Name: Tomas Tranströmer
Year Won: 2011
Read: The Selected Poems of Tomas Tranströmer
Original Language: Swedish
Reason: "because, through his condensed, translucent images, he gives us fresh access to reality"
About: It's a book of poems. I'm not sure what else to say.
What I liked: I suppose they were pretty and there were some interesting images? I'm not really sure how to describe poems.
What I Disliked: These poems didn't particularly gel for me. I can't really say why, they just didn't.
Should it have won a Nobel: I find it almost impossible to describe whether poetry is good or not even in English, far less in translation. For me, these poems didn't particularly work. But they might work better in Swedish, or resonate for someone else. So...who knows?
Next Up: "Frog" by Mo Yan
Saturday, April 20, 2024
Sunday, April 7, 2024
Aunt Julia and the Script Writer by Mario Vargas Llosa
Name: Mario Vargas Llosa
Year Won: 2010
Read: Aunt Julia and the Script Writer
Original Language: Spanish
Reason: "for his cartography of structures of power and his trenchant images of the individual's resistance, revolt, and defeat"
About: Aunt Julia and the Script Writer is a rather peculiar novel in which a young radio station worker has an affair with his somewhat older (13 years?) and fairly wild aunt. It's all written in a rather satrical tone, which I didn't personally find tremendously funny (it might be cultural. Or not. Humor is very subjective).
What I liked: Wonderful descriptions of contemporary Peru. A lively voice. It reminded me a bit of Carl Hiassen's mysteries.
What I Disliked: I really didn't get the humor. I do get that it's all subjective, but it just didn't work for me, which made the book feel like it was trying too hard.
Should it have won a Nobel: I've given up trying to understand this. Honestly, this didn't feel like a tremendously substantial book to me, but I also feel very much like I Just Didn't Get It. So...who knows?
Next Up: "The Selected Poems of Tomas Tranströmer"
Year Won: 2010
Read: Aunt Julia and the Script Writer
Original Language: Spanish
Reason: "for his cartography of structures of power and his trenchant images of the individual's resistance, revolt, and defeat"
About: Aunt Julia and the Script Writer is a rather peculiar novel in which a young radio station worker has an affair with his somewhat older (13 years?) and fairly wild aunt. It's all written in a rather satrical tone, which I didn't personally find tremendously funny (it might be cultural. Or not. Humor is very subjective).
What I liked: Wonderful descriptions of contemporary Peru. A lively voice. It reminded me a bit of Carl Hiassen's mysteries.
What I Disliked: I really didn't get the humor. I do get that it's all subjective, but it just didn't work for me, which made the book feel like it was trying too hard.
Should it have won a Nobel: I've given up trying to understand this. Honestly, this didn't feel like a tremendously substantial book to me, but I also feel very much like I Just Didn't Get It. So...who knows?
Next Up: "The Selected Poems of Tomas Tranströmer"
Sunday, March 10, 2024
The Hunger Angel by Herta Müller
Name: Herta Müller
Year Won: 2009
Read: The Hunger Angel
Original Language: German
Reason: "who, with the concentration of poetry and the frankness of prose, depicts the landscape of the dispossessed"
About: The Hunger Angel is about a man in a Soviet Prisoner of war camp. He shovels stuff. He starves. It's bleak.
What I liked: Beautiful descriptions of a miserable and hopeless situation. There's also some rather interesting stuff regarding the protagonist's family, which were Nazi's once.
What I Disliked: There's really no plot. The protagonist suffers. He continues to suffer. That is his lot.
I also found some of the stuff to feel sort of surreal in a bad way. Like, the prisoners apparently trade bread every night for...*reasons*? It was weird and baffling and took away from the stark misery of it all.
Should it have won a Nobel: This hit me harder than most. The writing is brilliant and it feels important. So sure.
Next Up: "Aunt Julia and the Script Writer" by Mario Vargas Llosa
Year Won: 2009
Read: The Hunger Angel
Original Language: German
Reason: "who, with the concentration of poetry and the frankness of prose, depicts the landscape of the dispossessed"
About: The Hunger Angel is about a man in a Soviet Prisoner of war camp. He shovels stuff. He starves. It's bleak.
What I liked: Beautiful descriptions of a miserable and hopeless situation. There's also some rather interesting stuff regarding the protagonist's family, which were Nazi's once.
What I Disliked: There's really no plot. The protagonist suffers. He continues to suffer. That is his lot.
I also found some of the stuff to feel sort of surreal in a bad way. Like, the prisoners apparently trade bread every night for...*reasons*? It was weird and baffling and took away from the stark misery of it all.
Should it have won a Nobel: This hit me harder than most. The writing is brilliant and it feels important. So sure.
Next Up: "Aunt Julia and the Script Writer" by Mario Vargas Llosa
Tuesday, February 27, 2024
The Prospector by Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clezio
Name: Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio
Year Won: 2008
Read: The Prospector
Original Language: French
Reason: "author of new departures, poetic adventure and sensual ecstasy, explorer of a humanity beyond and below the reigning civilization"
About: The Prospector follows a dude who wanders around the Carribean looking for ancient, lost treasure while encountering a bunch of adventures.
