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
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)