Name: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Year Won: 1970
Read: Apricot Jam and Other Stories
Original Language: Russian
Reason: "for the ethical force with which he has pursued the indispensable traditions of Russian literature"
About: "Apricot Jam and Other Stories" is a collection of short stories by Solzhenitsyn, all set in Russia (most during the revolution). They cover anything from the ousted wealthy lamenting over their apricot tree, to a shamed maiden who is pregnant with her seducer's child, to Russian revolutionaries.
Most stories are realistic (I'd imagine a great risk in the Soviet era - and Solzhenitsyn was expelled from Russia for exposing the Gulag system), but neither are overly pessimistic nor optimistic, which is kind of refreshing compared to a number of other writers from his era. (Who seem to mostly be churning out propaganda.)
What I liked: These are some well written short stories that (I think? Never been there, LOL) faithfully paint a picture of the world under Soviet control. That's pretty cool!
What I Disliked: For whatever reason, I never really latched onto any of the stories. They're good, I think, from a technical perspective, they just didn't especially engage me for whatever reason.
Should it have won a Nobel: Probably. If nothing else, Solzhenitsyn deserves all the acclaim for exposing the Gulag system to the wider world. His writing also is quite good, even if I'm not a huge fan of it. And the world he perserves in his words is intersting. I'm *glad* that someone as talented as him set his words to describing it, so people can have a faithful picture of Soviet life in thousands of years.
Next Up: "Then Come Back" the lost Neruda Poems by Pablo Neruda
Tuesday, December 14, 2021
Wednesday, October 27, 2021
Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett
Name: Samuel Beckett
Year Won: 1969
Read: Waiting for Godot
Original Language: English and French (strangely as he's Irish - whoda thunk?)
Reason: "for his writing, which - in new forms for the novel and drama - in the destitution of modern man acquires its elevation"
About: "Waiting for Godot" follows two homeless men who sit around, make up stories, talk about nonsense and...you got it!...wait for Godot, a mysterious *someone* who never shows up. Along the way they digress into talking about politics, hanging and nonsense. A LOT of nonsense.
What I liked: Desite the nonsense, there's a sense that there's a meaning behind what the men are saying. Godot has a sort of messianic feeling, but precisely what he's supposed to do is unclear, which allows the reader/watcher (it's a play, after all!) to project their own opinion on things - sort of like many religions, I guess.
What I Disliked: The play is nonsense. Heavily nonsense. Almost complete and total nonsense. It's really, really weird. (And I'm not sure what, if anything is supposed to be taken away from it other than that it's werid. I can see why this is satirized so often.)
Should it have won a Nobel: I don't know. It's considered a classic, so probably? But it's also just...weird. I feel like there are a number of other works that tackle the same topics more coherently. (Although I do feel like the lack of coherence is the point?) Who knows any more?
Next Up: Something by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Year Won: 1969
Read: Waiting for Godot
Original Language: English and French (strangely as he's Irish - whoda thunk?)
Reason: "for his writing, which - in new forms for the novel and drama - in the destitution of modern man acquires its elevation"
About: "Waiting for Godot" follows two homeless men who sit around, make up stories, talk about nonsense and...you got it!...wait for Godot, a mysterious *someone* who never shows up. Along the way they digress into talking about politics, hanging and nonsense. A LOT of nonsense.
What I liked: Desite the nonsense, there's a sense that there's a meaning behind what the men are saying. Godot has a sort of messianic feeling, but precisely what he's supposed to do is unclear, which allows the reader/watcher (it's a play, after all!) to project their own opinion on things - sort of like many religions, I guess.
What I Disliked: The play is nonsense. Heavily nonsense. Almost complete and total nonsense. It's really, really weird. (And I'm not sure what, if anything is supposed to be taken away from it other than that it's werid. I can see why this is satirized so often.)
Should it have won a Nobel: I don't know. It's considered a classic, so probably? But it's also just...weird. I feel like there are a number of other works that tackle the same topics more coherently. (Although I do feel like the lack of coherence is the point?) Who knows any more?
Next Up: Something by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Sunday, October 17, 2021
The Thousand Cranes by Yasunari Kawabata
Name: Yasunari Kawabata
Year Won: 1968
Read: The Thousand Cranes
Original Language: Japanese
Reason: "for his narrative mastery, which with great sensibility expresses the essence of the Japanese mind"
About: "The Thousand Cranes" follows a young Japanese man as he conducts tea ceremonies, has an affair with not one but TWO of his father's mistresses (much elder ladies), as well as falls in love with a woman closer to his own age. It's a fairly short (around 150 pages) and simple story.
What I liked: It's really beautiful. The ways in which the characters are described are almost magnetic. From the first page, I felt hooked even though I'd have a hard time saying precisely *why*. And the characters have this wonderful feeling of tragedy about them. I really felt for these older women who have spent their lives feeling neglected and abused, so now are are taking refuge in the (temporary) love of the protagonist.
What I Disliked: The story does feel a bit scant. In many ways, I'd have liked more of it. Such is the shame of a short novel..
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. I really loved this book, although it's hard to say precisely why. There's just something about Kawabata's writing that has an almost magnetic pull. I'm not sure why, it just *does*. That gave this a unique feeling that's been hard to find in other novels, even among this vaunted list.
Next Up: "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett
Year Won: 1968
Read: The Thousand Cranes
Original Language: Japanese
Reason: "for his narrative mastery, which with great sensibility expresses the essence of the Japanese mind"
About: "The Thousand Cranes" follows a young Japanese man as he conducts tea ceremonies, has an affair with not one but TWO of his father's mistresses (much elder ladies), as well as falls in love with a woman closer to his own age. It's a fairly short (around 150 pages) and simple story.
What I liked: It's really beautiful. The ways in which the characters are described are almost magnetic. From the first page, I felt hooked even though I'd have a hard time saying precisely *why*. And the characters have this wonderful feeling of tragedy about them. I really felt for these older women who have spent their lives feeling neglected and abused, so now are are taking refuge in the (temporary) love of the protagonist.
What I Disliked: The story does feel a bit scant. In many ways, I'd have liked more of it. Such is the shame of a short novel..
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. I really loved this book, although it's hard to say precisely why. There's just something about Kawabata's writing that has an almost magnetic pull. I'm not sure why, it just *does*. That gave this a unique feeling that's been hard to find in other novels, even among this vaunted list.
Next Up: "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett
Saturday, October 16, 2021
El Senor Presidente by Miguel Angel Asturias
Name: Miguel Angel Asturias
Year Won: 1967
Read: El Senor Presidente
Original Language: Spanish
Reason: "for his vivid literary achievement, deep-rooted in the national traits and traditions of Indian peoples of Latin America"
About: "El Senor Presidente" follows the assistant/favorite of a corrupt Latin American president as he goes around doing awful things in the name of the president and struggling with the morality of what he does. And the lives of a number of other people, all broken under the horrible rule of the dictator.
It's apparently an early version of magical realism, and the world warps in strange and magical ways around the characters.
What I liked: The writing is beautiful and chilling. The story is compelling and it paints a dark picture of a morally conflicted man in the midst of a horrible situation.
What I Disliked: There are a lot of major characters, which can make it a confusing read. I think it would have been stronger with one protagonist vs. oh, say, 20.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. This is one of the better books on the list, between the beautiful writing, intriguing characters, and real world commentary.
Next Up: "The Thousand Cranes" by Yasunari Kawabata
Year Won: 1967
Read: El Senor Presidente
Original Language: Spanish
Reason: "for his vivid literary achievement, deep-rooted in the national traits and traditions of Indian peoples of Latin America"
About: "El Senor Presidente" follows the assistant/favorite of a corrupt Latin American president as he goes around doing awful things in the name of the president and struggling with the morality of what he does. And the lives of a number of other people, all broken under the horrible rule of the dictator.
It's apparently an early version of magical realism, and the world warps in strange and magical ways around the characters.
What I liked: The writing is beautiful and chilling. The story is compelling and it paints a dark picture of a morally conflicted man in the midst of a horrible situation.
What I Disliked: There are a lot of major characters, which can make it a confusing read. I think it would have been stronger with one protagonist vs. oh, say, 20.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. This is one of the better books on the list, between the beautiful writing, intriguing characters, and real world commentary.
Next Up: "The Thousand Cranes" by Yasunari Kawabata
Friday, October 8, 2021
O the Chimneys by Nelly Sachs
Name: Nelly Sachs
Year Won: 1966
Read: O the Chimneys
Original Language: German
Reason: "for her outstanding lyrical and dramatic writing, which interprets Israel's destiny with touching strength"
About: "O the Chimneys" is one poem of many in a collection by the same name. It's a dark lyrical poem (more on that later) in a collection of equally dark, lyrical poems. Sachs fled the Holocast with "nothing left but her language" and that darkness shows through.
What I liked: The poetry is beautiful, yet uncomfortable. It's really good. I'll reproduce the title poem here...
O the chimneys
And though after my skin worms destroy this
body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.-Job, 19:26
O the chimneys
On the ingeniously devised habitations of death
When Isreal's body drifted as smoke
Through the air-
Was welcomed by a star, a chimney sweep,
A star that turned black
Or was it a ray of sun?
O the chimneys!
Freedomway for Jeremiah and Job's dust-
Who devised you and laid stone upon stone
The road for refugees of smoke?
