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)
Tuesday, September 14, 2021
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)