Name: Halldór Laxness
Year Won: 1955
Read: "The Fish Can Sing"
Original Language: Icelandic
Reason: "for his vivid epic power, which has renewed the great narrative art of Iceland"
About: "The Fish Can Sing" is a coming of age story in which an orphan grows up in a lovely farm in Iceland. He eventually meets an opera singer who no one has ever heard sing (even though he's famous) and forms a friendship with him. (Although this felt like a minor part of the story compared with the orphan's every day experiences.)
What I liked: The story has a wonderfully weird sense of humor. (It begins with, "A wise man once said thta next to losing its mother, there is nothing more healthy for a child than to lose its father." If this kind of humor is your thing, this is the book for you!) And the descriptions of Iceland are wonderful.
What I Disliked: The zany voice wore on me after a while. It was fun for about 50 pages, then I found it to be a bit of a slog. Also, this isn't a plot heavy story, which can make it feel more like some great humor and zany descriptions than a conventional story with a beginning and end.
Should it have won a Nobel: Probably. I think the voice wore on me, but it is unique and clever. I didn't love it in the way I did some of those on this list, but it was solidly better than a number and quite unique.
Next Up: "The Poet and the Sea" by Juan Ramon Jiménez
Friday, May 28, 2021
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway
Name: Ernest Hemingway
Year Won: 1954
Read: "The Old Man and the Sea"
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his mastery of the art of narrative, most recently demonstrated in The Old Man and the Sea, and for the influence that he has exerted on contemporary style"
About: "The Old Man and the Sea" follows an old man who is trying to catch fish. He hasn't caught one in a long time, but remains optimistic that he'll catch one soon. (As does his young apprentice, even if his young apprentice has been told to go on other boats as he's so unlucky.) The old man fishes, ends up in a brief battle with a fish (and shark), then returns and has his hands patched up by the boy. That's...pretty much it.
What I liked: For a book with such a dull plot, it somehow manages to be riveting. I'm not sure how. But it is. It's a meditation on old age, legacy, and life's meaning somehow told through...an old guy fishing. Kudos to Hemmingway. I could not make a dude sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean thinking about baseball fascinating, but he does it somehow. That's skill.
What I Disliked: Not really anything, which is odd. The plot is kind of dull, but it works somehow. Again, I'm not sure how, but it *does*. (At least for me.)
Should it have won a Nobel: He made an old man floating about the ocean and thinking about baseball fascinating. I don't know how he did that, but he did. The man has talent.
Next Up: The Fish Can Sing by Halldór Laxness
Year Won: 1954
Read: "The Old Man and the Sea"
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his mastery of the art of narrative, most recently demonstrated in The Old Man and the Sea, and for the influence that he has exerted on contemporary style"
About: "The Old Man and the Sea" follows an old man who is trying to catch fish. He hasn't caught one in a long time, but remains optimistic that he'll catch one soon. (As does his young apprentice, even if his young apprentice has been told to go on other boats as he's so unlucky.) The old man fishes, ends up in a brief battle with a fish (and shark), then returns and has his hands patched up by the boy. That's...pretty much it.
What I liked: For a book with such a dull plot, it somehow manages to be riveting. I'm not sure how. But it is. It's a meditation on old age, legacy, and life's meaning somehow told through...an old guy fishing. Kudos to Hemmingway. I could not make a dude sitting in a boat in the middle of the ocean thinking about baseball fascinating, but he does it somehow. That's skill.
What I Disliked: Not really anything, which is odd. The plot is kind of dull, but it works somehow. Again, I'm not sure how, but it *does*. (At least for me.)
Should it have won a Nobel: He made an old man floating about the ocean and thinking about baseball fascinating. I don't know how he did that, but he did. The man has talent.
Next Up: The Fish Can Sing by Halldór Laxness
Thursday, May 13, 2021
A History of English Speaking Peoples by Winston S. Churchill
Name: Winston S. Churchill
Year Won: 1953
Read: "A History of English Speaking Peoples"
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values"
About: "A History of English Speaking Peoples" is a history of England and English colonies and post-colonies (e.g. the US, Australia, Canada) that spans from the beginning of time until the modern era. I ended up picking up the 3rd volume, which covers the reign of Queen Anne, King George the Mad, the US Revolutionary War, William of Orange, and other leaders.
What I liked: It's clearly written and easy to follow. It's also very, VERY thorough. If you wanted to know the full history of England, these volumes will do it for you. It was also rather entertaining reading about Queen Anne/Sarah/Abigail from a historian's POV (after having watched The Favorite.