What I liked: The description of the Carribean is gorgeous and evocative. It almost felt like I was there. It was really beautiful and serene. Also, I basically enjoyed that stuff happened in the story. The hero got lost, looked for treasure, wandered around, etc. It was a very enjoyable read all in all.
What I Disliked: Not really anything. This was a legitimately fun book. I think maybe I didn't get overly attached to the protagonist (who didn't feel tremendously deep to me or really compel me in any particular way), but that didn't distract too much from the enjoyable journey of going through a richly realized world. (Filled with adventure, beauty, and some despair and the actual history of the Caribbean is pretty bleak.)
Should it have won a Nobel: Probably? This felt fairly unpretentious for a Nobel choice. But I felt like Clezio did an excellent job telling a fun story while also weaving in some of the darker aspects of Caribbean colonialism, which is hard to do. (Far less gracefully and in a way that doesn't feel like I'm being beaten over the head with it.)
Next Up: "The Hunger Angel" by Herta Müller
Year Won: 2008
Read: The Prospector
Original Language: French
Reason: "author of new departures, poetic adventure and sensual ecstasy, explorer of a humanity beyond and below the reigning civilization"
About: The Prospector follows a dude who wanders around the Carribean looking for ancient, lost treasure while encountering a bunch of adventures.
What I liked: The description of the Carribean is gorgeous and evocative. It almost felt like I was there. It was really beautiful and serene. Also, I basically enjoyed that stuff happened in the story. The hero got lost, looked for treasure, wandered around, etc. It was a very enjoyable read all in all.
What I Disliked: Not really anything. This was a legitimately fun book. I think maybe I didn't get overly attached to the protagonist (who didn't feel tremendously deep to me or really compel me in any particular way), but that didn't distract too much from the enjoyable journey of going through a richly realized world. (Filled with adventure, beauty, and some despair and the actual history of the Caribbean is pretty bleak.)
Should it have won a Nobel: Probably? This felt fairly unpretentious for a Nobel choice. But I felt like Clezio did an excellent job telling a fun story while also weaving in some of the darker aspects of Caribbean colonialism, which is hard to do. (Far less gracefully and in a way that doesn't feel like I'm being beaten over the head with it.)
Next Up: "The Hunger Angel" by Herta Müller
Sunday, February 18, 2024
The Golden Notebook by Doris Lessing
Name: Doris Lessing
Year Won: 2007
Read: The Golden Notebook
Original Language: English
Reason: "that epicist of the female experience, who with scepticism, fire and visionary power has subjected a divided civilisation to scrutiny"
About: The Golden Notebook follows the life of a writer who tries to tie the threads of her life together. Or something. IDK. I didn't make it super far as the beginning felt like a rudimentary introduction to feminism 101, which is fine and all, but also kind of boring in the 21st century.
What I liked: There's a nice sense of time, place and character that permeates through the narrative.
What I Disliked: Maybe this fades with time - since I didn't read the whole thing - but the first chapters honestly feel like, 'hey, y'wanna learn about feminism? I'll tell you about feminism!" circa 1970. Which like, yeah, I'm a feminist and all. But it feels super dull and lectury.
Should it have won a Nobel: Maybe it gets better as it continues? IDK.
Next Up: "The Prospector" by Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio
Year Won: 2007
Read: The Golden Notebook
Original Language: English
Reason: "that epicist of the female experience, who with scepticism, fire and visionary power has subjected a divided civilisation to scrutiny"
About: The Golden Notebook follows the life of a writer who tries to tie the threads of her life together. Or something. IDK. I didn't make it super far as the beginning felt like a rudimentary introduction to feminism 101, which is fine and all, but also kind of boring in the 21st century.
What I liked: There's a nice sense of time, place and character that permeates through the narrative.
What I Disliked: Maybe this fades with time - since I didn't read the whole thing - but the first chapters honestly feel like, 'hey, y'wanna learn about feminism? I'll tell you about feminism!" circa 1970. Which like, yeah, I'm a feminist and all. But it feels super dull and lectury.
Should it have won a Nobel: Maybe it gets better as it continues? IDK.
Next Up: "The Prospector" by Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio
Friday, February 2, 2024
Museum of Innocence by Orhan Pamuk
Name: Orhan Pamuk
Year Won: 2006
Read: Museum of Innocence
Original Language: Turkish
Reason: "who in the quest for the melancholic soul of his native city has discovered new symbols for the clash and interlacing of cultures"
About: The Museum of Innocence is about a rich young Turkish man who falls in love with a poor relation then utterly destroys his life with his obsession for her. He slowly gathers items from the time they spend together and at last assembles it in the titular "Museum of Innocence" (which in a hilarious twist, was created to mirror the book...so is a real place in Istanbul.)
What I liked: I find Orhan's writing almost magnetic. I love how he describes Turkish life (in the 70s in this case) and the contrasts between the western, secularized society and more traditional values.
Orhan also has a sense of humor that I find charming. He inserts himself into the story very briefly in a rather entertaining way and, of course, the museum is both real and not real.
