Name: Roger Martin du Gard
Year Won: 1937
Read: The Postman
Original Language: French
Reason: "for the artistic power and truth with which he has depicted human conflict as well as some fundamental aspects of contemporary life in his novel cycle Les Thibault"
About: I did not read Kes Thibault. It's supposedly yet another epic novel about the rise and fall of a family and at this point...no. No. If there is one thing I've learned from this project it's that the Nobel prize committee picks startlingly similar novels every year for a long run and it gets dull.
The Postman follows the titular postman as he observes life in a small village. There's no plot. He describes the various townspeople he meets there and...that's about it.
What I liked: The character sketches are brilliant and well done. There are some wonderfully interesting metaphors. The writing is excellent, even in translation.
What I Disliked: There is no plot. It's just character sketches and more character sketches.
Should it have won a Nobel: It's hard to know, as I didn't read the body of work that was cited in for the Nobel prize. I'm tempted to say "no", as this seems to be a thing during the 30s with the Nobel prize committee. Then again, this might be the GREAT rise and fall of a family epic. (Note: It's not. That would be The Dream of Red Chambers. But it might still be pretty good.)
Next up: "The Good Earth" by Pearl Buck
Saturday, December 19, 2020
Friday, November 20, 2020
Eugene O'Neill's Emperor Jones
Name: Eugene O'Neill
Year Won: 1936
Read: Emperor Jones
Original Language: English
Reason: "for the power, honesty and deep-felt emotions of his dramatic works, which embody an original concept of tragedy"
About: Emperor Jones is an experimental play told mostly in monologue form by the titular Emperor Jones, a black man who sets himself up as the emperor of a small Carribean island. Eventually he dies, after going through descents into grandiosity and madness.
What I liked: The concept is intriguing and I love the titular character. He's quite interesting. And the play is short yet succinct.
What I Disliked: The dialectic is so heavy that it's hard to read. It's also potentially offensive, due to heavily using a particular slur.
Should it have won a Nobel: Probably. This is only one of O'Neill's many great plays (and probably not the greatest), yet it's still pretty good. (I do feel that it would be more interesting to catch this on stage, but que sera.)
Next up: "The Postman" by Roger Martin du Gard
Year Won: 1936
Read: Emperor Jones
Original Language: English
Reason: "for the power, honesty and deep-felt emotions of his dramatic works, which embody an original concept of tragedy"
About: Emperor Jones is an experimental play told mostly in monologue form by the titular Emperor Jones, a black man who sets himself up as the emperor of a small Carribean island. Eventually he dies, after going through descents into grandiosity and madness.
What I liked: The concept is intriguing and I love the titular character. He's quite interesting. And the play is short yet succinct.
What I Disliked: The dialectic is so heavy that it's hard to read. It's also potentially offensive, due to heavily using a particular slur.
Should it have won a Nobel: Probably. This is only one of O'Neill's many great plays (and probably not the greatest), yet it's still pretty good. (I do feel that it would be more interesting to catch this on stage, but que sera.)
Next up: "The Postman" by Roger Martin du Gard
Tuesday, November 10, 2020
Luigi Pirandello's Six Characters in Search of an Author
Name: Luigi Pirandello
Year Won: 1934
Read: Six Characters In Search of an Author
Original Language: Italian
Reason: "for his bold and ingenious revival of dramatic and scenic art"
About: Six Characters in Search of an Author is an extremely unusual play. It starts with the production staff of a play (director, stage hand etc.) getting ready to perform a play just for six characters (two of whom don't speak) to arrive on set and demand an author for their play. The charaters then perform scenes, sometimes with input from the production staff (the director wants to recreate some of what they're saying), and sometimes with input from the other characters (who are sometimes appalled by what their family members are saying). It's all very strange.
What I liked: This is one of the most unique pieces I have ever read. Especially considering how long ago it was written, it's quite unusual.
What I Disliked: I never felt especially emotionally stirred by this. (Which is fairly typical for things that seem more to taking major steps in how to change the standard form of things). It might also suffer, somewhat, from that it's a play, which is meant to be performed vs. read. (I think some of the shock of seeing the staff of a play discussing things vs. an actual play, then the actors breaking in is somewhat muted when you'r not seeing it happening.)
Should it have won a Nobel: A quote from the little "about" said something about how this might not be the greatest play, but it was the most unique. I'd agree (well, maybe not most, but it sure as heck was unique). As such, it probably does deserve an award. (Esp. if you throw in that this is hardly Pirandello's only work. If he regularly put out work as unique and ground breaking as this, he definitely deserves a prize for it.)
Next up: The Plays of Eugene O'Neill (unsure which. The library just has a collection so we'll see what catches my interest!)
Year Won: 1934
Read: Six Characters In Search of an Author
Original Language: Italian
Reason: "for his bold and ingenious revival of dramatic and scenic art"
About: Six Characters in Search of an Author is an extremely unusual play. It starts with the production staff of a play (director, stage hand etc.) getting ready to perform a play just for six characters (two of whom don't speak) to arrive on set and demand an author for their play. The charaters then perform scenes, sometimes with input from the production staff (the director wants to recreate some of what they're saying), and sometimes with input from the other characters (who are sometimes appalled by what their family members are saying). It's all very strange.
What I liked: This is one of the most unique pieces I have ever read. Especially considering how long ago it was written, it's quite unusual.
What I Disliked: I never felt especially emotionally stirred by this. (Which is fairly typical for things that seem more to taking major steps in how to change the standard form of things). It might also suffer, somewhat, from that it's a play, which is meant to be performed vs. read. (I think some of the shock of seeing the staff of a play discussing things vs. an actual play, then the actors breaking in is somewhat muted when you'r not seeing it happening.)
