahl dictated his interpretation of the facts, and propagated them with propagandist zeal. With regards to himself depicting himself as a victim during the situation, who had been unjustly been convicted—it would not be insufficient to state the grounds of his appeal are meritless. To this day, Horace Engdahl showcases and states implications he finds the conviction of Jean-Claude Arnault baffling, and even unwarranted. He lambasts and decries the treatment of Katarina Frostenson as unsavory and disagreeable, stating since the scandal and conviction of her husband she has always been referred to in the context of either the situation or as the wife, never as a prominent and groundbreaking poet of her generation. On these grounds, Horace Engdahl states, history will judge Katarina Frostenson with greater light, in which it will highlight her poetry over her marriage and the scandal of the Swedish Academy.

Though I do not necessarily disagree with everything Horace Engdahl has stated in his interview, it is easy to see how he erupted with such scolding venom during the scandal. I must concede that I do agree that the social media movement (#MeToo) has begin to lose its own merits, where it believes it can curtail the procedures of justice and the principles and pillars of a fair trial, whereby it seeks to publicly deface, slander, tar and feather the accused without any consequence to their own actions, and without providing any evidence other than accusations, allegations, with no to little testimony. With regards to Katarina Frostenson, I retain my stance that Frostenson had by all legal definitions—as well as definitions of reasonable common sense—would see that she had behaved and acted without moral probity or a sober ethical perspective in mind. Together with Jean-Claude Arnault (her husband) she had accepted financial assistance from the Swedish Academy, to help run the club Forum, again with her husband. This proven allegation, states alone she should have been expelled from the academy; but alas thanks in part to the machinations of Horace Engdahl, Sture Allen and Göran Malmqvist, the academy (by majority—with former member Sara Stridsberg abstaining) voted to allow Katarina Frostenson to retain her seat, and the subsequent scandal ensured, leaving the academy in its current predicament. Despite her lack of business acumen as well as probity and sober moral conscious, it is a shame that the poetry of Katarina Frostenson is now considered a secondary feature of her character, within the reflection of the current scandal and situation. Before the scandal, Katarina Frostenson was considered a revolutionary and striking feminist voice of poetry during the late seventies and eighties in Sweden. She would later be elected to the Swedish Academy in the early nineties; yet her poetic endeavors have not diminished during her appointment to the academy, where she began to write and produce experimental dramatic texts and plays. In two-thousand and sixteen she would receive the Nordic Council’s Literature Prize, for poetry collection: “Sånger och former,” (English: “Songs and Formulae,”). Yet as someone once told me: shit sticks longer then honey—and unfortunately it appears to be the case here for Katarina Frostenson and her poetry.

All of this However, my dear Gentle Reader is all rather old news. Most of it took place a week ago, or more. During that time, I suffered a terrible bout of influenza and was not able to report on these events as they had occurred and for that I do apologize. Finally: I am on the mend and am happy to report the above information. I suspect now and moving forward, Gentle Reader, the Swedish Academy will fall back into its usual routine, whereby all inquiries will be met with stony silence or indifference. 

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary  

For Further Reading Gentle Reader, Please See the Following Links: 

Ekuriren: "Academy message: No new member this year,"

The Times Literary Supplement: "No peace prize Richard Orange reveals the crisis inside the Swedish Academy,"

The Potency of Goodbyes

Hello Gentle Reader

Nothing is as infuriating as learning of a new writer simply because they have died. It leaves one with this sensation of a missed opportunity. A failed chance encounter. The past week saw the departure of two authors who I had previously been unaware of: Argentinian legend and short story master: Hebe Uhart; and Finnish breakaway author: Arto Paasilinna. Following my Dear Gentle Reader are two short and sweet testimonies on their lives and their work, with what little information has been provided and released. Their departures were quiet, missing the plated grandness and pantomime orchestration which would be used in the event a musician or celebrity, would have in the event of their passing. Yet perhaps, this is what allows writers to pass with relative dignity. A quiet poised piece of respect deprived of the carnality of mass grief, in favour of solitary solace.