Finally, I kind of like that the narrator is a total knob. He's one of the least sympathetic characters in the story (I'm more fond of almost any of the side characters), and it's never really clear to me whether the woman he obsesses over actually likes him, or just hopes he'll use his money to make her a movie star. It's layered in a way that I find really interesting.
What I Disliked: Not much. I really like this book. With that said, I wish it was a bit clearer as to whether the protagonist is supposed to come off as being as much of a knob as he is. If he's truly supposed to be sympathtic (and the woman he's in love with is truly supposed to return his affection), the story comes off as pretty sexist, TBH, with a rich douche basically wanting to 'save' a pretty poor relation, only fate gets in the way. I don't think this is the way this story is meant to be interpreted, though, but I could be wrong.
Should it have won a Nobel: This was written after Pamuk won his Nobel, so it's kind of irrelevant. I liked this, but is it Nobel worthy? IDK.
With that said, I think Pamuk won because of his somewhat comedic, definitely surreal, picture of terrorism in Snow, which absolutely is a masterwork and deserves a Nobel SO MUCH.
Next Up: "The Golden Notebook" by Doris Lessing
Year Won: 2006
Read: Museum of Innocence
Original Language: Turkish
Reason: "who in the quest for the melancholic soul of his native city has discovered new symbols for the clash and interlacing of cultures"
About: The Museum of Innocence is about a rich young Turkish man who falls in love with a poor relation then utterly destroys his life with his obsession for her. He slowly gathers items from the time they spend together and at last assembles it in the titular "Museum of Innocence" (which in a hilarious twist, was created to mirror the book...so is a real place in Istanbul.)
What I liked: I find Orhan's writing almost magnetic. I love how he describes Turkish life (in the 70s in this case) and the contrasts between the western, secularized society and more traditional values.
Orhan also has a sense of humor that I find charming. He inserts himself into the story very briefly in a rather entertaining way and, of course, the museum is both real and not real.
Finally, I kind of like that the narrator is a total knob. He's one of the least sympathetic characters in the story (I'm more fond of almost any of the side characters), and it's never really clear to me whether the woman he obsesses over actually likes him, or just hopes he'll use his money to make her a movie star. It's layered in a way that I find really interesting.
What I Disliked: Not much. I really like this book. With that said, I wish it was a bit clearer as to whether the protagonist is supposed to come off as being as much of a knob as he is. If he's truly supposed to be sympathtic (and the woman he's in love with is truly supposed to return his affection), the story comes off as pretty sexist, TBH, with a rich douche basically wanting to 'save' a pretty poor relation, only fate gets in the way. I don't think this is the way this story is meant to be interpreted, though, but I could be wrong.
Should it have won a Nobel: This was written after Pamuk won his Nobel, so it's kind of irrelevant. I liked this, but is it Nobel worthy? IDK.
With that said, I think Pamuk won because of his somewhat comedic, definitely surreal, picture of terrorism in Snow, which absolutely is a masterwork and deserves a Nobel SO MUCH.
Next Up: "The Golden Notebook" by Doris Lessing
Saturday, January 6, 2024
Death, etc. by Harold Pinter
Name: Harold Pinter
Year Won: 2005
Read: Death, etc.
Original Language: English
Reason: "who in his plays uncovers the precipice under everyday prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms"
About: Death, etc. is a collection of poetry, essays, and plays all focusing on Pinter's clear dislike of the Iraq war.
What I liked: Pinter has an interesting way of blending the real with the surreal which is quite fascinating. A scene will go from very realistic, to very unrealistic in a way that's quite intriguing. I also like how he creates unusual and peculair metaphors in a stage form.
What I Disliked: This is so, so, so heavy handed. I hated the Iraq war too, but dude, if you want to convince people who aren't already on your side, a lighter touch goes a looong way. Some of this was so heavy handed that it almost struck me as something that belonged, in all caps, on a punk 'zine.
Should it have won a Nobel: I don't think this was what Pinter won for, so it's probably not really relevant. He is a solid writer, though, and I can see that if he used those talents in a somewhat lighter way, definitely.
Next Up: "Museum of Innocence" by Orhan Pamuk
Year Won: 2005
Read: Death, etc.
Original Language: English
Reason: "who in his plays uncovers the precipice under everyday prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms"
About: Death, etc. is a collection of poetry, essays, and plays all focusing on Pinter's clear dislike of the Iraq war.
What I liked: Pinter has an interesting way of blending the real with the surreal which is quite fascinating. A scene will go from very realistic, to very unrealistic in a way that's quite intriguing. I also like how he creates unusual and peculair metaphors in a stage form.
What I Disliked: This is so, so, so heavy handed. I hated the Iraq war too, but dude, if you want to convince people who aren't already on your side, a lighter touch goes a looong way. Some of this was so heavy handed that it almost struck me as something that belonged, in all caps, on a punk 'zine.
Should it have won a Nobel: I don't think this was what Pinter won for, so it's probably not really relevant. He is a solid writer, though, and I can see that if he used those talents in a somewhat lighter way, definitely.
Next Up: "Museum of Innocence" by Orhan Pamuk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)