Should it have won a Nobel: A quote from the little "about" said something about how this might not be the greatest play, but it was the most unique. I'd agree (well, maybe not most, but it sure as heck was unique). As such, it probably does deserve an award. (Esp. if you throw in that this is hardly Pirandello's only work. If he regularly put out work as unique and ground breaking as this, he definitely deserves a prize for it.)
Next up: The Plays of Eugene O'Neill (unsure which. The library just has a collection so we'll see what catches my interest!)
Sunday, October 25, 2020
Ivan Bunnin's The Liberation of Tolstoy
Name: Ivan Bunnin
Year Won: 1933
Read: The Liberation of Tolstoy
Original Language: Russian
Reason: "for the strict artistry with which he has carried on the classical Russian traditions in prose writing"
About: The Liberation of Tolstoy is part biography of Tolstoy, part discussion of what Tolstoy's works mean, part autobiography of Bunnin's own life, and part description as to what Tolstoy's works mean to him and his own writing. It's a very peculiar piece of prose, yet is fantastically well researched and strangely compelling to read.
What I liked: I've never read anything quite like this. It's a very unusual piece of prose, yet does a wonderful job of explaining how Tolstoy's life affected his artistry and how his artistry affected other people.
What I Disliked: It's a strange piece of prose. I happen to like Tolstoy, so enjoyed this. But if you weren't already quite familiar with Tolstoy, I suspect this would be meaningless.
Should it have won a Nobel: On its own, probably not. It feels too personal and too trite. But it shows a creativity with prose that I suspect Bunnin's other prose is imbued with. I suspect that, as a whole (what the Nobel is given for), this makes a great deal of sense to have awarded him the prize.
Next up: Luigi Pirandello's "Six Characters in Search of an Author"
Year Won: 1933
Read: The Liberation of Tolstoy
Original Language: Russian
Reason: "for the strict artistry with which he has carried on the classical Russian traditions in prose writing"
About: The Liberation of Tolstoy is part biography of Tolstoy, part discussion of what Tolstoy's works mean, part autobiography of Bunnin's own life, and part description as to what Tolstoy's works mean to him and his own writing. It's a very peculiar piece of prose, yet is fantastically well researched and strangely compelling to read.
What I liked: I've never read anything quite like this. It's a very unusual piece of prose, yet does a wonderful job of explaining how Tolstoy's life affected his artistry and how his artistry affected other people.
What I Disliked: It's a strange piece of prose. I happen to like Tolstoy, so enjoyed this. But if you weren't already quite familiar with Tolstoy, I suspect this would be meaningless.
Should it have won a Nobel: On its own, probably not. It feels too personal and too trite. But it shows a creativity with prose that I suspect Bunnin's other prose is imbued with. I suspect that, as a whole (what the Nobel is given for), this makes a great deal of sense to have awarded him the prize.
Next up: Luigi Pirandello's "Six Characters in Search of an Author"
Sunday, October 18, 2020
John Galworth's The Forsyte Saga
Name: John Galsworthy
Year Won: 1932
Read: The Forsyte Saga
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his distinguished art of narration, which takes its highest form in The Forsyte Saga"
About: The Forsyte Saga follows the rise and fall of the Forsytes (sound familiar?), particularly Soames Forsyte, a businessman who cares for little other than what his money can buy who remains baffled by his beautiful wife, Irene, who longs for romance and love.
What I liked: Not much, to be honest. This is one of the few books I haven't been able to finish or even particularly get into. I think this is a combination of it being dry (oh so dry) as well as constantly telling us how the characters are feeling rather than showing it to us. I do think there are moments when the prose is lovely, but mere moments. Maybe I would have seen how it was sublime if I'd been able to bring myself to finish it, but I just couldn't.
What I Disliked: This feels like all the bad parts of a saga (many characters, spanning a huge time frame, not necessarily having much of a plot) with none of the good parts (the sense of awe and things coming together). One of the reasons is the long, long strings of exposition that are everywhere where Galsworthy regales us for pages about precisely how the character feels about some minutiae. I'd like to see Irene wrestling with her feelings or Soames doing the same. But instead they just tell us how they feel about everything, including the temperature of their pudding.
Should it have won a Nobel: No. This feels like someone said, "Oh, the Buddenbrooks is great! Let's go for something else like that!" And they did...just they found something like a bad rip off of it that lacks the emotive power.
Next up: Ivan Bunnin's "The Liberation of Tolstoy"
Year Won: 1932
Read: The Forsyte Saga
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his distinguished art of narration, which takes its highest form in The Forsyte Saga"
About: The Forsyte Saga follows the rise and fall of the Forsytes (sound familiar?), particularly Soames Forsyte, a businessman who cares for little other than what his money can buy who remains baffled by his beautiful wife, Irene, who longs for romance and love.
What I liked: Not much, to be honest. This is one of the few books I haven't been able to finish or even particularly get into. I think this is a combination of it being dry (oh so dry) as well as constantly telling us how the characters are feeling rather than showing it to us. I do think there are moments when the prose is lovely, but mere moments. Maybe I would have seen how it was sublime if I'd been able to bring myself to finish it, but I just couldn't.
What I Disliked: This feels like all the bad parts of a saga (many characters, spanning a huge time frame, not necessarily having much of a plot) with none of the good parts (the sense of awe and things coming together). One of the reasons is the long, long strings of exposition that are everywhere where Galsworthy regales us for pages about precisely how the character feels about some minutiae. I'd like to see Irene wrestling with her feelings or Soames doing the same. But instead they just tell us how they feel about everything, including the temperature of their pudding.
Should it have won a Nobel: No. This feels like someone said, "Oh, the Buddenbrooks is great! Let's go for something else like that!" And they did...just they found something like a bad rip off of it that lacks the emotive power.
