Name: Grazia Deledda
Year Won: 1926
Read: The Mother
Original Language: Italian
Reason: ""for her idealistically inspired writings, which with plastic clarity picture the life on her native island and with depth and sympathy deal with human problems in general"
About: The Mother (like most of Deledda's works, apparently) is set in a tiny Sicilian village, with all action taking place between three characters over the course of two days.
The titular mother (Mary Magdalenna) is a local woman who is wildly proud that her son was able to become a priest. But she is now terrified that he is tempted by a local woman (Agnes) and that he will break his vows for her. We watch as she (and her son - Paul) grapple with this until the novel ends in a way that's shocking yet feels entirely appropriate.
What I liked: It's an excellent story. It's engrossing and hard to put down, while it also discusses morality (conventional and otherwise) as well as turn of the century village life.
What I Disliked: I didn't really see anything to dislike. This is a really great novel and I wish more of Deledda's work was in print in English so I could read it.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. This is a great novel. Assuming her others are even nearly as good, she well deserves the prize.
Next up: Henri Bergson's "The Meaning of the War"
Tuesday, September 1, 2020
Wednesday, August 5, 2020
George Bernard Shaw's "Pygmalion"
Name:George Bernard Shaw
Year Won: 1925
Read: Pygmalion
Original Language:English
Reason: "for his work which is marked by both idealism and humanity, its stimulating satire often being infused with a singular poetic beauty"
About: You are likely already familiar with the plot of Pygmalion, seeing as My Fair Lady borrowed heavily from it. With that said, the plot is entertaining and fairly straight forward. A linguist bets with another that he can transform a flower girl into someone who is mistaken for duchess by fixing her speech. After some hilarity (most of it when she meets with the linguist's mother), she is able to do so. In Pygmalion, the girl is then set up with her own flowershop. The end.
Like all of Shaw's plays (I've also read Major Barbara and Man and Superman) it is cleverly written and insanely witty. The ability of Shaw to convey information while using only dialogue (and making that dialogue sound natural) is truly phenomenal. His wit is genuinely funny and his political commentary is astute and sometimes painful.
I suspect that the reason Pygmalion is one of his favorites is that it's commentary (that there really isn't anything that differentiates the rich from the poor other than manners), is far more acceptable than his more biting critiques found in other works.
What I liked: I think I described it above - Shaw is legitimately funny and a great playwrite.
What I Disliked: I found his preferences to be rather dull. The work should speak for itself, Shaw! Aside from that, there's very little to dislike in Pygmalion. I could find much more to dislike in his other works. (For instance, I'm more than a little annoyed at the idea in Man and Superman that women don't aspire to greatness. Why not try telling that to Selma Lagerlöf, Shaw?)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. Whether he's truly the second greatest playwrite in the English language after Shakespeare or not, he is a great playwrite and satirist and deserves the nod.
Next up: Grazia Deledda's novel "The Mother".
Year Won: 1925
Read: Pygmalion
Original Language:English
Reason: "for his work which is marked by both idealism and humanity, its stimulating satire often being infused with a singular poetic beauty"
About: You are likely already familiar with the plot of Pygmalion, seeing as My Fair Lady borrowed heavily from it. With that said, the plot is entertaining and fairly straight forward. A linguist bets with another that he can transform a flower girl into someone who is mistaken for duchess by fixing her speech. After some hilarity (most of it when she meets with the linguist's mother), she is able to do so. In Pygmalion, the girl is then set up with her own flowershop. The end.
Like all of Shaw's plays (I've also read Major Barbara and Man and Superman) it is cleverly written and insanely witty. The ability of Shaw to convey information while using only dialogue (and making that dialogue sound natural) is truly phenomenal. His wit is genuinely funny and his political commentary is astute and sometimes painful.
I suspect that the reason Pygmalion is one of his favorites is that it's commentary (that there really isn't anything that differentiates the rich from the poor other than manners), is far more acceptable than his more biting critiques found in other works.
What I liked: I think I described it above - Shaw is legitimately funny and a great playwrite.