O the habitations of death,
Invitingly appoitned
For the host who used to be a guest-
O you fingers
Laying the threshold
Like a knife between life and death-
O you chimneys,
O you fingers
And Isreal's body as smoke through the air!
What I Disliked: The poems truly are dark. REALLY dark. It makes sense, but again, uncomfortable stuff.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. This is brilliant stuff and Sachs well deserves her prize. I only wish her life had been a more comfortable one.
Next Up: "El Senior Presidente" by Miguel Angel Asturias
Year Won: 1966
Read: O the Chimneys
Original Language: German
Reason: "for her outstanding lyrical and dramatic writing, which interprets Israel's destiny with touching strength"
About: "O the Chimneys" is one poem of many in a collection by the same name. It's a dark lyrical poem (more on that later) in a collection of equally dark, lyrical poems. Sachs fled the Holocast with "nothing left but her language" and that darkness shows through.
What I liked: The poetry is beautiful, yet uncomfortable. It's really good. I'll reproduce the title poem here...
O the chimneys
And though after my skin worms destroy this
body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.-Job, 19:26
O the chimneys
On the ingeniously devised habitations of death
When Isreal's body drifted as smoke
Through the air-
Was welcomed by a star, a chimney sweep,
A star that turned black
Or was it a ray of sun?
O the chimneys!
Freedomway for Jeremiah and Job's dust-
Who devised you and laid stone upon stone
The road for refugees of smoke?
O the habitations of death,
Invitingly appoitned
For the host who used to be a guest-
O you fingers
Laying the threshold
Like a knife between life and death-
O you chimneys,
O you fingers
And Isreal's body as smoke through the air!
What I Disliked: The poems truly are dark. REALLY dark. It makes sense, but again, uncomfortable stuff.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. This is brilliant stuff and Sachs well deserves her prize. I only wish her life had been a more comfortable one.
Next Up: "El Senior Presidente" by Miguel Angel Asturias
Wednesday, October 6, 2021
Betrothed by Shmuel Yosef Agnon
Name: Shmuel Yosef Agnon
Year Won: 1966
Read: Betrothed
Original Language: Hebrew
Reason: "for his profoundly characteristic narrative art with motifs from the life of the Jewish people"
About: "Betrothed" follows the scholar Jacob, who basically flirts with all the town's eligible ladies before settling on one, Susan. Yep. That's it. (It's a fairly short novel - more of a novella than a true novel for what it's worth).
What I liked: The writing is absolutely gorgeous, and the descriptions of the bachelorettes is often quite humorous. (Rachel and Leah were impossible to choose between, because Rachel was so beautiful you couldn't help but love her, but then Leah demanded nothing, which made Rachel's demands hard to deal with by comparison. Oh, men...what jerks you can be.)
What I Disliked: It was really scant. It was literally, "Dude comes into town, vaguely falls in love with a lot of ladies, then marries one". That's it. (As a positive, at least it was super SHORT, so this didn't get boring, but there wasn't much to the story.)
Should it have won a Nobel: This year it felt like they were dead set to giving the prize to writers in Hebrew. Since that was the determination (never say that the Nobels aren't highly political), this was probably a better choice than many. The writing, at least, is lyrical. The story, at least, exists. This is a lot better than many things they've given it to.
Now is the greatest writer to have existed this year? Probably not. But I don't think that was really the point.
Next Up: "O the Chimneys" by Nelly Sachs
Year Won: 1966
Read: Betrothed
Original Language: Hebrew
Reason: "for his profoundly characteristic narrative art with motifs from the life of the Jewish people"
About: "Betrothed" follows the scholar Jacob, who basically flirts with all the town's eligible ladies before settling on one, Susan. Yep. That's it. (It's a fairly short novel - more of a novella than a true novel for what it's worth).
What I liked: The writing is absolutely gorgeous, and the descriptions of the bachelorettes is often quite humorous. (Rachel and Leah were impossible to choose between, because Rachel was so beautiful you couldn't help but love her, but then Leah demanded nothing, which made Rachel's demands hard to deal with by comparison. Oh, men...what jerks you can be.)
What I Disliked: It was really scant. It was literally, "Dude comes into town, vaguely falls in love with a lot of ladies, then marries one". That's it. (As a positive, at least it was super SHORT, so this didn't get boring, but there wasn't much to the story.)
Should it have won a Nobel: This year it felt like they were dead set to giving the prize to writers in Hebrew. Since that was the determination (never say that the Nobels aren't highly political), this was probably a better choice than many. The writing, at least, is lyrical. The story, at least, exists. This is a lot better than many things they've given it to.
Now is the greatest writer to have existed this year? Probably not. But I don't think that was really the point.
Next Up: "O the Chimneys" by Nelly Sachs
Tuesday, September 14, 2021
Tales of the Don by Mikhail Sholokhov
Name: Mikhail Sholokhov
Year Won: 1965
Read: Tales of the Don
Original Language: Russian
Reason: "for the artistic power and integrity with which, in his epic of the Don, he has given expression to a historic phase in the life of the Russian people"
About: "Tales of the Don" is a series of short stories about a number of Cossacks living near the river Don. They do great and heroic things! They fight bandits, they battle the foes of communism, they live their best lives, comrades!
What I liked: As expected for a Nobel prize winner, the writing is lovely. Also, the stories are fun. They're action packed, with lots of fun heroism and swash buckling.
What I Disliked: It's hard to escape the feeling that this is all a bit too rosy and a bit too good to be true. It feels very much like propaganda at times, which isn't the *worst* thing ever (and was probably necessary for someone writing in the former USSR), but also can make this feel a bit more like a Saturday morning cartoon than like a great work of literature.
Should it have won a Nobel: I guess? This is hardly the worst thing that has won a Nobel prize, and it's genuinely a fun read (unlike some of the many, many other novels on this list). But compared to other contemporary writers who *didn't* win (Graham Greene, Walter Tevis, etc.) this feels *very* slight. Maybe the other stories in the epic feel more thought provoking (or maybe I'm overly harsh)...but it does seem like an awful lot of really good authors didn't win a Nobel. So while this isn't bad (and, again, it's pretty entertaining to read), based on this alone I'm seeing more "fun stories about great heroes" than "great, thought provoking drama".
Next Up: "O the Chimneys" by Nelly Sachs or "Betrothed & Edo" and "Edam" by Shmuel Yosef Agnon (both won in 1966 and both are Jewish writers)
Year Won: 1965
Read: Tales of the Don
Original Language: Russian
Reason: "for the artistic power and integrity with which, in his epic of the Don, he has given expression to a historic phase in the life of the Russian people"
About: "Tales of the Don" is a series of short stories about a number of Cossacks living near the river Don. They do great and heroic things! They fight bandits, they battle the foes of communism, they live their best lives, comrades!
What I liked: As expected for a Nobel prize winner, the writing is lovely. Also, the stories are fun. They're action packed, with lots of fun heroism and swash buckling.
What I Disliked: It's hard to escape the feeling that this is all a bit too rosy and a bit too good to be true. It feels very much like propaganda at times, which isn't the *worst* thing ever (and was probably necessary for someone writing in the former USSR), but also can make this feel a bit more like a Saturday morning cartoon than like a great work of literature.
Should it have won a Nobel: I guess? This is hardly the worst thing that has won a Nobel prize, and it's genuinely a fun read (unlike some of the many, many other novels on this list). But compared to other contemporary writers who *didn't* win (Graham Greene, Walter Tevis, etc.) this feels *very* slight. Maybe the other stories in the epic feel more thought provoking (or maybe I'm overly harsh)...but it does seem like an awful lot of really good authors didn't win a Nobel. So while this isn't bad (and, again, it's pretty entertaining to read), based on this alone I'm seeing more "fun stories about great heroes" than "great, thought provoking drama".
Next Up: "O the Chimneys" by Nelly Sachs or "Betrothed & Edo" and "Edam" by Shmuel Yosef Agnon (both won in 1966 and both are Jewish writers)
Friday, September 10, 2021
Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre
Name: Jean-Paul Sartre
Year Won: 1964
Read: Nausea
Original Language: French
Reason: "for his work, which rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth, has exerted a far-reaching influence on our age"
About: "Nausea" is a story about existentialism. Seriously. There's sort of a protagonist who find himself all alone and feeling nausous at a number of things. He also goes out to dinner and talks about philosophy a lot. Seriously. A lot.
What I liked: The writing can be very lovely. Sartre is very good at creating a sense of impending doom.
What I Disliked: There honestly isn't much of a plot. It's just a dude observing things and feeling unsettled. For over a hundred pages. It's more or less "this is my philosophy, told as a novel" which, to be frank, was done more gracefully and subtly in "Atlas Shrugged" (which is saying very, very little).
Should it have won a Nobel: For this alone, no. It's not a very good book in my mind (I'm sure others will differ, but from the perspective of a novel being a novel, it SUCKS). But Sartre is a pretty big deal from a philosophy perspective and other works of his (like "No Exit") are classics for a reason. So he probably deserves it, but I would not pick "Nausea" as something to read a second time. (Or even a first.) I can see why it was widely rejected by publishers after it was written.