Next up: Ivan Bunnin's "The Liberation of Tolstoy"
Sunday, October 4, 2020
Sinclaire Lewis' It Can't Happen Here
Name: Sinclaire Lewis
Year Won: 1930
Read: It Can't Happen Here
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his vigorous and graphic art of description and his ability to create, with wit and humour, new types of characters"
About: "It Can't Happen Here" follows "Buzz" Windrip, a demogauge who rises to power by promising massive reforms to everything and "traditional" values, while shepherding in totalitarianism. It's supposedly satirical, but not really funny.
What I liked: Boy does this feel timely! The similarlities between Buzz and Trump are unnerving and Lewis does a phenomenal job in showing just how someone can take advantage of "traditional" values, media, and people's willingness to be gulled to instate a totalitarian government.
What I Disliked: I found this to be a bit of a slog. There were a lot of characters, so I had to work to remember them all, and none felt particularly well developed or interesting to me. Also, it wasn't funny in the way Shaw's plays are. Possibly, too, it just felt too real for me to be able to enjoy at this precise moment in time.
Should it have won a Nobel: Maybe? The novel shows remarkable foresight, but compared to many of the others, I just didn't find it enjoyable. (One could argue whether that's important in a Great Book, but I think it is. You're more likely to have an effect if people *want* to hear your message than if they have to slog through a bunch of vaguely stereotypical Americans.)
Next up: John Galsworthy's "The Forsyte Saga". Unfortunately, my library did not have the poems of Erik Axel Karlfeldt
Year Won: 1930
Read: It Can't Happen Here
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his vigorous and graphic art of description and his ability to create, with wit and humour, new types of characters"
About: "It Can't Happen Here" follows "Buzz" Windrip, a demogauge who rises to power by promising massive reforms to everything and "traditional" values, while shepherding in totalitarianism. It's supposedly satirical, but not really funny.
What I liked: Boy does this feel timely! The similarlities between Buzz and Trump are unnerving and Lewis does a phenomenal job in showing just how someone can take advantage of "traditional" values, media, and people's willingness to be gulled to instate a totalitarian government.
What I Disliked: I found this to be a bit of a slog. There were a lot of characters, so I had to work to remember them all, and none felt particularly well developed or interesting to me. Also, it wasn't funny in the way Shaw's plays are. Possibly, too, it just felt too real for me to be able to enjoy at this precise moment in time.
Should it have won a Nobel: Maybe? The novel shows remarkable foresight, but compared to many of the others, I just didn't find it enjoyable. (One could argue whether that's important in a Great Book, but I think it is. You're more likely to have an effect if people *want* to hear your message than if they have to slog through a bunch of vaguely stereotypical Americans.)
Next up: John Galsworthy's "The Forsyte Saga". Unfortunately, my library did not have the poems of Erik Axel Karlfeldt
Monday, September 14, 2020
Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks
Name: Thomas Mann
Year Won: 1929
Read: Buddenbrooks
Original Language: German
Reason: "principally for his great novel, Buddenbrooks, which has won steadily increased recognition as one of the classic works of contemporary literature"
About: Buddenbrooks follows the Buddenbrook family over a long period of time (maybe 40 years?). They decline from being a wealthy industrialist family to falling into artistic depravity. Along the way they marry, divorce, have children, and otherwise exist in late 19th century Germany.
Fun (and kind of amazing) fact! This was written when Mann was 25! (What am I doing with my life? Seriously!) It's semi-autobiographical.
What I liked: It's an amusing comedy of manners that wonderfully captures what it was like to live in this era. Also, there are parts that are delightfully gossipy (like when one of the girls - Tony - has her husband admit that he only married her for money after going bankrupt and her leaving him with their daughter to live with her father).
What I Disliked: This book feels very uneven to me. For every part that is wonderful, there's another that seems to just kind of drag. Also, thre are so many characters that it's hard to know who to follow or care about at a given time.
Should it have won a Nobel: Maybe? It's quite impressive (esp. considering the age of the author), but I feel like there are other novels from the same era that are better.
Next up: Sinclaire Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here"
Year Won: 1929
Read: Buddenbrooks
Original Language: German
Reason: "principally for his great novel, Buddenbrooks, which has won steadily increased recognition as one of the classic works of contemporary literature"
About: Buddenbrooks follows the Buddenbrook family over a long period of time (maybe 40 years?). They decline from being a wealthy industrialist family to falling into artistic depravity. Along the way they marry, divorce, have children, and otherwise exist in late 19th century Germany.
Fun (and kind of amazing) fact! This was written when Mann was 25! (What am I doing with my life? Seriously!) It's semi-autobiographical.
What I liked: It's an amusing comedy of manners that wonderfully captures what it was like to live in this era. Also, there are parts that are delightfully gossipy (like when one of the girls - Tony - has her husband admit that he only married her for money after going bankrupt and her leaving him with their daughter to live with her father).
What I Disliked: This book feels very uneven to me. For every part that is wonderful, there's another that seems to just kind of drag. Also, thre are so many characters that it's hard to know who to follow or care about at a given time.
Should it have won a Nobel: Maybe? It's quite impressive (esp. considering the age of the author), but I feel like there are other novels from the same era that are better.
Next up: Sinclaire Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here"
Tuesday, September 8, 2020
Sigrid Undset's Kristin Lavransdottir
Name: Sigrid Undset
Year Won: 1928
Read: Kristin Lavransdottir
Original Language: Norwegian
Reason: "principally for her powerful descriptions of Northern life during the Middle Ages"
About: This is an epic story of a girl (Kristin's) life set in Medieval Norway, spanning from when she is a very young girl until her death.
It starts with Kristin growing up with doting parents who adore her and want her to have the happiest life possible. Only in her mid-teens she falls in love with the much older Erland, a charming member of nobility who has been living with another man's wife in sin for over a decade. This does not stop Kristin, who surrenders her virtue to him and continues to thwart her parents to see him.