What I Disliked: I found his preferences to be rather dull. The work should speak for itself, Shaw! Aside from that, there's very little to dislike in Pygmalion. I could find much more to dislike in his other works. (For instance, I'm more than a little annoyed at the idea in Man and Superman that women don't aspire to greatness. Why not try telling that to Selma Lagerlöf, Shaw?)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. Whether he's truly the second greatest playwrite in the English language after Shakespeare or not, he is a great playwrite and satirist and deserves the nod.
Next up: Grazia Deledda's novel "The Mother".
Monday, July 27, 2020
The Peasants by Władysław Reymont
Name: Władysław Reymont
Year Won: 1924
Read: The Peasants
Original Language: An extinct dialect of Polish
Reason: "for his great national epic, The Peasants"
About: The Peasants follows the lives of a village of Polish peasants for a calendar year, starting in fall and ending at the end of summer the next year. There's not much of a plot, although there is a vague affair between a farmer and a beautiful young woman. With that said, little of the over 1,200 pages of the book is dedicated to the affair. It's mostly about normal peasant life, from getting through hard winters, to raising pigs, to celebrating Christmas, to marrying people off.
What I liked: This is an incredibly detailed book and it paints a remarkable picture of what life was like for an ordinary person in a small Polish village. (Reymont himself was a Polish peasant.) It's incredibly detailed, accurate, and immersive. I felt like I was there and it's a wonder that someone was able to so perfectly describe ordinary life and customs. What I Disliked: There wasn't much of a plot, which made it lack the narrative drive found in more modern novels.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. It's hard to image a more detailed or perfect description of normal life, from the customs to the people. I'd recommend that every would be fantasy writer read this to get a sense as to what normal life was probably like for the vast majority of European peasants. (And to get a sense as to what life absolutely was like for Polish peasants in the late 19th century.)
Next up: George Bernard Shaw's play "Pygmalion"
Year Won: 1924
Read: The Peasants
Original Language: An extinct dialect of Polish
Reason: "for his great national epic, The Peasants"
About: The Peasants follows the lives of a village of Polish peasants for a calendar year, starting in fall and ending at the end of summer the next year. There's not much of a plot, although there is a vague affair between a farmer and a beautiful young woman. With that said, little of the over 1,200 pages of the book is dedicated to the affair. It's mostly about normal peasant life, from getting through hard winters, to raising pigs, to celebrating Christmas, to marrying people off.
What I liked: This is an incredibly detailed book and it paints a remarkable picture of what life was like for an ordinary person in a small Polish village. (Reymont himself was a Polish peasant.) It's incredibly detailed, accurate, and immersive. I felt like I was there and it's a wonder that someone was able to so perfectly describe ordinary life and customs. What I Disliked: There wasn't much of a plot, which made it lack the narrative drive found in more modern novels.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. It's hard to image a more detailed or perfect description of normal life, from the customs to the people. I'd recommend that every would be fantasy writer read this to get a sense as to what normal life was probably like for the vast majority of European peasants. (And to get a sense as to what life absolutely was like for Polish peasants in the late 19th century.)
Next up: George Bernard Shaw's play "Pygmalion"
Friday, July 17, 2020
The Poetry of Yeats
Name: William Butler Yeats
Year Won: 1923
Read: various poems
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his always inspired poetry, which in a highly artistic form gives expression to the spirit of a whole nation"
About: Yeats writes poetry so, as such, it is poetry. Some are long, some are short, all are poems.
A number of the poems focus specifically on Irish things, from Irish myths to various settings of fishermen by the sea or shepherds or other such things.
What I Liked: His poetry is really quite lovely. He has some interesting rhythm schemes that sometimes almost feel like they're similar to the wind echoing across the plains. He has a great way of making it feel like you are there.
What I Disliked: While he was a perfectly adequate poet, I'm not sure I liked him as well as a number of others I've read. (I prefer Keats, Tennyson, Swinburne, etc.) Still, he is among the greats for good reason, and I do love that he was able to summon a sense of Irish-ness to his poems. (And it's not as though another great was up for the Nobel prize in 1923 anyway...)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. He remains one of the great poets of the English language.