Next Up: "Tales of the Don" by Mikhail Sholokhov
Year Won: 1964
Read: Nausea
Original Language: French
Reason: "for his work, which rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth, has exerted a far-reaching influence on our age"
About: "Nausea" is a story about existentialism. Seriously. There's sort of a protagonist who find himself all alone and feeling nausous at a number of things. He also goes out to dinner and talks about philosophy a lot. Seriously. A lot.
What I liked: The writing can be very lovely. Sartre is very good at creating a sense of impending doom.
What I Disliked: There honestly isn't much of a plot. It's just a dude observing things and feeling unsettled. For over a hundred pages. It's more or less "this is my philosophy, told as a novel" which, to be frank, was done more gracefully and subtly in "Atlas Shrugged" (which is saying very, very little).
Should it have won a Nobel: For this alone, no. It's not a very good book in my mind (I'm sure others will differ, but from the perspective of a novel being a novel, it SUCKS). But Sartre is a pretty big deal from a philosophy perspective and other works of his (like "No Exit") are classics for a reason. So he probably deserves it, but I would not pick "Nausea" as something to read a second time. (Or even a first.) I can see why it was widely rejected by publishers after it was written.
Next Up: "Tales of the Don" by Mikhail Sholokhov
Wednesday, September 8, 2021
The Collected Poems of Giorgos Seferis
Name: Giorgos Seferis
Year Won: 1963
Read: Collected Poems
Original Language: Greek
Reason: "for his eminent lyrical writing, inspired by a deep feeling for the Hellenic world of culture"
About: This was a poetry collection of Seferis' poems. They are lovely lyrical poems that mostly describe the beauty of Greece and seem to focus heavily on the sea and classical mythology.
What I liked: I really love how the poems often dip between the ancient and the modern, bridging mythology with the eternal landscape of Greece.
What I Disliked: Not really anything. This was a very lovely collection of poetry and it's all quite lovely. With that said, I'm not sure that it made me think the way the best literature tends to. (It mostly just felt very lovely.)
Should it have won a Nobel: Probably? It's really hard for me to judge poetry, particularly in another language. To me, this felt like very lovely poetry (and it was probably better in its native language), but whether that is or should be enough is hard for me to tell. This didn't feel like it had the novelty or timelessness of, say, Hemmingway or Steinbeck, but I'm not sure that that's necessary either.
Next Up: "Nausea" by Jean-Paul Sartre
Year Won: 1963
Read: Collected Poems
Original Language: Greek
Reason: "for his eminent lyrical writing, inspired by a deep feeling for the Hellenic world of culture"
About: This was a poetry collection of Seferis' poems. They are lovely lyrical poems that mostly describe the beauty of Greece and seem to focus heavily on the sea and classical mythology.
What I liked: I really love how the poems often dip between the ancient and the modern, bridging mythology with the eternal landscape of Greece.
What I Disliked: Not really anything. This was a very lovely collection of poetry and it's all quite lovely. With that said, I'm not sure that it made me think the way the best literature tends to. (It mostly just felt very lovely.)
Should it have won a Nobel: Probably? It's really hard for me to judge poetry, particularly in another language. To me, this felt like very lovely poetry (and it was probably better in its native language), but whether that is or should be enough is hard for me to tell. This didn't feel like it had the novelty or timelessness of, say, Hemmingway or Steinbeck, but I'm not sure that that's necessary either.
Next Up: "Nausea" by Jean-Paul Sartre
Sunday, August 29, 2021
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
Name: John Steinbeck
Year Won: 1962
Read: "The Grapes of Wrath"
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his realistic and imaginative writings, combining as they do sympathetic humour and keen social perception"
About: "The Grapes of Wrath" follows an okie (e.g. a pejorative given to economic immigrants from the middle of the country by California - many of whom were from Oklahoma) family immigrating to California. Their goal is mostly just to live and raise their family. But they face enormous prejudice (including farmers unwilling to pay them a decent wage because their neighbors will burn their crops, police raids, vigilante raids, etc.) from the lovely folk of Salinas who do NOT want them there.
This is the first time I've read this particular book by Steinbeck (although I've read a number of others and loved them), but he always feels particularly resonant to me as I lived for a while in Monterey California (near Salinas), so am well aware of the hatred that still continues towards the okies. (FWIW, Steinbeck is not well loved in Salinas, who mostly tries to forget that he exists.)
What I liked: Steinbeck does an amazing job of capturing the economic desperation of the family (e.g. them desperately hoping their car doesn't break along Route 66 stranding them in the desert without food or water), the beauty of Salinas valley, and the incredible prejudice they face upon arriving in California. This truly is a masterwork.
What I Disliked: It's actively painful to read about how the family is treated, as well as their hardships. I think that's the point, but still...
Also, while I liked some of the asides in which he sort of just describes things, I could see how they might get tedious after a while. (And they do seem to distract somewhat from the plot, which Steinbeck seems only marginally interested in.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. There's a reason Steinbeck is almost always taught in high school classes in the US (unless you live in Salinas, LOL). He's an incredibly talented writer who is able to make us feel sympathy for the downtrodden. (He's also pretty good at weaving an epic narrative about a family - see "East of Eden", which I actually enjoyed more, but both are great books.)
Next Up: The Collected Poems of Giorgos Seferis
Year Won: 1962
Read: "The Grapes of Wrath"
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his realistic and imaginative writings, combining as they do sympathetic humour and keen social perception"
About: "The Grapes of Wrath" follows an okie (e.g. a pejorative given to economic immigrants from the middle of the country by California - many of whom were from Oklahoma) family immigrating to California. Their goal is mostly just to live and raise their family. But they face enormous prejudice (including farmers unwilling to pay them a decent wage because their neighbors will burn their crops, police raids, vigilante raids, etc.) from the lovely folk of Salinas who do NOT want them there.
This is the first time I've read this particular book by Steinbeck (although I've read a number of others and loved them), but he always feels particularly resonant to me as I lived for a while in Monterey California (near Salinas), so am well aware of the hatred that still continues towards the okies. (FWIW, Steinbeck is not well loved in Salinas, who mostly tries to forget that he exists.)
What I liked: Steinbeck does an amazing job of capturing the economic desperation of the family (e.g. them desperately hoping their car doesn't break along Route 66 stranding them in the desert without food or water), the beauty of Salinas valley, and the incredible prejudice they face upon arriving in California. This truly is a masterwork.
What I Disliked: It's actively painful to read about how the family is treated, as well as their hardships. I think that's the point, but still...
Also, while I liked some of the asides in which he sort of just describes things, I could see how they might get tedious after a while. (And they do seem to distract somewhat from the plot, which Steinbeck seems only marginally interested in.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. There's a reason Steinbeck is almost always taught in high school classes in the US (unless you live in Salinas, LOL). He's an incredibly talented writer who is able to make us feel sympathy for the downtrodden. (He's also pretty good at weaving an epic narrative about a family - see "East of Eden", which I actually enjoyed more, but both are great books.)
Next Up: The Collected Poems of Giorgos Seferis
Monday, August 16, 2021
The Bridge on the Drina by Ivo Andrić
Name: Ivo Andrić
Year Won: 1961
Read: "The Bridge Over the River Drina"
Original Language: Serbian
Reason: "for the epic force with which he has traced themes and depicted human destinies drawn from the history of his country"
About: "The Bridge Over the River Drina" is actually a pretty accurate title. The novel is about a bridge. On the River Drina. Like, seriously. The story is about a bridge. There are descriptions of the bridge, how the bridge is made, and what happens around the bridge.
To be a bit less sarcastic, the rest of the novel plays out of things happening around the bridge. People fall in love. There are wars. Children play by it, etc. Most of the "novel" is a series of vignettes about daily life around the bridge, both Christian and Turkish. It's not really a story, per se, as vignettes of life near a bridge. (Oh, and stories about the bridge's construction, how people see it, etc.
What I liked: Some of the stories are pretty interesting. Also, Bosnia/Serbia sound like pretty interesting places, full of history and clashing cultures. I kind of want to visit now.
What I Disliked: This isn't a novel in any kind of conventional sense. It really is a bunch of vignettes. They're beautifully written, but the only thing connecting them is a bridge.
Should it have won a Nobel: I didn't really like it and will admit that I'm far more a fan of novels that, y'know, are actually novels. With that said, it *did* paint a very interesting picture of hundreds of years of daily life in a country and is a very unique format. So maybe? I feel like it's too experimental for my taste, but is an impressive work all the same.
Next Up: "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck
Year Won: 1961
Read: "The Bridge Over the River Drina"
Original Language: Serbian
Reason: "for the epic force with which he has traced themes and depicted human destinies drawn from the history of his country"
About: "The Bridge Over the River Drina" is actually a pretty accurate title. The novel is about a bridge. On the River Drina. Like, seriously. The story is about a bridge. There are descriptions of the bridge, how the bridge is made, and what happens around the bridge.
To be a bit less sarcastic, the rest of the novel plays out of things happening around the bridge. People fall in love. There are wars. Children play by it, etc. Most of the "novel" is a series of vignettes about daily life around the bridge, both Christian and Turkish. It's not really a story, per se, as vignettes of life near a bridge. (Oh, and stories about the bridge's construction, how people see it, etc.
What I liked: Some of the stories are pretty interesting. Also, Bosnia/Serbia sound like pretty interesting places, full of history and clashing cultures. I kind of want to visit now.
What I Disliked: This isn't a novel in any kind of conventional sense. It really is a bunch of vignettes. They're beautifully written, but the only thing connecting them is a bridge.
