Name: Sigrid Undset
Year Won: 1928
Read: Kristin Lavransdottir
Original Language: Norwegian
Reason: "principally for her powerful descriptions of Northern life during the Middle Ages"
About: This is an epic story of a girl (Kristin's) life set in Medieval Norway, spanning from when she is a very young girl until her death.
It starts with Kristin growing up with doting parents who adore her and want her to have the happiest life possible. Only in her mid-teens she falls in love with the much older Erland, a charming member of nobility who has been living with another man's wife in sin for over a decade. This does not stop Kristin, who surrenders her virtue to him and continues to thwart her parents to see him.
Eventually she marries him, but has to live with the sense that she has made her parents miserable (and sinned against them) for the rest of her life as she raises seven sons and becomes more devoted to Catholicism.
While this is the basic plot, much of the story is devoted to living a normal life in Medieval Norway. This includes everything from brewing beer to ordering servants about. It is fantastically researched and wonderfully vivid.
What I liked: It's a wonderful portrayal of an era with exquisite characters. For a while, this was actually a very popular novel in English translation and it's not hard to see why. While thought provoking and intelligent, it also reads like a fun historical novel in a lot of ways. It's a great read. (Even if it is around 1,100 pages long in total...so not a short read! But it's divided up into much shorter books.)
What I Disliked: Almost nothing. This wasn't just a literary book, or a well researched historical novel. It was also a *fun* book. Undset is clearly the Hillary Mantel of the 1920s and anyone who loves her should check this out.
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes.
Next up: Thomas Mann's "Buddenbrooks"
Tuesday, September 8, 2020
Wednesday, September 2, 2020
Henri Bergson's "The Meaning of War"
Name: Henri Bergson
Year Won: 1927
Read: The Meaning of War
Original Language: French
Reason: "in recognition of his rich and vitalizing ideas and the brilliant skill with which they have been presented"
About: This is a fairly short essay on war...mostly why it was a great thing that France was involved in WWI. Supposedly (according to things I've read online), it discusses war in a new philosophical light. But I didn't really see that. (Maybe because all of this is old hat by now?) Mostly it seemed remarkably gung ho about a war that was really awful for everyone involved.
What I liked: I honestly didn't like this. At all. The only thing I can see is that maybe it was very novel during its time.
What I Disliked: It seemed very rah rah rah about war, which is...odd. I didn't pick up much of a meaning other than "well, I guess when you're attacked, you have to fight back" which...duh? It seemed more like something you'd see on a recruiter's table than something written by a great writer/philosopher.
Should it have won a Nobel: Bergson wrote a lot else so...maybe? But based on this one selection, no.
Next up: Sigrid Undset's "Kristin Lavransdottir"
Year Won: 1927
Read: The Meaning of War
Original Language: French
Reason: "in recognition of his rich and vitalizing ideas and the brilliant skill with which they have been presented"
About: This is a fairly short essay on war...mostly why it was a great thing that France was involved in WWI. Supposedly (according to things I've read online), it discusses war in a new philosophical light. But I didn't really see that. (Maybe because all of this is old hat by now?) Mostly it seemed remarkably gung ho about a war that was really awful for everyone involved.
What I liked: I honestly didn't like this. At all. The only thing I can see is that maybe it was very novel during its time.
What I Disliked: It seemed very rah rah rah about war, which is...odd. I didn't pick up much of a meaning other than "well, I guess when you're attacked, you have to fight back" which...duh? It seemed more like something you'd see on a recruiter's table than something written by a great writer/philosopher.
Should it have won a Nobel: Bergson wrote a lot else so...maybe? But based on this one selection, no.
Next up: Sigrid Undset's "Kristin Lavransdottir"
Tuesday, September 1, 2020
Grazia Deledda's "The Mother"
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"
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"
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!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)