Next up: Władysław Reymont's novel, "The Peasants"
Year Won: 1923
Read: various poems
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his always inspired poetry, which in a highly artistic form gives expression to the spirit of a whole nation"
About: Yeats writes poetry so, as such, it is poetry. Some are long, some are short, all are poems.
A number of the poems focus specifically on Irish things, from Irish myths to various settings of fishermen by the sea or shepherds or other such things.
What I Liked: His poetry is really quite lovely. He has some interesting rhythm schemes that sometimes almost feel like they're similar to the wind echoing across the plains. He has a great way of making it feel like you are there.
What I Disliked: While he was a perfectly adequate poet, I'm not sure I liked him as well as a number of others I've read. (I prefer Keats, Tennyson, Swinburne, etc.) Still, he is among the greats for good reason, and I do love that he was able to summon a sense of Irish-ness to his poems. (And it's not as though another great was up for the Nobel prize in 1923 anyway...)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. He remains one of the great poets of the English language.
Next up: Władysław Reymont's novel, "The Peasants"
Saturday, April 4, 2020
The Bloom of Life
Name: Anatole France
Year Won: 1921
Read: "The Bloom of Life"
Original Language: French
Reason: ""in recognition of his brilliant literary achievements, characterized as they are by a nobility of style, a profound human sympathy, grace, and a true Gallic temperament"
About: The Bloom of Life is yet another "let me tell you all about this important person" story. I found it dull as I am getting seriously tired of reading about yet another brilliant, artistic young man's life where he does brilliant and artistic things and makes oh so clever observations.
It also doesn't help that (and this may be the translation) that the prose is incredibly stilted. What could be described in 4 words generally takes 40 and is done in such a round about way that it's hard to read or appreciate. I quit this book 100 pages in.
What I Liked: There are some interesting descriptions of life and some of the characters are moderately interesting. (If only he could get to the point rather than describing endlessly what his character thought of them and what they were thinking...)
What I Disliked: Almost everything. There are too many books like this by Nobel laureates and they all kind of suck. I also am not a fan of the writing in the least. Omit needless words, buddy.
Should it have won a Nobel: No. But you already knew my opinions on that.
Next up: Poetry by Yates (yay, another I'd heard of prior to this!)
Year Won: 1921
Read: "The Bloom of Life"
Original Language: French
Reason: ""in recognition of his brilliant literary achievements, characterized as they are by a nobility of style, a profound human sympathy, grace, and a true Gallic temperament"
About: The Bloom of Life is yet another "let me tell you all about this important person" story. I found it dull as I am getting seriously tired of reading about yet another brilliant, artistic young man's life where he does brilliant and artistic things and makes oh so clever observations.
It also doesn't help that (and this may be the translation) that the prose is incredibly stilted. What could be described in 4 words generally takes 40 and is done in such a round about way that it's hard to read or appreciate. I quit this book 100 pages in.
What I Liked: There are some interesting descriptions of life and some of the characters are moderately interesting. (If only he could get to the point rather than describing endlessly what his character thought of them and what they were thinking...)
What I Disliked: Almost everything. There are too many books like this by Nobel laureates and they all kind of suck. I also am not a fan of the writing in the least. Omit needless words, buddy.
Should it have won a Nobel: No. But you already knew my opinions on that.
Next up: Poetry by Yates (yay, another I'd heard of prior to this!)
Saturday, March 7, 2020
Growth of the Soil
Name: Kunt Hamsun
Year Won: 1920
Read: "Growth of the Soil"
Original Language: Norwegian
Reason: "for his monumental work, Growth of the Soil"
About: Growth of the Soil is about Isak, a man who grows his farm from a few goats and a patch of barely cleared land to a huge thriving farm with many cows and goats and sheep. He marries Inger, a woman with a harelip, has children, and...grows things. There's also a village and some stories that go on there.
This actually (to me) kind of reads like Stardew Valley - Literary Edition, which isn't a complaint. I LOVED Stardew Valley. It's got a lot of the same characteristics. I found it very soothing to read about farm life. Then when things switched to city life, it was often surprisingly dark and gritty.