Should it have won a Nobel: I didn't really like it and will admit that I'm far more a fan of novels that, y'know, are actually novels. With that said, it *did* paint a very interesting picture of hundreds of years of daily life in a country and is a very unique format. So maybe? I feel like it's too experimental for my taste, but is an impressive work all the same.
Next Up: "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck
Wednesday, August 4, 2021
Anabasis by Saint-John Perse
Name: Saint-John Perse
Year Won: 1960
Read: "Anabasis"
Original Language: French
Reason: "for the soaring flight and the evocative imagery of his poetry, which in a visionary fashion reflects the conditions of our time"
About: "Anabasis" is a long prose poem about someone marching from the coast inland through the wild beauties and mysteries of the Orient.
What I liked: The language is quite beautiful (although that may be the translation, done by the masterful T.S. Eliot)
What I Disliked: You know how sometimes things age really poorly? This is one of them. It's hard to imagine that the world needed a long description of some dude walking through the stereotypical Arabian nights.
Should it have won a Nobel: I will always admit that there may be things that I am missing, don't get, etc. But with that said, unless I'm missing an awful lot, no. (I think this may have seemed a lot cooler and deeper in '59 as well. Right now, it reads like, "Dude, I totally did acid on my trip to Jordan and had like these *thoughts*." Which may have read a lot deeper before that was, y'know, a thing.)
Next Up: "The Bridge on the Drina" by Ivo Andrić (Also, I've now read 60 years worth of Nobel laureates...and only have 61 years to go. Whoo!!!!)
Year Won: 1960
Read: "Anabasis"
Original Language: French
Reason: "for the soaring flight and the evocative imagery of his poetry, which in a visionary fashion reflects the conditions of our time"
About: "Anabasis" is a long prose poem about someone marching from the coast inland through the wild beauties and mysteries of the Orient.
What I liked: The language is quite beautiful (although that may be the translation, done by the masterful T.S. Eliot)
What I Disliked: You know how sometimes things age really poorly? This is one of them. It's hard to imagine that the world needed a long description of some dude walking through the stereotypical Arabian nights.
Should it have won a Nobel: I will always admit that there may be things that I am missing, don't get, etc. But with that said, unless I'm missing an awful lot, no. (I think this may have seemed a lot cooler and deeper in '59 as well. Right now, it reads like, "Dude, I totally did acid on my trip to Jordan and had like these *thoughts*." Which may have read a lot deeper before that was, y'know, a thing.)
Next Up: "The Bridge on the Drina" by Ivo Andrić (Also, I've now read 60 years worth of Nobel laureates...and only have 61 years to go. Whoo!!!!)
Friday, July 23, 2021
Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak
Name: Boris Pasternak
Year Won: 1958
Read: "Doctor Zhivago"
Original Language: Russian
Reason: "for his important achievement both in contemporary lyrical poetry and in the field of the great Russian epic tradition"
About: To be honest, I'd have a hard time saying exactly what "Doctor Zhivago" is about. This is in part due to its enormous cast of charaters, in part due to the plot more or less changing every "act" (think chapter - they're not super long).
To the extent that "Doctor Zhivago" is about anything, it's about the upheaval of the Russian world after the Soviet Union, told very realistically. (There is a hint of a love story between two characters, but it's pretty subdued.
What I liked: It's fascinating (and kind of depressing) to read about what revolution is like to ordinary people who don't care much about the politics of it. It SUCKS. (And perhaps this should be required reading for everyone who wants to bring about the great revolution.)
What I Disliked: It is really, really, REALLY hard to follow this book due to the huge numbers of characters, the seemingly lack of plot, etc. It's annoying.
Should it have won a Nobel: I'm torn. On one hand, this was a greatly influential book. On the other, it's (in my opinion), not an especially good book.
Next Up: "Anabasis" by Saint-John Perse (my library has nothing by Salvatore Quasimodo)
Year Won: 1958
Read: "Doctor Zhivago"
Original Language: Russian
Reason: "for his important achievement both in contemporary lyrical poetry and in the field of the great Russian epic tradition"
About: To be honest, I'd have a hard time saying exactly what "Doctor Zhivago" is about. This is in part due to its enormous cast of charaters, in part due to the plot more or less changing every "act" (think chapter - they're not super long).
To the extent that "Doctor Zhivago" is about anything, it's about the upheaval of the Russian world after the Soviet Union, told very realistically. (There is a hint of a love story between two characters, but it's pretty subdued.
What I liked: It's fascinating (and kind of depressing) to read about what revolution is like to ordinary people who don't care much about the politics of it. It SUCKS. (And perhaps this should be required reading for everyone who wants to bring about the great revolution.)
What I Disliked: It is really, really, REALLY hard to follow this book due to the huge numbers of characters, the seemingly lack of plot, etc. It's annoying.
Should it have won a Nobel: I'm torn. On one hand, this was a greatly influential book. On the other, it's (in my opinion), not an especially good book.
Next Up: "Anabasis" by Saint-John Perse (my library has nothing by Salvatore Quasimodo)
Saturday, June 12, 2021
The Plague by Albert Camus
Name: Albert Camus
Year Won: 1957
Read: "The Plague"
Original Language: French
Reason: "for his important literary production, which with clear-sighted earnestness illuminates the problems of the human conscience in our times"
About: "The Plague" follows what happens as a plague hits a French Algerian town. At first, it seems like nothing but dead rats. But before long, the hospitals are crowded with people who have the bubonic plague. The city is quaratined. Supplies dip low. Plague serum is rushed in. People panic. And then, at last, it goes away.
It's really interesting reading this in the time of COVID to compare the two. Oddly, things like the opera continue despite the characters warning that the plague may go pneumatic. (Why????) Alternately, it's kind of weird that the town gets so low on supplies (even with the quarantine), considering that it doesn't seem that hard to ship them in. (Esp. as it's only this town that's affected.) Also, for all the gnashing of teeth and wailing, not all that many people die, considering. Aside from that, though, it seems a fairly accurate portrayal of what a plague actually *is* like, down to it not affecting the rich very much, but being horrifying to the poor.
What I liked: I can see why this became a go-to read in the time of COVID. It really is an incredibly well thought out scenario as to what a plague would be like.
Strangely, I don't think this is even what Camus was trying to achieve. (Wikipedia claims this is a nilhist masterpiece, not a supposedly accurate portrayal of a small town affected by plague. Go figure?) So that he does this as well as creates a well written, nilhistic work is quite impressive indeed.
What I Disliked: There's not much of a plot besides "plague ravishes small town". And I never cared much for the characters, so their ultimate fates didn't especially bother me. Definitely if I wanted a page turner about the plague, I'd check out "The Stand" by Steven King, instead. (But this isn't much of a critique as I don't think this was what Camus was trying to achieve. Also, at 300 pages, this isn't a huge book, so the fact that I was fairly indifferent to the fates of the characters wasn't as big a deal as it would have been in something longer.)
Should it have won a Nobel: I don't think Camus is really known for his fiction, per se. He's considered more of a philosopher. So that his fiction *is* this good - and still relevant decades later - is really a testimate to his genius. So yes.
Next Up: "Doctor Zhivago" by Boris Pasternak
Year Won: 1957
Read: "The Plague"
Original Language: French
Reason: "for his important literary production, which with clear-sighted earnestness illuminates the problems of the human conscience in our times"
About: "The Plague" follows what happens as a plague hits a French Algerian town. At first, it seems like nothing but dead rats. But before long, the hospitals are crowded with people who have the bubonic plague. The city is quaratined. Supplies dip low. Plague serum is rushed in. People panic. And then, at last, it goes away.
It's really interesting reading this in the time of COVID to compare the two. Oddly, things like the opera continue despite the characters warning that the plague may go pneumatic. (Why????) Alternately, it's kind of weird that the town gets so low on supplies (even with the quarantine), considering that it doesn't seem that hard to ship them in. (Esp. as it's only this town that's affected.) Also, for all the gnashing of teeth and wailing, not all that many people die, considering. Aside from that, though, it seems a fairly accurate portrayal of what a plague actually *is* like, down to it not affecting the rich very much, but being horrifying to the poor.
What I liked: I can see why this became a go-to read in the time of COVID. It really is an incredibly well thought out scenario as to what a plague would be like.
Strangely, I don't think this is even what Camus was trying to achieve. (Wikipedia claims this is a nilhist masterpiece, not a supposedly accurate portrayal of a small town affected by plague. Go figure?) So that he does this as well as creates a well written, nilhistic work is quite impressive indeed.
What I Disliked: There's not much of a plot besides "plague ravishes small town". And I never cared much for the characters, so their ultimate fates didn't especially bother me. Definitely if I wanted a page turner about the plague, I'd check out "The Stand" by Steven King, instead. (But this isn't much of a critique as I don't think this was what Camus was trying to achieve. Also, at 300 pages, this isn't a huge book, so the fact that I was fairly indifferent to the fates of the characters wasn't as big a deal as it would have been in something longer.)
Should it have won a Nobel: I don't think Camus is really known for his fiction, per se. He's considered more of a philosopher. So that his fiction *is* this good - and still relevant decades later - is really a testimate to his genius. So yes.