Eventually she marries him, but has to live with the sense that she has made her parents miserable (and sinned against them) for the rest of her life as she raises seven sons and becomes more devoted to Catholicism.
While this is the basic plot, much of the story is devoted to living a normal life in Medieval Norway. This includes everything from brewing beer to ordering servants about. It is fantastically researched and wonderfully vivid.
What I liked: It's a wonderful portrayal of an era with exquisite characters. For a while, this was actually a very popular novel in English translation and it's not hard to see why. While thought provoking and intelligent, it also reads like a fun historical novel in a lot of ways. It's a great read. (Even if it is around 1,100 pages long in total...so not a short read! But it's divided up into much shorter books.)
What I Disliked: Almost nothing. This wasn't just a literary book, or a well researched historical novel. It was also a *fun* book. Undset is clearly the Hillary Mantel of the 1920s and anyone who loves her should check this out.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes.
Next up: Thomas Mann's "Buddenbrooks"
Year Won: 1928
Read: Kristin Lavransdottir
Original Language: Norwegian
Reason: "principally for her powerful descriptions of Northern life during the Middle Ages"
About: This is an epic story of a girl (Kristin's) life set in Medieval Norway, spanning from when she is a very young girl until her death.
It starts with Kristin growing up with doting parents who adore her and want her to have the happiest life possible. Only in her mid-teens she falls in love with the much older Erland, a charming member of nobility who has been living with another man's wife in sin for over a decade. This does not stop Kristin, who surrenders her virtue to him and continues to thwart her parents to see him.
Eventually she marries him, but has to live with the sense that she has made her parents miserable (and sinned against them) for the rest of her life as she raises seven sons and becomes more devoted to Catholicism.
While this is the basic plot, much of the story is devoted to living a normal life in Medieval Norway. This includes everything from brewing beer to ordering servants about. It is fantastically researched and wonderfully vivid.
What I liked: It's a wonderful portrayal of an era with exquisite characters. For a while, this was actually a very popular novel in English translation and it's not hard to see why. While thought provoking and intelligent, it also reads like a fun historical novel in a lot of ways. It's a great read. (Even if it is around 1,100 pages long in total...so not a short read! But it's divided up into much shorter books.)
What I Disliked: Almost nothing. This wasn't just a literary book, or a well researched historical novel. It was also a *fun* book. Undset is clearly the Hillary Mantel of the 1920s and anyone who loves her should check this out.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes.
Next up: Thomas Mann's "Buddenbrooks"
Wednesday, September 2, 2020
Henri Bergson's "The Meaning of War"
Name: Henri Bergson
Year Won: 1927
Read: The Meaning of War
Original Language: French
Reason: "in recognition of his rich and vitalizing ideas and the brilliant skill with which they have been presented"
About: This is a fairly short essay on war...mostly why it was a great thing that France was involved in WWI. Supposedly (according to things I've read online), it discusses war in a new philosophical light. But I didn't really see that. (Maybe because all of this is old hat by now?) Mostly it seemed remarkably gung ho about a war that was really awful for everyone involved.
What I liked: I honestly didn't like this. At all. The only thing I can see is that maybe it was very novel during its time.
What I Disliked: It seemed very rah rah rah about war, which is...odd. I didn't pick up much of a meaning other than "well, I guess when you're attacked, you have to fight back" which...duh? It seemed more like something you'd see on a recruiter's table than something written by a great writer/philosopher.
Should it have won a Nobel: Bergson wrote a lot else so...maybe? But based on this one selection, no.
Next up: Sigrid Undset's "Kristin Lavransdottir"
Year Won: 1927
Read: The Meaning of War
Original Language: French
Reason: "in recognition of his rich and vitalizing ideas and the brilliant skill with which they have been presented"
About: This is a fairly short essay on war...mostly why it was a great thing that France was involved in WWI. Supposedly (according to things I've read online), it discusses war in a new philosophical light. But I didn't really see that. (Maybe because all of this is old hat by now?) Mostly it seemed remarkably gung ho about a war that was really awful for everyone involved.
What I liked: I honestly didn't like this. At all. The only thing I can see is that maybe it was very novel during its time.
What I Disliked: It seemed very rah rah rah about war, which is...odd. I didn't pick up much of a meaning other than "well, I guess when you're attacked, you have to fight back" which...duh? It seemed more like something you'd see on a recruiter's table than something written by a great writer/philosopher.
Should it have won a Nobel: Bergson wrote a lot else so...maybe? But based on this one selection, no.
Next up: Sigrid Undset's "Kristin Lavransdottir"
Tuesday, September 1, 2020
Grazia Deledda's "The Mother"
Name: Grazia Deledda
Year Won: 1926
Read: The Mother
Original Language: Italian
Reason: ""for her idealistically inspired writings, which with plastic clarity picture the life on her native island and with depth and sympathy deal with human problems in general"
About: The Mother (like most of Deledda's works, apparently) is set in a tiny Sicilian village, with all action taking place between three characters over the course of two days.
The titular mother (Mary Magdalenna) is a local woman who is wildly proud that her son was able to become a priest. But she is now terrified that he is tempted by a local woman (Agnes) and that he will break his vows for her. We watch as she (and her son - Paul) grapple with this until the novel ends in a way that's shocking yet feels entirely appropriate.
What I liked: It's an excellent story. It's engrossing and hard to put down, while it also discusses morality (conventional and otherwise) as well as turn of the century village life.
What I Disliked: I didn't really see anything to dislike. This is a really great novel and I wish more of Deledda's work was in print in English so I could read it.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. This is a great novel. Assuming her others are even nearly as good, she well deserves the prize.
Next up: Henri Bergson's "The Meaning of the War"
Year Won: 1926
Read: The Mother
Original Language: Italian
Reason: ""for her idealistically inspired writings, which with plastic clarity picture the life on her native island and with depth and sympathy deal with human problems in general"
About: The Mother (like most of Deledda's works, apparently) is set in a tiny Sicilian village, with all action taking place between three characters over the course of two days.
The titular mother (Mary Magdalenna) is a local woman who is wildly proud that her son was able to become a priest. But she is now terrified that he is tempted by a local woman (Agnes) and that he will break his vows for her. We watch as she (and her son - Paul) grapple with this until the novel ends in a way that's shocking yet feels entirely appropriate.
What I liked: It's an excellent story. It's engrossing and hard to put down, while it also discusses morality (conventional and otherwise) as well as turn of the century village life.
What I Disliked: I didn't really see anything to dislike. This is a really great novel and I wish more of Deledda's work was in print in English so I could read it.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. This is a great novel. Assuming her others are even nearly as good, she well deserves the prize.
Next up: Henri Bergson's "The Meaning of the War"
Wednesday, August 5, 2020
George Bernard Shaw's "Pygmalion"
Name:George Bernard Shaw
Year Won: 1925
Read: Pygmalion
Original Language:English
Reason: "for his work which is marked by both idealism and humanity, its stimulating satire often being infused with a singular poetic beauty"
About: You are likely already familiar with the plot of Pygmalion, seeing as My Fair Lady borrowed heavily from it. With that said, the plot is entertaining and fairly straight forward. A linguist bets with another that he can transform a flower girl into someone who is mistaken for duchess by fixing her speech. After some hilarity (most of it when she meets with the linguist's mother), she is able to do so. In Pygmalion, the girl is then set up with her own flowershop. The end.
Like all of Shaw's plays (I've also read Major Barbara and Man and Superman) it is cleverly written and insanely witty. The ability of Shaw to convey information while using only dialogue (and making that dialogue sound natural) is truly phenomenal. His wit is genuinely funny and his political commentary is astute and sometimes painful.
I suspect that the reason Pygmalion is one of his favorites is that it's commentary (that there really isn't anything that differentiates the rich from the poor other than manners), is far more acceptable than his more biting critiques found in other works.
What I liked: I think I described it above - Shaw is legitimately funny and a great playwrite.
What I Disliked: I found his preferences to be rather dull. The work should speak for itself, Shaw! Aside from that, there's very little to dislike in Pygmalion. I could find much more to dislike in his other works. (For instance, I'm more than a little annoyed at the idea in Man and Superman that women don't aspire to greatness. Why not try telling that to Selma Lagerlöf, Shaw?)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. Whether he's truly the second greatest playwrite in the English language after Shakespeare or not, he is a great playwrite and satirist and deserves the nod.
Next up: Grazia Deledda's novel "The Mother".
Year Won: 1925
Read: Pygmalion
Original Language:English
Reason: "for his work which is marked by both idealism and humanity, its stimulating satire often being infused with a singular poetic beauty"
About: You are likely already familiar with the plot of Pygmalion, seeing as My Fair Lady borrowed heavily from it. With that said, the plot is entertaining and fairly straight forward. A linguist bets with another that he can transform a flower girl into someone who is mistaken for duchess by fixing her speech. After some hilarity (most of it when she meets with the linguist's mother), she is able to do so. In Pygmalion, the girl is then set up with her own flowershop. The end.
Like all of Shaw's plays (I've also read Major Barbara and Man and Superman) it is cleverly written and insanely witty. The ability of Shaw to convey information while using only dialogue (and making that dialogue sound natural) is truly phenomenal. His wit is genuinely funny and his political commentary is astute and sometimes painful.
I suspect that the reason Pygmalion is one of his favorites is that it's commentary (that there really isn't anything that differentiates the rich from the poor other than manners), is far more acceptable than his more biting critiques found in other works.
What I liked: I think I described it above - Shaw is legitimately funny and a great playwrite.
What I Disliked: I found his preferences to be rather dull. The work should speak for itself, Shaw! Aside from that, there's very little to dislike in Pygmalion. I could find much more to dislike in his other works. (For instance, I'm more than a little annoyed at the idea in Man and Superman that women don't aspire to greatness. Why not try telling that to Selma Lagerlöf, Shaw?)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. Whether he's truly the second greatest playwrite in the English language after Shakespeare or not, he is a great playwrite and satirist and deserves the nod.
Next up: Grazia Deledda's novel "The Mother".
Monday, July 27, 2020
The Peasants by Władysław Reymont
Name: Władysław Reymont
Year Won: 1924
Read: The Peasants
Original Language: An extinct dialect of Polish
Reason: "for his great national epic, The Peasants"
About: The Peasants follows the lives of a village of Polish peasants for a calendar year, starting in fall and ending at the end of summer the next year. There's not much of a plot, although there is a vague affair between a farmer and a beautiful young woman. With that said, little of the over 1,200 pages of the book is dedicated to the affair. It's mostly about normal peasant life, from getting through hard winters, to raising pigs, to celebrating Christmas, to marrying people off.
What I liked: This is an incredibly detailed book and it paints a remarkable picture of what life was like for an ordinary person in a small Polish village. (Reymont himself was a Polish peasant.) It's incredibly detailed, accurate, and immersive. I felt like I was there and it's a wonder that someone was able to so perfectly describe ordinary life and customs. What I Disliked: There wasn't much of a plot, which made it lack the narrative drive found in more modern novels.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. It's hard to image a more detailed or perfect description of normal life, from the customs to the people. I'd recommend that every would be fantasy writer read this to get a sense as to what normal life was probably like for the vast majority of European peasants. (And to get a sense as to what life absolutely was like for Polish peasants in the late 19th century.)