What I Liked: It's exceptionally well written. I'd read Hamsun describing how to pull weeds. (And did and LIKED it.) It's the kind of book that's easy to lose yourself in. It's also written in a way that I think was considered very novel for the time, which is worthy of note even if the prose style is a bit more common now. All in all, it was an enjoyable read.
What I Disliked: I really enjoyed this book, so it's hard to find much that I disliked. If I was going to go for something, it's that infanticide seemed like this huge sub-theme, which felt a bit odd. (I mean...maybe it tied into the major theme in the way that made more sense than I thought it did? Unsure.
It was also rather jarring for Inger to nearly kill a relative just to have them later get along like No Big Deal. (To be fair, Inger did spend some time in jail after the altercation, but it still felt odd.)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. This is an extraordinary novel that likely would have seemed even more so when it was written. Next up: The Bloom of Life by Anatole France
Year Won: 1920
Read: "Growth of the Soil"
Original Language: Norwegian
Reason: "for his monumental work, Growth of the Soil"
About: Growth of the Soil is about Isak, a man who grows his farm from a few goats and a patch of barely cleared land to a huge thriving farm with many cows and goats and sheep. He marries Inger, a woman with a harelip, has children, and...grows things. There's also a village and some stories that go on there.
This actually (to me) kind of reads like Stardew Valley - Literary Edition, which isn't a complaint. I LOVED Stardew Valley. It's got a lot of the same characteristics. I found it very soothing to read about farm life. Then when things switched to city life, it was often surprisingly dark and gritty.
What I Liked: It's exceptionally well written. I'd read Hamsun describing how to pull weeds. (And did and LIKED it.) It's the kind of book that's easy to lose yourself in. It's also written in a way that I think was considered very novel for the time, which is worthy of note even if the prose style is a bit more common now. All in all, it was an enjoyable read.
What I Disliked: I really enjoyed this book, so it's hard to find much that I disliked. If I was going to go for something, it's that infanticide seemed like this huge sub-theme, which felt a bit odd. (I mean...maybe it tied into the major theme in the way that made more sense than I thought it did? Unsure.
It was also rather jarring for Inger to nearly kill a relative just to have them later get along like No Big Deal. (To be fair, Inger did spend some time in jail after the altercation, but it still felt odd.)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. This is an extraordinary novel that likely would have seemed even more so when it was written. Next up: The Bloom of Life by Anatole France
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Lucky Per
Name: Romain Rolland
Year Won: 1917
Read: "Lucky Per"
Original Language: Dutch
Reason: "for his authentic descriptions of present-day life in Denmark"
About: Lucky Per is about Per, the son of a poor and very devout minister, who leaves home determined to make it rich and implement an ambitious canal system through Denmark. He goes to engineering school. He hangs out with artists and intellectuals (while never being one of them, although he is an excellent engineer). He falls in love with a wealthy Jewish heiress then dumps her to live out a life of aestheticism in the countryside with a Christian wife, having discovered, I guess, the life that made his parents happy or some such.
What I Liked: No joke. This has been one of my favorites in the project so far. The characters are wonderful (especially Per and the members of the Soloman family - of which his financee, Jakobe, is phenomenal). The descriptions of the world are great. I felt like I was there. I cared about what happened enough to rant in the next session. This is a GOOD book.
It also has an actual plot and doesn't feel anywhere near as precious as most of the earlier entries. Per is kind of an asshole. I like that, in my own way. It's rather refreshing having someone who has no artistic genius (and recognizes it), a great dream (that isn't fulfilled), and isn't a Marty Stu who everyone falls madly in love with upon meeting for the first time.
What I Disliked: If there was ever a novel that could benefit from a modern editor, this is it.
Per initially courts Jakobe because she's rich...but then seems to forget all about that and instead is in love with her refreshing intellectualism. I mean, I guess that could happen, but forgetting about her money seemed odd.