Next Up: "Doctor Zhivago" by Boris Pasternak
Thursday, June 10, 2021
Juan Ramon Jimenez's "The Poet and the Sea"
Name: Juan Ramon Jiménez
Year Won: 1956
Read: "The Poet and the Sea"
Original Language: Spanish
Reason: "for his lyrical poetry, which in Spanish language constitutes an example of high spirit and artistical purity"
About: "The Poet and the Sea" is a collection of poems. Almost all of them are about the ocean. I have no idea whether Jimenez has written non-ocean based poetry, but that's what's in this collection.
What I liked: The poetry is quite lovely and has a rhythmic cadence almost like crashing waves. The meter is almost meditative.
What I Disliked: It's several hundred pages...of descriptions of the ocean. And they're almost all meditative in nature. (e.g. no angry, furious waves. Which waves can be.) It never changes. Eventually it gets pretty dull. There's only so many times I can read, "Olas, olas, olas" before wondering whether Jimenez had literally anything else to inspire him.
Should it have won a Nobel: If this is the full extent of his range, probably not. It just got really repetitive. But I'm assuming that the translators picked out specifically the ocean related poems for this volume. Maybe? Hopefully? If so, his writing is beautiful and may deserve a Nobel.
Next Up: "The Plague" by Albert Camus
Year Won: 1956
Read: "The Poet and the Sea"
Original Language: Spanish
Reason: "for his lyrical poetry, which in Spanish language constitutes an example of high spirit and artistical purity"
About: "The Poet and the Sea" is a collection of poems. Almost all of them are about the ocean. I have no idea whether Jimenez has written non-ocean based poetry, but that's what's in this collection.
What I liked: The poetry is quite lovely and has a rhythmic cadence almost like crashing waves. The meter is almost meditative.
What I Disliked: It's several hundred pages...of descriptions of the ocean. And they're almost all meditative in nature. (e.g. no angry, furious waves. Which waves can be.) It never changes. Eventually it gets pretty dull. There's only so many times I can read, "Olas, olas, olas" before wondering whether Jimenez had literally anything else to inspire him.
Should it have won a Nobel: If this is the full extent of his range, probably not. It just got really repetitive. But I'm assuming that the translators picked out specifically the ocean related poems for this volume. Maybe? Hopefully? If so, his writing is beautiful and may deserve a Nobel.
Next Up: "The Plague" by Albert Camus
Friday, May 28, 2021
The Fish Can Sing by Halldór Laxness
Name: Halldór Laxness
Year Won: 1955
Read: "The Fish Can Sing"
Original Language: Icelandic
Reason: "for his vivid epic power, which has renewed the great narrative art of Iceland"
About: "The Fish Can Sing" is a coming of age story in which an orphan grows up in a lovely farm in Iceland. He eventually meets an opera singer who no one has ever heard sing (even though he's famous) and forms a friendship with him. (Although this felt like a minor part of the story compared with the orphan's every day experiences.)
What I liked: The story has a wonderfully weird sense of humor. (It begins with, "A wise man once said thta next to losing its mother, there is nothing more healthy for a child than to lose its father." If this kind of humor is your thing, this is the book for you!) And the descriptions of Iceland are wonderful.
What I Disliked: The zany voice wore on me after a while. It was fun for about 50 pages, then I found it to be a bit of a slog. Also, this isn't a plot heavy story, which can make it feel more like some great humor and zany descriptions than a conventional story with a beginning and end.
Should it have won a Nobel: Probably. I think the voice wore on me, but it is unique and clever. I didn't love it in the way I did some of those on this list, but it was solidly better than a number and quite unique.
Next Up: "The Poet and the Sea" by Juan Ramon Jiménez
Year Won: 1955
Read: "The Fish Can Sing"
Original Language: Icelandic
Reason: "for his vivid epic power, which has renewed the great narrative art of Iceland"
About: "The Fish Can Sing" is a coming of age story in which an orphan grows up in a lovely farm in Iceland. He eventually meets an opera singer who no one has ever heard sing (even though he's famous) and forms a friendship with him. (Although this felt like a minor part of the story compared with the orphan's every day experiences.)
What I liked: The story has a wonderfully weird sense of humor. (It begins with, "A wise man once said thta next to losing its mother, there is nothing more healthy for a child than to lose its father." If this kind of humor is your thing, this is the book for you!) And the descriptions of Iceland are wonderful.
What I Disliked: The zany voice wore on me after a while. It was fun for about 50 pages, then I found it to be a bit of a slog. Also, this isn't a plot heavy story, which can make it feel more like some great humor and zany descriptions than a conventional story with a beginning and end.
Should it have won a Nobel: Probably. I think the voice wore on me, but it is unique and clever. I didn't love it in the way I did some of those on this list, but it was solidly better than a number and quite unique.
Next Up: "The Poet and the Sea" by Juan Ramon Jiménez
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway
Name: Ernest Hemingway
Year Won: 1954
Read: "The Old Man and the Sea"
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his mastery of the art of narrative, most recently demonstrated in The Old Man and the Sea, and for the influence that he has exerted on contemporary style"
About: "The Old Man and the Sea" follows an old man who is trying to catch fish. He hasn't caught one in a long time, but remains optimistic that he'll catch one soon. (As does his young apprentice, even if his young apprentice has been told to go on other boats as he's so unlucky.) The old man fishes, ends up in a brief battle with a fish (and shark), then returns and has his hands patched up by the boy. That's...pretty much it.
What I liked: For a book with such a dull plot, it somehow manages to be riveting. I'm not sure how. But it is. It's a meditation on old age, legacy, and life's meaning somehow told through...an old guy fishing. Kudos to Hemmingway. I could not make a dude sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean thinking about baseball fascinating, but he does it somehow. That's skill.
What I Disliked: Not really anything, which is odd. The plot is kind of dull, but it works somehow. Again, I'm not sure how, but it *does*. (At least for me.)
Should it have won a Nobel: He made an old man floating about the ocean and thinking about baseball fascinating. I don't know how he did that, but he did. The man has talent.
Next Up: The Fish Can Sing by Halldór Laxness
Year Won: 1954
Read: "The Old Man and the Sea"
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his mastery of the art of narrative, most recently demonstrated in The Old Man and the Sea, and for the influence that he has exerted on contemporary style"
About: "The Old Man and the Sea" follows an old man who is trying to catch fish. He hasn't caught one in a long time, but remains optimistic that he'll catch one soon. (As does his young apprentice, even if his young apprentice has been told to go on other boats as he's so unlucky.) The old man fishes, ends up in a brief battle with a fish (and shark), then returns and has his hands patched up by the boy. That's...pretty much it.
What I liked: For a book with such a dull plot, it somehow manages to be riveting. I'm not sure how. But it is. It's a meditation on old age, legacy, and life's meaning somehow told through...an old guy fishing. Kudos to Hemmingway. I could not make a dude sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean thinking about baseball fascinating, but he does it somehow. That's skill.
What I Disliked: Not really anything, which is odd. The plot is kind of dull, but it works somehow. Again, I'm not sure how, but it *does*. (At least for me.)
Should it have won a Nobel: He made an old man floating about the ocean and thinking about baseball fascinating. I don't know how he did that, but he did. The man has talent.
Next Up: The Fish Can Sing by Halldór Laxness
Thursday, May 13, 2021
A History of English Speaking Peoples by Winston S. Churchill
Name: Winston S. Churchill
Year Won: 1953
Read: "A History of English Speaking Peoples"
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values"
About: "A History of English Speaking Peoples" is a history of England and English colonies and post-colonies (e.g. the US, Australia, Canada) that spans from the beginning of time until the modern era. I ended up picking up the 3rd volume, which covers the reign of Queen Anne, King George the Mad, the US Revolutionary War, William of Orange, and other leaders.
What I liked: It's clearly written and easy to follow. It's also very, VERY thorough. If you wanted to know the full history of England, these volumes will do it for you. It was also rather entertaining reading about Queen Anne/Sarah/Abigail from a historian's POV (after having watched The Favorite.
What I Disliked: It's very dry. And, like many books of its era, it cares mostly about the major leaders and not so much about what life was like for anyone other than the leaders. It's very "this happened, then this" with far less emphasis on entertaining the reader.
Should it have won a Nobel: It's hard to say. I suspected, when I saw Churchill's name, that the award was given in large part as thanks for having stood up to the Nazi's and helped win WWII. After reading this, I feel that my suspicions are confirmed. With that said, Churchill did give a lot of lovely speeches and this isn't terrible bad, the way some of the winners have been. (It's an impressive achievement, after all, just less revolutionary than The History of the Roman Empire and dry enough besides.)
Next Up: The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemmingway
Year Won: 1953
Read: "A History of English Speaking Peoples"
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values"
About: "A History of English Speaking Peoples" is a history of England and English colonies and post-colonies (e.g. the US, Australia, Canada) that spans from the beginning of time until the modern era. I ended up picking up the 3rd volume, which covers the reign of Queen Anne, King George the Mad, the US Revolutionary War, William of Orange, and other leaders.
What I liked: It's clearly written and easy to follow. It's also very, VERY thorough. If you wanted to know the full history of England, these volumes will do it for you. It was also rather entertaining reading about Queen Anne/Sarah/Abigail from a historian's POV (after having watched The Favorite.
What I Disliked: It's very dry. And, like many books of its era, it cares mostly about the major leaders and not so much about what life was like for anyone other than the leaders. It's very "this happened, then this" with far less emphasis on entertaining the reader.