What I Disliked: It's very dry. And, like many books of its era, it cares mostly about the major leaders and not so much about what life was like for anyone other than the leaders. It's very "this happened, then this" with far less emphasis on entertaining the reader.
Should it have won a Nobel: It's hard to say. I suspected, when I saw Churchill's name, that the award was given in large part as thanks for having stood up to the Nazi's and helped win WWII. After reading this, I feel that my suspicions are confirmed. With that said, Churchill did give a lot of lovely speeches and this isn't terrible bad, the way some of the winners have been. (It's an impressive achievement, after all, just less revolutionary than The History of the Roman Empire and dry enough besides.)
Next Up: The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemmingway
Year Won: 1953
Read: "A History of English Speaking Peoples"
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values"
About: "A History of English Speaking Peoples" is a history of England and English colonies and post-colonies (e.g. the US, Australia, Canada) that spans from the beginning of time until the modern era. I ended up picking up the 3rd volume, which covers the reign of Queen Anne, King George the Mad, the US Revolutionary War, William of Orange, and other leaders.
What I liked: It's clearly written and easy to follow. It's also very, VERY thorough. If you wanted to know the full history of England, these volumes will do it for you. It was also rather entertaining reading about Queen Anne/Sarah/Abigail from a historian's POV (after having watched The Favorite.
What I Disliked: It's very dry. And, like many books of its era, it cares mostly about the major leaders and not so much about what life was like for anyone other than the leaders. It's very "this happened, then this" with far less emphasis on entertaining the reader.
Should it have won a Nobel: It's hard to say. I suspected, when I saw Churchill's name, that the award was given in large part as thanks for having stood up to the Nazi's and helped win WWII. After reading this, I feel that my suspicions are confirmed. With that said, Churchill did give a lot of lovely speeches and this isn't terrible bad, the way some of the winners have been. (It's an impressive achievement, after all, just less revolutionary than The History of the Roman Empire and dry enough besides.)
Next Up: The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemmingway
Wednesday, May 5, 2021
Viper's Tangle by François Mauriac
Name: Francois Mauriac
Year Won: 1952
Read: "Viper's Tangle"
Original Language: French
Reason: "for the deep spiritual insight and the artistic intensity with which he has in his novels penetrated the drama of human life"
About: "Viper's Tangle" is a reasonably long book detailing a man's complaints about his wife and children (and great hatred for them) on his death bed. Yes. Literally. That's all it is. A litany about how much he hates his wife, detailing everything from that time she refused to let his mother live with him (um...reasonable?), to how she wastes money, to all kinds of other petty things.
What I liked: Pretty much nothing. I feel that I'd have been better enlightened by reading incel forums on Reddit.
What I Disliked: Pretty much everything. I fail to see why a book like this needs to exist, considering that almost everyone knows of someone who will rant endlessly about their estranged partner (and along similar lines, too!). Why not just get your most obnoxious friend drunk in a bar and listen to him? You could do that and spare yourself this existence.
Should it have won a Nobel: It seems entirely possible that Mauriac has written other, greater books. With that said, this was one of the few I found translate into English at my local library...so possibly not.
Which means I'm inclined to think no. Although possibly this is another example of a book that has aged exceedingly poorly.
Next Up: A History of English Speaking People's by Winston S. Churchill
Year Won: 1952
Read: "Viper's Tangle"
Original Language: French
Reason: "for the deep spiritual insight and the artistic intensity with which he has in his novels penetrated the drama of human life"
About: "Viper's Tangle" is a reasonably long book detailing a man's complaints about his wife and children (and great hatred for them) on his death bed. Yes. Literally. That's all it is. A litany about how much he hates his wife, detailing everything from that time she refused to let his mother live with him (um...reasonable?), to how she wastes money, to all kinds of other petty things.
What I liked: Pretty much nothing. I feel that I'd have been better enlightened by reading incel forums on Reddit.
What I Disliked: Pretty much everything. I fail to see why a book like this needs to exist, considering that almost everyone knows of someone who will rant endlessly about their estranged partner (and along similar lines, too!). Why not just get your most obnoxious friend drunk in a bar and listen to him? You could do that and spare yourself this existence.
Should it have won a Nobel: It seems entirely possible that Mauriac has written other, greater books. With that said, this was one of the few I found translate into English at my local library...so possibly not.
Which means I'm inclined to think no. Although possibly this is another example of a book that has aged exceedingly poorly.
Next Up: A History of English Speaking People's by Winston S. Churchill
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
Barabbas by Par Lagerkvist
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)