Hebe Uhart –

It was the lovely Archipelago Books which first informed me of Hebe Uhart; and the fact of she died late last week. In their announcement of her passing, Archipelago Books announced they would be publishing a selection of her short stories in the autumn of two-thousand and nineteen, translated by Maureen Shaughnessy. From there I delved deeper into the author. She graduated with a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and taught in both primary and secondary schools, before long she taught at the post-secondary level of education. As a writer she was renowned for hosting literary workshops in Buenos Aires and was a frequent contributor to numerous magazines. Ricardo Piglia had called her the best Argentinian writer, a statement Hebe Uhart did not accept. She stated that to be the best meant one is alone, and she did not want to be alone. Uhart wrote novels and short stories, as well as dabbled in a bit of travel writing. Yet she is most renowned for her short stories. If one looks through the English language to find Hebe Uhart, they will find disappointment of how little has been translated. Thankfully, Asymptote had published one of her short stories: “Guiding the Ivy,” translated by Maureen Shaughnessy, in their online magazine. The story is short and terse, but carries the author’s defined grace as pulls facts and thoughts from the ordinary and begins to turn the personal or even the provincial into a greater metaphor for the universal and a commentary on the human condition. Reading the praise offered to Hebe Uhart, both in life and now in her passing, makes it regrettable and frustrating that I had never had the chance to read her prior. She seems strikingly humble perhaps even self-effacing to a fault, but the grace which is noted pushes such notions to the side, to reveal a giant not deprived of qualities but rather modest in their radiance. Beyond her love of writing and conversations concerning philosophical matters and literature (and I’m sure other eclectic topics), she was an avid gardener, renowned for her balcony forest of flowers and plants.

Arto Paasilinna –

The Finnish language is one of the most difficult languages to learn in the world. This means the writers of the Nordic nation are often isolated and alienated from readers of other languages. Eeva Tikka, Sirkka Turkka, Raija Siekkinen, Olli Jalonen, and Jouni Inkala, are sadly left alone in their language, though surely their works and words would be welcome abroad. Though one should not estimate the English languages distrust towards the foreign. Despite the Finnish languages notoriety for being unforgiving and challenging in its linguistic peculiarity, some authors have been known to find success outside of Finland. Arto Paasilinna was one such writer. Along with Leena Korhn and Tove Jansson, Arto Paasilinna was able to escape the confines of the Finnish language, complete with its often daunting reputation, and find his work translated into other languages. In Finland he was popular, an author of thirty-five works. His works were renowned for their whimsy and surreal plot lines, often taking the most unique characters and allowing them to escape on some grand adventure, riddled with whimsy, peculiarity, and eccentricity abound. His novel “The Year of the Hare,” has been acclaimed in all languages it has been translated into; and has been adapted for film twice. It’s a characteristic novel by Paasilinna, as it details the odd and at times magical world his characters inhabit. In this particular case a frustrated journalist almost kills a hare with his vehicle and through either guilt or delirium, decides to live and care for the hare in the wilderness. The novel is filled with the surreal uncertainty as all of his narratives, but is also riddled with the comedic and the satirical, as it probes the human condition with all its absurd wonders, glories, and frailties. The combination of the comedic and the surreal often made him a favourite with readers, who enjoyed his mordant and trenchant wit to discuss the comedic and tragic of life.

Rest in Peace, Hebe Uhart and Arto Paasilinna.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

The Booker Prize Winner, 2018

Hello Gentle Reader

This year’s Booker Prize was the first in years where the prize received greater recognition for its diversity, and has been considered the strongest longlist and shortlist in recent years. The judges praised this years listed books for being poignant and particular treaties on today’s troubling social and political climate, where they dealt with dark and often unsettling qualities of human nature and the changing socio-political climate. The longlist in particular received particular notice with its first time inclusion of a graphic novel (“Sabrina,” Nick Drnaso). The praise of the longlist transitioned to the shortlist, with continual praise being awarded to the diversity of location, gender, and again themes.  