Then she gets pregnant, tells him, and he...doesn't seem to notice. Which...okay? That seems weird. (Especially in the late 19th century when I think this was set.) And then she keeps debating telling him she's pregnant (even though she told him a few chapters ago), and then doesn't, then does, but somehow it's all forgotten. (Which is, again...EDITOR!)
Even more frustrating, Jakobe ends up having the kid torn apart while inside her to save her life while in England (it's so gruesome she's not allowed to see the corpse - no joke), and then is sad...while Per goes off and marries some other lady and we're supposed to somehow care about Per's spiritual epiphany...which might make sense if she'd never told him she was pregnant, which I guess she did or didn't depending on the chapter? It's bewildering...
All of this would make a lot more sense without the pregnancy sub-plot. (Per is still, IMO, an asshole for just wandering off and ditching Jakobe without explaining that he's doing it, but he's less of one if she wasn't horribly suffering. And he's only moderately asshole-y if he didn't know she was pregnant, which he should know as she told him a few times, but somehow the book forgot that a chapter later so IDK.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. It's incredibly engrossing and wonderfully portrays a world and characters. It's also incredibly refreshing. It reads like a modern novel (other than the poor editing). I wish they'd fixed that. But oh well...
Next up: Growth of the Soil by Knut Hamsun (Olympic Spring, being poetry, is not covered by my library. Grrr....especially as this is the first poem I've heard of.)
Year Won: 1917
Read: "Lucky Per"
Original Language: Dutch
Reason: "for his authentic descriptions of present-day life in Denmark"
About: Lucky Per is about Per, the son of a poor and very devout minister, who leaves home determined to make it rich and implement an ambitious canal system through Denmark. He goes to engineering school. He hangs out with artists and intellectuals (while never being one of them, although he is an excellent engineer). He falls in love with a wealthy Jewish heiress then dumps her to live out a life of aestheticism in the countryside with a Christian wife, having discovered, I guess, the life that made his parents happy or some such.
What I Liked: No joke. This has been one of my favorites in the project so far. The characters are wonderful (especially Per and the members of the Soloman family - of which his financee, Jakobe, is phenomenal). The descriptions of the world are great. I felt like I was there. I cared about what happened enough to rant in the next session. This is a GOOD book.
It also has an actual plot and doesn't feel anywhere near as precious as most of the earlier entries. Per is kind of an asshole. I like that, in my own way. It's rather refreshing having someone who has no artistic genius (and recognizes it), a great dream (that isn't fulfilled), and isn't a Marty Stu who everyone falls madly in love with upon meeting for the first time.
What I Disliked: If there was ever a novel that could benefit from a modern editor, this is it.
Per initially courts Jakobe because she's rich...but then seems to forget all about that and instead is in love with her refreshing intellectualism. I mean, I guess that could happen, but forgetting about her money seemed odd.
Then she gets pregnant, tells him, and he...doesn't seem to notice. Which...okay? That seems weird. (Especially in the late 19th century when I think this was set.) And then she keeps debating telling him she's pregnant (even though she told him a few chapters ago), and then doesn't, then does, but somehow it's all forgotten. (Which is, again...EDITOR!)
Even more frustrating, Jakobe ends up having the kid torn apart while inside her to save her life while in England (it's so gruesome she's not allowed to see the corpse - no joke), and then is sad...while Per goes off and marries some other lady and we're supposed to somehow care about Per's spiritual epiphany...which might make sense if she'd never told him she was pregnant, which I guess she did or didn't depending on the chapter? It's bewildering...
All of this would make a lot more sense without the pregnancy sub-plot. (Per is still, IMO, an asshole for just wandering off and ditching Jakobe without explaining that he's doing it, but he's less of one if she wasn't horribly suffering. And he's only moderately asshole-y if he didn't know she was pregnant, which he should know as she told him a few times, but somehow the book forgot that a chapter later so IDK.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. It's incredibly engrossing and wonderfully portrays a world and characters. It's also incredibly refreshing. It reads like a modern novel (other than the poor editing). I wish they'd fixed that. But oh well...
Next up: Growth of the Soil by Knut Hamsun (Olympic Spring, being poetry, is not covered by my library. Grrr....especially as this is the first poem I've heard of.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)