Should it have won a Nobel: It's hard to say. I suspected, when I saw Churchill's name, that the award was given in large part as thanks for having stood up to the Nazi's and helped win WWII. After reading this, I feel that my suspicions are confirmed. With that said, Churchill did give a lot of lovely speeches and this isn't terrible bad, the way some of the winners have been. (It's an impressive achievement, after all, just less revolutionary than The History of the Roman Empire and dry enough besides.)
Next Up: The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemmingway
Wednesday, May 5, 2021
Viper's Tangle by François Mauriac
Name: Francois Mauriac
Year Won: 1952
Read: "Viper's Tangle"
Original Language: French
Reason: "for the deep spiritual insight and the artistic intensity with which he has in his novels penetrated the drama of human life"
About: "Viper's Tangle" is a reasonably long book detailing a man's complaints about his wife and children (and great hatred for them) on his death bed. Yes. Literally. That's all it is. A litany about how much he hates his wife, detailing everything from that time she refused to let his mother live with him (um...reasonable?), to how she wastes money, to all kinds of other petty things.
What I liked: Pretty much nothing. I feel that I'd have been better enlightened by reading incel forums on Reddit.
What I Disliked: Pretty much everything. I fail to see why a book like this needs to exist, considering that almost everyone knows of someone who will rant endlessly about their estranged partner (and along similar lines, too!). Why not just get your most obnoxious friend drunk in a bar and listen to him? You could do that and spare yourself this existence.
Should it have won a Nobel: It seems entirely possible that Mauriac has written other, greater books. With that said, this was one of the few I found translate into English at my local library...so possibly not.
Which means I'm inclined to think no. Although possibly this is another example of a book that has aged exceedingly poorly.
Next Up: A History of English Speaking People's by Winston S. Churchill
Year Won: 1952
Read: "Viper's Tangle"
Original Language: French
Reason: "for the deep spiritual insight and the artistic intensity with which he has in his novels penetrated the drama of human life"
About: "Viper's Tangle" is a reasonably long book detailing a man's complaints about his wife and children (and great hatred for them) on his death bed. Yes. Literally. That's all it is. A litany about how much he hates his wife, detailing everything from that time she refused to let his mother live with him (um...reasonable?), to how she wastes money, to all kinds of other petty things.
What I liked: Pretty much nothing. I feel that I'd have been better enlightened by reading incel forums on Reddit.
What I Disliked: Pretty much everything. I fail to see why a book like this needs to exist, considering that almost everyone knows of someone who will rant endlessly about their estranged partner (and along similar lines, too!). Why not just get your most obnoxious friend drunk in a bar and listen to him? You could do that and spare yourself this existence.
Should it have won a Nobel: It seems entirely possible that Mauriac has written other, greater books. With that said, this was one of the few I found translate into English at my local library...so possibly not.
Which means I'm inclined to think no. Although possibly this is another example of a book that has aged exceedingly poorly.
Next Up: A History of English Speaking People's by Winston S. Churchill
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
Barabbas by Par Lagerkvist
Name: Par Lagerkvist
Year Won: 1951
Read: "Barabbas"
Original Language: Swedish
Reason: "for the artistic vigour and true independence of mind with which he endeavours in his poetry to find answers to the eternal questions confronting mankind"
About: "Barabbas" tells the story of Barabbas, the man who was freed in stead of Jesus Christ. He is freed, wanders around, and goes from a condemned murderer to someone who now has faith after experiencing miracles.
What I liked: It's clearly written and an intersting concept. It's a perfectly entertaining concept and the characters make more sense than they do in a number of other novels by authors that somehow won Nobels + is written with greater clarity and skill.
What I Disliked: Barabbas' conversion to faith felt about as subtle as that found in most Christian books. He just sort of goes from a bad man who believes in nothing to WHAM believing Christian because he witnessed a miracle. That's...about it. It seemed kind of trite and predictable, to be honest.
Should it have won a Nobel: Well, I suppose that a sinner having a religious reflection and struggling with himself is kind of unique and unusual, even if it was done far more masterfully in Graham Greene's "The Power and Glory", but surely that wasn't up for...
WHAT, YOU MEAN THAT "THE POWER AND GLORY" WAS PUBLISHED IN 1940, GREENE WAS STILL ALIVE IN 1951, AND WAS NEVER AWARDED A NOBEL PRICE? WHAT THE @@#$@#%@#$!!!!!
Never say that the Nobel prizes aren't biased. Especially towards Swedish writers.
Next Up: Viper's Tangle by François Mauriac
Year Won: 1951
Read: "Barabbas"
Original Language: Swedish
Reason: "for the artistic vigour and true independence of mind with which he endeavours in his poetry to find answers to the eternal questions confronting mankind"
About: "Barabbas" tells the story of Barabbas, the man who was freed in stead of Jesus Christ. He is freed, wanders around, and goes from a condemned murderer to someone who now has faith after experiencing miracles.
What I liked: It's clearly written and an intersting concept. It's a perfectly entertaining concept and the characters make more sense than they do in a number of other novels by authors that somehow won Nobels + is written with greater clarity and skill.
What I Disliked: Barabbas' conversion to faith felt about as subtle as that found in most Christian books. He just sort of goes from a bad man who believes in nothing to WHAM believing Christian because he witnessed a miracle. That's...about it. It seemed kind of trite and predictable, to be honest.
Should it have won a Nobel: Well, I suppose that a sinner having a religious reflection and struggling with himself is kind of unique and unusual, even if it was done far more masterfully in Graham Greene's "The Power and Glory", but surely that wasn't up for...
WHAT, YOU MEAN THAT "THE POWER AND GLORY" WAS PUBLISHED IN 1940, GREENE WAS STILL ALIVE IN 1951, AND WAS NEVER AWARDED A NOBEL PRICE? WHAT THE @@#$@#%@#$!!!!!
Never say that the Nobel prizes aren't biased. Especially towards Swedish writers.
Next Up: Viper's Tangle by François Mauriac
Friday, April 23, 2021
The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
Name: Bertrand Russell
Year Won: 1950
Read: "The Problems of Philosophy"
Original Language: English
Reason: "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought"
About: "The Problems of Philosophy" is basically a slim (160 pages) book covering philosophy - what we know, what we don't know, how we know what we know, perception, etc.
I'm familiar with most of the concepts (I like philosophy and Russell is a well known thinker in the area). With that said, I'm not sure how much of the familiarity is because Russell originated the idea vs. how much is because this is a fairly familiar (if interesting) philosophical concept.
What I liked: It's clearly written and a great introduction to modern philosophy. (At least from Russell's school of thought.)
What I Disliked: Not much. It's very thought provoking and interesting. And many of its central themes are only more interesting when you add in computational thought. (e.g. "what makes a table a table" is only more meaningful when you're trying to pursuade an algorithm to recognize one. Which might be why Russell's work seems so familiar to me!) If there's anything I "disliked" it's that it's not a very literary book. It's...a clearly (and concisely) written philosophy text.
Should it have won a Nobel: Russell is considered one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. If this was a Noble prize for philosophy, he'd win it hands down.
But is that the purpose of the Nobel prize for literature? I say this because this isn't a particularly literary work. It's a great one (monumental, even!). But it doesn't strike me as literature per se. So I guess much comes down to the purpose of the Noble Prize for literature.
Next Up: Par Lagerkvist's Barabbas
Year Won: 1950
Read: "The Problems of Philosophy"
Original Language: English
Reason: "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought"
About: "The Problems of Philosophy" is basically a slim (160 pages) book covering philosophy - what we know, what we don't know, how we know what we know, perception, etc.
I'm familiar with most of the concepts (I like philosophy and Russell is a well known thinker in the area). With that said, I'm not sure how much of the familiarity is because Russell originated the idea vs. how much is because this is a fairly familiar (if interesting) philosophical concept.
What I liked: It's clearly written and a great introduction to modern philosophy. (At least from Russell's school of thought.)
What I Disliked: Not much. It's very thought provoking and interesting. And many of its central themes are only more interesting when you add in computational thought. (e.g. "what makes a table a table" is only more meaningful when you're trying to pursuade an algorithm to recognize one. Which might be why Russell's work seems so familiar to me!) If there's anything I "disliked" it's that it's not a very literary book. It's...a clearly (and concisely) written philosophy text.
Should it have won a Nobel: Russell is considered one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. If this was a Noble prize for philosophy, he'd win it hands down.
But is that the purpose of the Nobel prize for literature? I say this because this isn't a particularly literary work. It's a great one (monumental, even!). But it doesn't strike me as literature per se. So I guess much comes down to the purpose of the Noble Prize for literature.
Next Up: Par Lagerkvist's Barabbas
Friday, April 9, 2021
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Name: William Faulkner
Year Won: 1949
Read: "As I Lay Dying"
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his powerful and artistically unique contribution to the modern American novel"
About: "As I Lay Dying" covers the trip of a country woman from the place she's lived for a while (and was married and had kids) to her natal home. That's it. It's told through stream of consciousness from the perspectives of 15 (15!!!!) different pepole who knew her.
Some other stuff happens (her daughter gets pregnant and fails to get an abortion. We learn that one of the kids is her illegitimate son). But...mostly it's just her body being returned home.
What I liked: The language is pretty and I get a strong sense of place.