On the shortlist, Daisy Johnson was named as the favourite to win the award with her debut novel: “Everything Under.” If she had won, she would have become the youngest winner of the prize at the tender age of twenty-seven. Her novel a reimagining of a classical Greek myth with contemporary tones and scenery documents and explores the complicated and strained relationship between mother and daughter. Since being shortlisted for the award, Daisy Johnson has been a hotly discussed author of late, with the media and readers curious to learn more about this particularly talented young writer. Sadly, however, Daisy Johnson did not receive the award, nor did the bookies other favourite: Richard Powers with his ecological novel: “The Overstory.”  

The winner of this year’s Booker Prize was, Anna Burns for her novel: “Milkman.” In receiving the award, Anna Burns becomes the first Northern Irish author to receive the Booker Prize. “Milkman,” has been praised as a experimental and haunting testament on the contemporaries societies almost paranoid self. It’s narrated by an unnamed eighteen year old woman, who is being perused (or hunted) by a paramilitary figure only referred to as: “Milkman.” The novel is dense with few paragraph breaks, no characters are named in favour of descriptions, and the use of language is considered potent and unfamiliar, eschewing all conventional courses of action. The novel has been called a breathtaking and uncomfortable as well as relevant in light of the previous year’s climate of sexual violence and scandal. Yet it’s how the novel was crafted with its unique use of language and experimental format that truly captivated the judges who were in unanimous agreement of its worth and merit.

Congratulations to Anna Burns, truly a well-deserved winner!

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

Maryse Condé Wins the Alternative Nobel Prize for Literature

Hello Gentle Reader

The Guadelopean writer Maryse Condé has won the “Alternative Nobel Prize for Literature,” or to be more precise and true: “The New Academy’s Prize for Literature.” Maryse Condé has cordially accepted the announcement with casual grace. Of the original four shortlisted authors: Haruki Murakami, Kim Thúy, Neil Gaimon, and Maryse Condé—Only Murakami and Condé, have ever been truly considered contenders for the real Nobel Prize for Literature.

Maryse Condé is best described as one of the greatest French language writers hailing from the Caribbean. Her narratives are renowned for their unique multicultural heritage, and poignant eye cast on the Caribbean’s history as a former colony, a history which still overshadows many countries in the tropical region. With remarks on the award she hopes the prize will help recognize Guadeloupe as more than just a former French colony, and a place to mention due to a hurricane or earthquake, but a vibrant and beautiful country riddled with a multicultural background, and thriving literary scene. The judges for the award have called Maryse Condé a world class storyteller, whose language is ravished with emotional intensity, while also being intensely aware of the colonial history and postcolonial present, and a future which continually is reshaped by ever desire for change and progress. Her work is known for its piercing commentary on the acts of the human heart against the backdrop of history, and telling the unique narratives, histories, and personal stories of the island nation of Guadeloupe.

When it first came to my attention that the New Academy’s Prize for Literature would be operated on ‘democratic and transparent,’ principles—in other words populist philandering; I held the view of contempt and disdain for the new award. I viewed the award as a satirical slap in the face to the Swedish Academy, who at the time acted like rotten children in a sandbox, unable to cooperate or get along or handle their issues in private with decency and decorum fitting of an institution as itself. When it came to review the longlist of authors and the fact it was open to the public, I shook my head and scoffed at many of the writers listed, which had proven my own theories and distaste towards the award, as it postured and paraded the public’s opinion of what good literature is—which is not necessarily true. However, now that I see a deserving writer takes the award, I won’t say I am disappointed or as contemptuous as I was. Maryse Condé is a worthy writer and a accomplished intellectual, whose novels explore the unique world of slavery, colonialism, post-colonialism, identity and self-worth all through the lens of a torrid and horrific history, which thankfully is not deprived of the unflinching and unyielding qualities of the human heart to resist and grow no matter the circumstance. Maryse Condé is more than deserving of the award.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary