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"
Sunday, October 25, 2020
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)