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
Friday, April 2, 2021
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)
Saturday, December 19, 2020
The Postman - Roger Martin du Gard
Name: Roger Martin du Gard
Year Won: 1937
Read: The Postman
Original Language: French
Reason: "for the artistic power and truth with which he has depicted human conflict as well as some fundamental aspects of contemporary life in his novel cycle Les Thibault"
About: I did not read Kes Thibault. It's supposedly yet another epic novel about the rise and fall of a family and at this point...no. No. If there is one thing I've learned from this project it's that the Nobel prize committee picks startlingly similar novels every year for a long run and it gets dull.
The Postman follows the titular postman as he observes life in a small village. There's no plot. He describes the various townspeople he meets there and...that's about it.
What I liked: The character sketches are brilliant and well done. There are some wonderfully interesting metaphors. The writing is excellent, even in translation.
What I Disliked: There is no plot. It's just character sketches and more character sketches.
Should it have won a Nobel: It's hard to know, as I didn't read the body of work that was cited in for the Nobel prize. I'm tempted to say "no", as this seems to be a thing during the 30s with the Nobel prize committee. Then again, this might be the GREAT rise and fall of a family epic. (Note: It's not. That would be The Dream of Red Chambers. But it might still be pretty good.)
Next up: "The Good Earth" by Pearl Buck
Year Won: 1937
Read: The Postman
Original Language: French
Reason: "for the artistic power and truth with which he has depicted human conflict as well as some fundamental aspects of contemporary life in his novel cycle Les Thibault"
About: I did not read Kes Thibault. It's supposedly yet another epic novel about the rise and fall of a family and at this point...no. No. If there is one thing I've learned from this project it's that the Nobel prize committee picks startlingly similar novels every year for a long run and it gets dull.
The Postman follows the titular postman as he observes life in a small village. There's no plot. He describes the various townspeople he meets there and...that's about it.
What I liked: The character sketches are brilliant and well done. There are some wonderfully interesting metaphors. The writing is excellent, even in translation.
What I Disliked: There is no plot. It's just character sketches and more character sketches.
Should it have won a Nobel: It's hard to know, as I didn't read the body of work that was cited in for the Nobel prize. I'm tempted to say "no", as this seems to be a thing during the 30s with the Nobel prize committee. Then again, this might be the GREAT rise and fall of a family epic. (Note: It's not. That would be The Dream of Red Chambers. But it might still be pretty good.)
Next up: "The Good Earth" by Pearl Buck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)