Next up: George Bernard Shaw's play "Pygmalion"
Year Won: 1924
Read: The Peasants
Original Language: An extinct dialect of Polish
Reason: "for his great national epic, The Peasants"
About: The Peasants follows the lives of a village of Polish peasants for a calendar year, starting in fall and ending at the end of summer the next year. There's not much of a plot, although there is a vague affair between a farmer and a beautiful young woman. With that said, little of the over 1,200 pages of the book is dedicated to the affair. It's mostly about normal peasant life, from getting through hard winters, to raising pigs, to celebrating Christmas, to marrying people off.
What I liked: This is an incredibly detailed book and it paints a remarkable picture of what life was like for an ordinary person in a small Polish village. (Reymont himself was a Polish peasant.) It's incredibly detailed, accurate, and immersive. I felt like I was there and it's a wonder that someone was able to so perfectly describe ordinary life and customs. What I Disliked: There wasn't much of a plot, which made it lack the narrative drive found in more modern novels.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. It's hard to image a more detailed or perfect description of normal life, from the customs to the people. I'd recommend that every would be fantasy writer read this to get a sense as to what normal life was probably like for the vast majority of European peasants. (And to get a sense as to what life absolutely was like for Polish peasants in the late 19th century.)
Next up: George Bernard Shaw's play "Pygmalion"
Friday, July 17, 2020
The Poetry of Yeats
Name: William Butler Yeats
Year Won: 1923
Read: various poems
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his always inspired poetry, which in a highly artistic form gives expression to the spirit of a whole nation"
About: Yeats writes poetry so, as such, it is poetry. Some are long, some are short, all are poems.
A number of the poems focus specifically on Irish things, from Irish myths to various settings of fishermen by the sea or shepherds or other such things.
What I Liked: His poetry is really quite lovely. He has some interesting rhythm schemes that sometimes almost feel like they're similar to the wind echoing across the plains. He has a great way of making it feel like you are there.
What I Disliked: While he was a perfectly adequate poet, I'm not sure I liked him as well as a number of others I've read. (I prefer Keats, Tennyson, Swinburne, etc.) Still, he is among the greats for good reason, and I do love that he was able to summon a sense of Irish-ness to his poems. (And it's not as though another great was up for the Nobel prize in 1923 anyway...)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. He remains one of the great poets of the English language.
Next up: Władysław Reymont's novel, "The Peasants"
Year Won: 1923
Read: various poems
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his always inspired poetry, which in a highly artistic form gives expression to the spirit of a whole nation"
About: Yeats writes poetry so, as such, it is poetry. Some are long, some are short, all are poems.
A number of the poems focus specifically on Irish things, from Irish myths to various settings of fishermen by the sea or shepherds or other such things.
What I Liked: His poetry is really quite lovely. He has some interesting rhythm schemes that sometimes almost feel like they're similar to the wind echoing across the plains. He has a great way of making it feel like you are there.
What I Disliked: While he was a perfectly adequate poet, I'm not sure I liked him as well as a number of others I've read. (I prefer Keats, Tennyson, Swinburne, etc.) Still, he is among the greats for good reason, and I do love that he was able to summon a sense of Irish-ness to his poems. (And it's not as though another great was up for the Nobel prize in 1923 anyway...)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. He remains one of the great poets of the English language.
Next up: Władysław Reymont's novel, "The Peasants"
Saturday, April 4, 2020
The Bloom of Life
Name: Anatole France
Year Won: 1921
Read: "The Bloom of Life"
Original Language: French
Reason: ""in recognition of his brilliant literary achievements, characterized as they are by a nobility of style, a profound human sympathy, grace, and a true Gallic temperament"
About: The Bloom of Life is yet another "let me tell you all about this important person" story. I found it dull as I am getting seriously tired of reading about yet another brilliant, artistic young man's life where he does brilliant and artistic things and makes oh so clever observations.
It also doesn't help that (and this may be the translation) that the prose is incredibly stilted. What could be described in 4 words generally takes 40 and is done in such a round about way that it's hard to read or appreciate. I quit this book 100 pages in.
What I Liked: There are some interesting descriptions of life and some of the characters are moderately interesting. (If only he could get to the point rather than describing endlessly what his character thought of them and what they were thinking...)
What I Disliked: Almost everything. There are too many books like this by Nobel laureates and they all kind of suck. I also am not a fan of the writing in the least. Omit needless words, buddy.
Should it have won a Nobel: No. But you already knew my opinions on that.
Next up: Poetry by Yates (yay, another I'd heard of prior to this!)
Year Won: 1921
Read: "The Bloom of Life"
Original Language: French
Reason: ""in recognition of his brilliant literary achievements, characterized as they are by a nobility of style, a profound human sympathy, grace, and a true Gallic temperament"
About: The Bloom of Life is yet another "let me tell you all about this important person" story. I found it dull as I am getting seriously tired of reading about yet another brilliant, artistic young man's life where he does brilliant and artistic things and makes oh so clever observations.
It also doesn't help that (and this may be the translation) that the prose is incredibly stilted. What could be described in 4 words generally takes 40 and is done in such a round about way that it's hard to read or appreciate. I quit this book 100 pages in.
What I Liked: There are some interesting descriptions of life and some of the characters are moderately interesting. (If only he could get to the point rather than describing endlessly what his character thought of them and what they were thinking...)
What I Disliked: Almost everything. There are too many books like this by Nobel laureates and they all kind of suck. I also am not a fan of the writing in the least. Omit needless words, buddy.
Should it have won a Nobel: No. But you already knew my opinions on that.
Next up: Poetry by Yates (yay, another I'd heard of prior to this!)