What I Disliked: 15 (15!!!!) different points of view in a 200 page book + stream of conscious tight POVs made this hard to follow. (Like, seriously, WTF Faulkner?) Also, not much happened. I mostly felt confused and stupid reading this book, then when I gave up and read the Spark notes, thought to myself, "Yeah, I wasn't missing much." (It wasn't that I missed what was happening - it's that nothing much happened.)
Should it have won a Nobel: I loathed this book, so no. Clearly others love it though, so this is definitely a YMMV kind of call.
Next Up: Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy
Year Won: 1949
Read: "As I Lay Dying"
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his powerful and artistically unique contribution to the modern American novel"
About: "As I Lay Dying" covers the trip of a country woman from the place she's lived for a while (and was married and had kids) to her natal home. That's it. It's told through stream of consciousness from the perspectives of 15 (15!!!!) different pepole who knew her.
Some other stuff happens (her daughter gets pregnant and fails to get an abortion. We learn that one of the kids is her illegitimate son). But...mostly it's just her body being returned home.
What I liked: The language is pretty and I get a strong sense of place.
What I Disliked: 15 (15!!!!) different points of view in a 200 page book + stream of conscious tight POVs made this hard to follow. (Like, seriously, WTF Faulkner?) Also, not much happened. I mostly felt confused and stupid reading this book, then when I gave up and read the Spark notes, thought to myself, "Yeah, I wasn't missing much." (It wasn't that I missed what was happening - it's that nothing much happened.)
Should it have won a Nobel: I loathed this book, so no. Clearly others love it though, so this is definitely a YMMV kind of call.
Next Up: Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy
Friday, April 2, 2021
The Wasteland and Other Poems by T. S. Eliot
Name: T. S. Eliot
Year Won: 1948
Read: "The Wasteland and Other Poems"
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his outstanding, pioneer contribution to present-day poetry"
About: "The Wasteland" is a poem. A long one. (The collection also included "The Hollowmen" - which is my favorite, "Ash Wednesday", and a number of others.) If there is one theme to all of them, it is about how broken and desolute the world is and how it is haunted by a spiritual sickness that may be impossible to recover from. "The Wasteland" in particular is heavy on allusions and has an odd caste of characters that it seems to tell a story about. (Although what that story is, I do not know.)
What I liked: The poetry is beautiful and haunting. And it's unique. To this day, I'm not sure that I've ever read anything else like it.
What I Disliked: The allusions often force me to go skuttling to the notes section of the book. It's a LOT.
Should it have won a Nobel: Probably, yes. It remains a classic to this day for good reason.
Next Up: As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Year Won: 1948
Read: "The Wasteland and Other Poems"
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his outstanding, pioneer contribution to present-day poetry"
About: "The Wasteland" is a poem. A long one. (The collection also included "The Hollowmen" - which is my favorite, "Ash Wednesday", and a number of others.) If there is one theme to all of them, it is about how broken and desolute the world is and how it is haunted by a spiritual sickness that may be impossible to recover from. "The Wasteland" in particular is heavy on allusions and has an odd caste of characters that it seems to tell a story about. (Although what that story is, I do not know.)
What I liked: The poetry is beautiful and haunting. And it's unique. To this day, I'm not sure that I've ever read anything else like it.
What I Disliked: The allusions often force me to go skuttling to the notes section of the book. It's a LOT.
Should it have won a Nobel: Probably, yes. It remains a classic to this day for good reason.
Next Up: As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Marshlands by Andrew Gide
Name: Andrew Gide
Year Won: 1947
Read: Marshlands
Original Language: French
Reason: "for his comprehensive and artistically significant writings, in which human problems and conditions have been presented with a fearless love of truth and keen psychological insight"
About: "Marshlands" is a story within a story. The covery story follows a gregarious author who is working on his great novel (mostly telling his girlfriend about it), with an inner story that's a rather pretentious "dude lives alone in a lighthouse and observes the world around him". It's complete with appendecies, authors notes, excerpts from the novel, etc. It's quite surreal.
What I liked: The writing is lovely (a trend)! I also rather love that it gleefully skewers the many, many, many "dude has deep thoughts while in nature" genre that the Nobel committee seems to LOVE.
What I Disliked: It feels maybe a bit trite? (Fortunately, it's a short novel - around 100 pages - but I don't think it could have stood to be much longer without feeling monotonous.) The point truly does seem to be, "let's skewer these pretentious novels". Which, again, I LOVE. But it's not overly meaningful other than that. (At least that I picked up. There's probably hidden depth or something.)
Should it have won a Nobel: On its own, I think it's rather too trite for a Nobel. With that said, I very much enjoyed this work and if Gide shows similar degrees of intellect and creativity in his other work, definitely.
Next Up: The Wasteland, and Other Poems by T. S. Eliot
Year Won: 1947
Read: Marshlands
Original Language: French
Reason: "for his comprehensive and artistically significant writings, in which human problems and conditions have been presented with a fearless love of truth and keen psychological insight"
About: "Marshlands" is a story within a story. The covery story follows a gregarious author who is working on his great novel (mostly telling his girlfriend about it), with an inner story that's a rather pretentious "dude lives alone in a lighthouse and observes the world around him". It's complete with appendecies, authors notes, excerpts from the novel, etc. It's quite surreal.
What I liked: The writing is lovely (a trend)! I also rather love that it gleefully skewers the many, many, many "dude has deep thoughts while in nature" genre that the Nobel committee seems to LOVE.
What I Disliked: It feels maybe a bit trite? (Fortunately, it's a short novel - around 100 pages - but I don't think it could have stood to be much longer without feeling monotonous.) The point truly does seem to be, "let's skewer these pretentious novels". Which, again, I LOVE. But it's not overly meaningful other than that. (At least that I picked up. There's probably hidden depth or something.)
Should it have won a Nobel: On its own, I think it's rather too trite for a Nobel. With that said, I very much enjoyed this work and if Gide shows similar degrees of intellect and creativity in his other work, definitely.
Next Up: The Wasteland, and Other Poems by T. S. Eliot
Sunday, March 14, 2021
Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse
Name: Hermann Hesse
Year Won: 1946
Read: Siddharthan
Original Language: German
Reason: "for his inspired writings, which while growing in boldness and penetration, exemplify the classical humanitarian ideals and high qualities of style"
About: "Siddhartha" follows Siddhartha on his quest for enlightment. He meets the Buddha. He also meets another friend who follows the Buddha and seeks enlightment while he, instead, pursues the courtesan Kamala. Eventually he sits by the river and seeks enlightment and finds it after Kamala shows him his son and he sets him free. It's a strange book.
What I liked: The writing is beautiful and it's permeated with an intense sense of spiritual questioning. What makes life worth living? What is enlightment? Which way are there of achieving it? It's really a very thought provoking novel.
What I Disliked: It's a peculiar novel, to put it mildly. It doesn't make a huge amount of sense as a novel from a standard perspective and there's something a bit weird about Siddhartha's hemming and hawing over being with the courtesan. (He very much wants to be with her, but also wants enlightment and...???) I also felt that Kamala could have used a bit more agency. (Although I was pleased that she, too, reached enlightment in the end which makes this feel very progressive for a novel from 1946 and definitely more so than many of the others I've read as part of this project.)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. It's a solid novel and holds up well even today. It made me really think, "What is the purpose of life and what am I doing to achieve it?" which is a question most books don't make me question. It's obvious from reading it as to why it's remained well known.
Next Up: Wastelands by Andre Gide
Year Won: 1946
Read: Siddharthan
Original Language: German
Reason: "for his inspired writings, which while growing in boldness and penetration, exemplify the classical humanitarian ideals and high qualities of style"
About: "Siddhartha" follows Siddhartha on his quest for enlightment. He meets the Buddha. He also meets another friend who follows the Buddha and seeks enlightment while he, instead, pursues the courtesan Kamala. Eventually he sits by the river and seeks enlightment and finds it after Kamala shows him his son and he sets him free. It's a strange book.
What I liked: The writing is beautiful and it's permeated with an intense sense of spiritual questioning. What makes life worth living? What is enlightment? Which way are there of achieving it? It's really a very thought provoking novel.
What I Disliked: It's a peculiar novel, to put it mildly. It doesn't make a huge amount of sense as a novel from a standard perspective and there's something a bit weird about Siddhartha's hemming and hawing over being with the courtesan. (He very much wants to be with her, but also wants enlightment and...???) I also felt that Kamala could have used a bit more agency. (Although I was pleased that she, too, reached enlightment in the end which makes this feel very progressive for a novel from 1946 and definitely more so than many of the others I've read as part of this project.)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. It's a solid novel and holds up well even today. It made me really think, "What is the purpose of life and what am I doing to achieve it?" which is a question most books don't make me question. It's obvious from reading it as to why it's remained well known.
Next Up: Wastelands by Andre Gide
Tuesday, March 9, 2021
The Poems of Gabriela Mistral
Name: Gabriela Mistral
Year Won: 1945
Read: Selected Poems
Original Language: Spanish (note - read in Spanish and English)
Reason: "for her lyric poetry, which inspired by powerful emotions, has made her name a symbol of the idealistic aspirations of the entire Latin American world"
About: Gabriela's poetry is poetry, so doesn't follow a plot. But it's lyrical, dark, and moving. She speaks movingly of passion - the passion of lovers, the enduring love of children, the pain of heartbreak, of loss, and spirtuality. Throughout it, there's an interesting intersection between the mudane and the spiritual, the divine and ordinary. There's a darkness through all of them as well.