Saturday, March 7, 2020
Growth of the Soil
Name: Kunt Hamsun
Year Won: 1920
Read: "Growth of the Soil"
Original Language: Norwegian
Reason: "for his monumental work, Growth of the Soil"
About: Growth of the Soil is about Isak, a man who grows his farm from a few goats and a patch of barely cleared land to a huge thriving farm with many cows and goats and sheep. He marries Inger, a woman with a harelip, has children, and...grows things. There's also a village and some stories that go on there.
This actually (to me) kind of reads like Stardew Valley - Literary Edition, which isn't a complaint. I LOVED Stardew Valley. It's got a lot of the same characteristics. I found it very soothing to read about farm life. Then when things switched to city life, it was often surprisingly dark and gritty.
What I Liked: It's exceptionally well written. I'd read Hamsun describing how to pull weeds. (And did and LIKED it.) It's the kind of book that's easy to lose yourself in. It's also written in a way that I think was considered very novel for the time, which is worthy of note even if the prose style is a bit more common now. All in all, it was an enjoyable read.
What I Disliked: I really enjoyed this book, so it's hard to find much that I disliked. If I was going to go for something, it's that infanticide seemed like this huge sub-theme, which felt a bit odd. (I mean...maybe it tied into the major theme in the way that made more sense than I thought it did? Unsure.
It was also rather jarring for Inger to nearly kill a relative just to have them later get along like No Big Deal. (To be fair, Inger did spend some time in jail after the altercation, but it still felt odd.)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. This is an extraordinary novel that likely would have seemed even more so when it was written. Next up: The Bloom of Life by Anatole France
Year Won: 1920
Read: "Growth of the Soil"
Original Language: Norwegian
Reason: "for his monumental work, Growth of the Soil"
About: Growth of the Soil is about Isak, a man who grows his farm from a few goats and a patch of barely cleared land to a huge thriving farm with many cows and goats and sheep. He marries Inger, a woman with a harelip, has children, and...grows things. There's also a village and some stories that go on there.
This actually (to me) kind of reads like Stardew Valley - Literary Edition, which isn't a complaint. I LOVED Stardew Valley. It's got a lot of the same characteristics. I found it very soothing to read about farm life. Then when things switched to city life, it was often surprisingly dark and gritty.
What I Liked: It's exceptionally well written. I'd read Hamsun describing how to pull weeds. (And did and LIKED it.) It's the kind of book that's easy to lose yourself in. It's also written in a way that I think was considered very novel for the time, which is worthy of note even if the prose style is a bit more common now. All in all, it was an enjoyable read.
What I Disliked: I really enjoyed this book, so it's hard to find much that I disliked. If I was going to go for something, it's that infanticide seemed like this huge sub-theme, which felt a bit odd. (I mean...maybe it tied into the major theme in the way that made more sense than I thought it did? Unsure.
It was also rather jarring for Inger to nearly kill a relative just to have them later get along like No Big Deal. (To be fair, Inger did spend some time in jail after the altercation, but it still felt odd.)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. This is an extraordinary novel that likely would have seemed even more so when it was written. Next up: The Bloom of Life by Anatole France
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Lucky Per
Name: Romain Rolland
Year Won: 1917
Read: "Lucky Per"
Original Language: Dutch
Reason: "for his authentic descriptions of present-day life in Denmark"
About: Lucky Per is about Per, the son of a poor and very devout minister, who leaves home determined to make it rich and implement an ambitious canal system through Denmark. He goes to engineering school. He hangs out with artists and intellectuals (while never being one of them, although he is an excellent engineer). He falls in love with a wealthy Jewish heiress then dumps her to live out a life of aestheticism in the countryside with a Christian wife, having discovered, I guess, the life that made his parents happy or some such.
What I Liked: No joke. This has been one of my favorites in the project so far. The characters are wonderful (especially Per and the members of the Soloman family - of which his financee, Jakobe, is phenomenal). The descriptions of the world are great. I felt like I was there. I cared about what happened enough to rant in the next session. This is a GOOD book.
It also has an actual plot and doesn't feel anywhere near as precious as most of the earlier entries. Per is kind of an asshole. I like that, in my own way. It's rather refreshing having someone who has no artistic genius (and recognizes it), a great dream (that isn't fulfilled), and isn't a Marty Stu who everyone falls madly in love with upon meeting for the first time.
What I Disliked: If there was ever a novel that could benefit from a modern editor, this is it.
Per initially courts Jakobe because she's rich...but then seems to forget all about that and instead is in love with her refreshing intellectualism. I mean, I guess that could happen, but forgetting about her money seemed odd.
Then she gets pregnant, tells him, and he...doesn't seem to notice. Which...okay? That seems weird. (Especially in the late 19th century when I think this was set.) And then she keeps debating telling him she's pregnant (even though she told him a few chapters ago), and then doesn't, then does, but somehow it's all forgotten. (Which is, again...EDITOR!)
Even more frustrating, Jakobe ends up having the kid torn apart while inside her to save her life while in England (it's so gruesome she's not allowed to see the corpse - no joke), and then is sad...while Per goes off and marries some other lady and we're supposed to somehow care about Per's spiritual epiphany...which might make sense if she'd never told him she was pregnant, which I guess she did or didn't depending on the chapter? It's bewildering...
All of this would make a lot more sense without the pregnancy sub-plot. (Per is still, IMO, an asshole for just wandering off and ditching Jakobe without explaining that he's doing it, but he's less of one if she wasn't horribly suffering. And he's only moderately asshole-y if he didn't know she was pregnant, which he should know as she told him a few times, but somehow the book forgot that a chapter later so IDK.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. It's incredibly engrossing and wonderfully portrays a world and characters. It's also incredibly refreshing. It reads like a modern novel (other than the poor editing). I wish they'd fixed that. But oh well...