It is also of some interest that Mistral was the first Latin American to win a Nobel prize for literature. (Long overdue!)
What I liked: The poetry is deeply beautiful and there's a thread of darkness that keeps them from feeling trite. In addition, she has a way of choosing words that make you think. (e.g. I rarely hear of a seed being described as violent, but it works in her poetry.
What I Disliked: Not much. Some poems are better than others (as is always the case), but her poetry is breath taking, even in translation. This has been one of my favorites so far. (And, honestly, I prefer her to Yeats.)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. Aside from them being long overdue in awarding a Latin American (and that their ratio of men to women has been pretty lopsided so far), Mistral's poetry is truly breathtaking. She deserves all the praise.
Next Up: Sidhartha by Hermann Hesse
Year Won: 1945
Read: Selected Poems
Original Language: Spanish (note - read in Spanish and English)
Reason: "for her lyric poetry, which inspired by powerful emotions, has made her name a symbol of the idealistic aspirations of the entire Latin American world"
About: Gabriela's poetry is poetry, so doesn't follow a plot. But it's lyrical, dark, and moving. She speaks movingly of passion - the passion of lovers, the enduring love of children, the pain of heartbreak, of loss, and spirtuality. Throughout it, there's an interesting intersection between the mudane and the spiritual, the divine and ordinary. There's a darkness through all of them as well.
It is also of some interest that Mistral was the first Latin American to win a Nobel prize for literature. (Long overdue!)
What I liked: The poetry is deeply beautiful and there's a thread of darkness that keeps them from feeling trite. In addition, she has a way of choosing words that make you think. (e.g. I rarely hear of a seed being described as violent, but it works in her poetry.
What I Disliked: Not much. Some poems are better than others (as is always the case), but her poetry is breath taking, even in translation. This has been one of my favorites so far. (And, honestly, I prefer her to Yeats.)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. Aside from them being long overdue in awarding a Latin American (and that their ratio of men to women has been pretty lopsided so far), Mistral's poetry is truly breathtaking. She deserves all the praise.
Next Up: Sidhartha by Hermann Hesse
Wednesday, March 3, 2021
The Long Journey - Johannes Jensen
Name: Johannes V. Jensen
Year Won: 1944 (Note that the Nobel wasn't awarded during WWII. Hence the reason for the huge break!)
Read: The Long Journey
Original Language: Danish
Reason: "for the rare strength and fertility of his poetic imagination with which is combined an intellectual curiosity of wide scope and a bold, freshly creative style"
About: "The Long Journey" follows a number of *important men* as they create civilization. This goes from the first book ("Fire and Ice"), in which a GREAT MAN (named Carl, LOL) discovers fire, to the novels in which Columbus discovers civilization (Yeah...I mean, Columbus did not discover a great untouched paradise, but that's more or less the way this story goes.)
What I liked: The writing for this really is quite lyrical and lovely, even in translation. I could see how it could be fun to read. Kind of like a super dude-bro Clan of the Caveman where GREAT THINGS are DISCOVERED by GREAT PEOPLE. It's well written and pleasantly melodramatic.
What I Disliked: It's such, such SUCH a period of its time. Carl (seriously, who names a cave dude CARL? Esp. when his wife is only described as "Ma"?) is adored and worshipped since, duh, he's a cave dude bringing fire to his people. What's not to like? (Maybe, like, the time he lames a girl for no explicable reason other than that she's there and he wants to make a point to her clan, so he graphically destroys her ankle. But, c'mon, this is CARL! CARL! He's giving us fire without a volcano, y'all. We ought to be grateful to him no matter what he does to our people...)
I honestly couldn't get through this one. It feels like this weird mix of Randian superheroism imposed upon history. In retrospect, it feels pretty damned gross. But I am willing to say that the hero worshipping of a random dude bro (CARL!) would have been far less jarring when it was published. So am trying to withold some of my scorn.
Should it have won a Nobel: It is very much a product of its time. As such, it's hard to say. It's a unique novel, and the writing is REALLY good. But it also feels ickier even than a number of writings that are now heavily disputed (looking at you, Kipling). So it probably earned its award, but also is a sign that the past can't predict the future.
Next Up: Selected poems from Gabriela Mistral
Year Won: 1944 (Note that the Nobel wasn't awarded during WWII. Hence the reason for the huge break!)
Read: The Long Journey
Original Language: Danish
Reason: "for the rare strength and fertility of his poetic imagination with which is combined an intellectual curiosity of wide scope and a bold, freshly creative style"
About: "The Long Journey" follows a number of *important men* as they create civilization. This goes from the first book ("Fire and Ice"), in which a GREAT MAN (named Carl, LOL) discovers fire, to the novels in which Columbus discovers civilization (Yeah...I mean, Columbus did not discover a great untouched paradise, but that's more or less the way this story goes.)
What I liked: The writing for this really is quite lyrical and lovely, even in translation. I could see how it could be fun to read. Kind of like a super dude-bro Clan of the Caveman where GREAT THINGS are DISCOVERED by GREAT PEOPLE. It's well written and pleasantly melodramatic.
What I Disliked: It's such, such SUCH a period of its time. Carl (seriously, who names a cave dude CARL? Esp. when his wife is only described as "Ma"?) is adored and worshipped since, duh, he's a cave dude bringing fire to his people. What's not to like? (Maybe, like, the time he lames a girl for no explicable reason other than that she's there and he wants to make a point to her clan, so he graphically destroys her ankle. But, c'mon, this is CARL! CARL! He's giving us fire without a volcano, y'all. We ought to be grateful to him no matter what he does to our people...)
I honestly couldn't get through this one. It feels like this weird mix of Randian superheroism imposed upon history. In retrospect, it feels pretty damned gross. But I am willing to say that the hero worshipping of a random dude bro (CARL!) would have been far less jarring when it was published. So am trying to withold some of my scorn.
Should it have won a Nobel: It is very much a product of its time. As such, it's hard to say. It's a unique novel, and the writing is REALLY good. But it also feels ickier even than a number of writings that are now heavily disputed (looking at you, Kipling). So it probably earned its award, but also is a sign that the past can't predict the future.
Next Up: Selected poems from Gabriela Mistral
Friday, February 26, 2021
The Good Earth by Pearl Buck
Name: Pearl Buck
Year Won: 1938
Read: The Good Earth
Original Language: English
Reason: "for her rich and truly epic descriptions of peasant life in China and for her biographical masterpieces"
About: "The Good Earth" follows Wang Lung and his wife O-Lan as they farm the land in their small peasant village and have children. During a famine, they flee south, just to return north again to farm when things recover. Eventually they become wealthy and Wang Lung acquires a concubine, which breaks O-Lan's heart.
What I liked: This is a really, really good book. It's often considered a contributing factor in the US choosing to side with/protect China during WWII. It became an Academy Award winning movie. It was a best seller for two years after its release and recently was an Oprah book club pick. It's unusual for a book to have that level of popularity and critical acclaim, especially over that period of time. But reading it, you can see why it's been so popular and so well regarded for so long.
The characters in "The Good Earth" feel timeless and eternal, yet really, really interesting. The descriptions of peasant life are vivid and sympathetic. The drama is consistent, yet never feels melodramatic. The writing is beautiful. This is one of the better books I've read in a long time and am happy I read it because of this project.
What I Disliked: There isn't much in the way of a conventional plot. It's mostly just peasants doing peasant things. Also, Wang Lung's sometimes callous treatment of O-Lan can be heartbreaking, as can some of the things she endures.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. It's a really good book. It also holds up much better nearly a century after it was written than most on this list.
Next Up: "The Long Journey" by Johannes V. Jensen (there was nothing at the library by Frans Eemil Sillanpää)
Year Won: 1938
Read: The Good Earth
Original Language: English
Reason: "for her rich and truly epic descriptions of peasant life in China and for her biographical masterpieces"
About: "The Good Earth" follows Wang Lung and his wife O-Lan as they farm the land in their small peasant village and have children. During a famine, they flee south, just to return north again to farm when things recover. Eventually they become wealthy and Wang Lung acquires a concubine, which breaks O-Lan's heart.
What I liked: This is a really, really good book. It's often considered a contributing factor in the US choosing to side with/protect China during WWII. It became an Academy Award winning movie. It was a best seller for two years after its release and recently was an Oprah book club pick. It's unusual for a book to have that level of popularity and critical acclaim, especially over that period of time. But reading it, you can see why it's been so popular and so well regarded for so long.
The characters in "The Good Earth" feel timeless and eternal, yet really, really interesting. The descriptions of peasant life are vivid and sympathetic. The drama is consistent, yet never feels melodramatic. The writing is beautiful. This is one of the better books I've read in a long time and am happy I read it because of this project.
What I Disliked: There isn't much in the way of a conventional plot. It's mostly just peasants doing peasant things. Also, Wang Lung's sometimes callous treatment of O-Lan can be heartbreaking, as can some of the things she endures.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. It's a really good book. It also holds up much better nearly a century after it was written than most on this list.
Next Up: "The Long Journey" by Johannes V. Jensen (there was nothing at the library by Frans Eemil Sillanpää)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)