Next up: Growth of the Soil by Knut Hamsun (Olympic Spring, being poetry, is not covered by my library. Grrr....especially as this is the first poem I've heard of.)
Year Won: 1917
Read: "Lucky Per"
Original Language: Dutch
Reason: "for his authentic descriptions of present-day life in Denmark"
About: Lucky Per is about Per, the son of a poor and very devout minister, who leaves home determined to make it rich and implement an ambitious canal system through Denmark. He goes to engineering school. He hangs out with artists and intellectuals (while never being one of them, although he is an excellent engineer). He falls in love with a wealthy Jewish heiress then dumps her to live out a life of aestheticism in the countryside with a Christian wife, having discovered, I guess, the life that made his parents happy or some such.
What I Liked: No joke. This has been one of my favorites in the project so far. The characters are wonderful (especially Per and the members of the Soloman family - of which his financee, Jakobe, is phenomenal). The descriptions of the world are great. I felt like I was there. I cared about what happened enough to rant in the next session. This is a GOOD book.
It also has an actual plot and doesn't feel anywhere near as precious as most of the earlier entries. Per is kind of an asshole. I like that, in my own way. It's rather refreshing having someone who has no artistic genius (and recognizes it), a great dream (that isn't fulfilled), and isn't a Marty Stu who everyone falls madly in love with upon meeting for the first time.
What I Disliked: If there was ever a novel that could benefit from a modern editor, this is it.
Per initially courts Jakobe because she's rich...but then seems to forget all about that and instead is in love with her refreshing intellectualism. I mean, I guess that could happen, but forgetting about her money seemed odd.
Then she gets pregnant, tells him, and he...doesn't seem to notice. Which...okay? That seems weird. (Especially in the late 19th century when I think this was set.) And then she keeps debating telling him she's pregnant (even though she told him a few chapters ago), and then doesn't, then does, but somehow it's all forgotten. (Which is, again...EDITOR!)
Even more frustrating, Jakobe ends up having the kid torn apart while inside her to save her life while in England (it's so gruesome she's not allowed to see the corpse - no joke), and then is sad...while Per goes off and marries some other lady and we're supposed to somehow care about Per's spiritual epiphany...which might make sense if she'd never told him she was pregnant, which I guess she did or didn't depending on the chapter? It's bewildering...
All of this would make a lot more sense without the pregnancy sub-plot. (Per is still, IMO, an asshole for just wandering off and ditching Jakobe without explaining that he's doing it, but he's less of one if she wasn't horribly suffering. And he's only moderately asshole-y if he didn't know she was pregnant, which he should know as she told him a few times, but somehow the book forgot that a chapter later so IDK.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. It's incredibly engrossing and wonderfully portrays a world and characters. It's also incredibly refreshing. It reads like a modern novel (other than the poor editing). I wish they'd fixed that. But oh well...
Next up: Growth of the Soil by Knut Hamsun (Olympic Spring, being poetry, is not covered by my library. Grrr....especially as this is the first poem I've heard of.)
Thursday, February 20, 2020
Jean-Christophe
Name:Romain Rolland
Year Won: 1915
Read: "Jean-Christophe"
Original Language: French
Reason: "as a tribute to the lofty idealism of his literary production and to the sympathy and love of truth with which he has described different types of human beings"
About: Jean-Christophe follows the titular Jean-Christophe from birth (yes, it literally describes his birth) until I'm guessing death. (I gave up after the first book, which takes him to young adulthood).
It's pretty plot-less, mostly just a description of the character growing up and getting older and falling in love and playing a LOT of piano.
What I Liked: The writing is excellent and some of the characters are really well written. The world is also wonderfully described and complete feeling. It's an ambitious work clocking in at something like 2,000 pages.
What I Disliked: THERE IS NO PLOT. I'm not sure why this seems to be a thing with literary works, but I dislike it.
Jean-Christophe also feels a bit precious to me. He is a man, of course of great misunderstood artistic genius which tends to get me to roll my eyes. I suspect if I was a teenager who felt like I was a great, misunderstood artistic genius that this might appeal somewhat more to me, but I'm not, so there were a number of moments where my eyes rolled back pretty far in my head.
Should it have won a Nobel: Well...it's better than The Bluebird. And it is ambitious. But...ugh, wasn't there anything better this year? (I have to believe there was.)
Next up: Lucky Per by Henrik Pontoppidan (the two after him were poets, so of course the library had nothing by them)
Year Won: 1915
Read: "Jean-Christophe"
Original Language: French
Reason: "as a tribute to the lofty idealism of his literary production and to the sympathy and love of truth with which he has described different types of human beings"
About: Jean-Christophe follows the titular Jean-Christophe from birth (yes, it literally describes his birth) until I'm guessing death. (I gave up after the first book, which takes him to young adulthood).
It's pretty plot-less, mostly just a description of the character growing up and getting older and falling in love and playing a LOT of piano.
What I Liked: The writing is excellent and some of the characters are really well written. The world is also wonderfully described and complete feeling. It's an ambitious work clocking in at something like 2,000 pages.
What I Disliked: THERE IS NO PLOT. I'm not sure why this seems to be a thing with literary works, but I dislike it.
Jean-Christophe also feels a bit precious to me. He is a man, of course of great misunderstood artistic genius which tends to get me to roll my eyes. I suspect if I was a teenager who felt like I was a great, misunderstood artistic genius that this might appeal somewhat more to me, but I'm not, so there were a number of moments where my eyes rolled back pretty far in my head.
Should it have won a Nobel: Well...it's better than The Bluebird. And it is ambitious. But...ugh, wasn't there anything better this year? (I have to believe there was.)
Next up: Lucky Per by Henrik Pontoppidan (the two after him were poets, so of course the library had nothing by them)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)