Name: Claude Simon
Year Won: 1985
Read: The Flanders Road
Original Language: French
Reason: "who in his novel combines the poet's and the painter's creativeness with a deepened awareness of time in the depiction of the human condition"
About: The Flanders Road is a semi-autobiographical retelling of Simon's time in WWII. Semi-autobiographical, because while many of the details are pulled from memory, he also follows the stories of other characters from his life. It's all very weird and trippy.
What I liked: There were a lot of very unconventional, intersting, and vivid images.
What I Disliked: The whole novel is told in long, run on, never ending stories and in stream of consciousness that drones on and on and makes for a near unintelligble reading experience unless, as a reader you like to parse, ah, but reader, do you like to parse: "Ah, the book, it has these themes and meanings" and oh, another battle scene with mud and dogs and horses and gunshots and....
Yeah. It's pretty much all like that. I gave up after about a dozen pages as every page felt like a miserable slog to me.
Should it have won a Nobel: This is the kind of book that the Nobel committee seems to lap up but that no ordinary person would want to read. So...IDK. Maybe? I just can't help but feel that writing things people might want to read is a valuable skill. (I really loathe writing that seems almost designed to flummox and annoy the reader.)
Next Up: "Chroncles from the Land of the Happiest People on Earth" by Wole Soyinka
Monday, January 23, 2023
Saturday, January 14, 2023
"The Poetry of Jaroslav Seifert" by Jaroslav Seifert
Name: Jaroslav Seifert
Year Won: 1984
Read: The Poetry of Jaroslav Seifert
Original Language: Czech
Reason: "for his poetry, which endowed with freshness, and rich inventiveness provides a liberating image of the indomitable spirit and versatility of man"
About: This poetry collection is just that...a poetry collection. Many of the poems surround the Czech Republic, particularly Prague, of which Seifert felt a particular love.
What I liked: A lot of the images are both beautiful and fresh. The language (at least in translation) is interesting and keeps me on my toes. There's a light, unencumbered feel to the verse, similar in nature to that of ee cummings (who I also rather like).
What I Disliked: Not really anything, although I'll admit that I find it really hard to assess poetry in the same way I do prose. Like, it's pretty and the images are interesting and the language fresh. I'm not sure what more to say?
Should it have won a Nobel: Perhaps. Again, I feel that poetry is one of the more challenging genres to assess precisely because it's subjective in a way few other forms of literature are.
Next Up: "The Flanders Road" by Claude Simon
Year Won: 1984
Read: The Poetry of Jaroslav Seifert
Original Language: Czech
Reason: "for his poetry, which endowed with freshness, and rich inventiveness provides a liberating image of the indomitable spirit and versatility of man"
About: This poetry collection is just that...a poetry collection. Many of the poems surround the Czech Republic, particularly Prague, of which Seifert felt a particular love.
What I liked: A lot of the images are both beautiful and fresh. The language (at least in translation) is interesting and keeps me on my toes. There's a light, unencumbered feel to the verse, similar in nature to that of ee cummings (who I also rather like).
What I Disliked: Not really anything, although I'll admit that I find it really hard to assess poetry in the same way I do prose. Like, it's pretty and the images are interesting and the language fresh. I'm not sure what more to say?
Should it have won a Nobel: Perhaps. Again, I feel that poetry is one of the more challenging genres to assess precisely because it's subjective in a way few other forms of literature are.
Next Up: "The Flanders Road" by Claude Simon
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Name: William Golding
Year Won: 1983
Read: Lord of the Flies
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his novels, which with the perspicuity of realistic narrative art and the diversity and universality of myth, illuminate the human condition in the world of today"
About: Lord of the Flies follows the breakdown of order of a band of pre-teen boys left abandoned on an island. They quickly move from civilization to chaos as charismatic choir leader Jack vies for control with the more rational (and civilized) Ralph.
What I liked: It's short. It's sweet. The writing is beautiful (typical for Nobel laureate books), and the plot zings along at a nice clip. It's also fairly easy to read (Lord of the Flies is generally classified as a young adult book, and definitely is less pretentious than a LOT of the books I've read as part of this project).
What I Disliked: At times, the central message of this book (that the noble savage myth is a myth and that humans will dissolve into chaos without civilization to guide us) feels REALLY heavy handed. It's not helped that the characters often feel more like allegories than like actual humans. (Probably in part due to the omniscent POV, which often robs characters of a bit of their identity, I think.)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. There is a reason this is required reading in a TON of schools. It's a really solid book. (As well as one of the few that truly is a great teaching book for late middle schoolers/early high schoolers.)
Next Up: "The Poetry of Jaroslav Seifert" by Jaroslav Seifert
Year Won: 1983
Read: Lord of the Flies
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his novels, which with the perspicuity of realistic narrative art and the diversity and universality of myth, illuminate the human condition in the world of today"
About: Lord of the Flies follows the breakdown of order of a band of pre-teen boys left abandoned on an island. They quickly move from civilization to chaos as charismatic choir leader Jack vies for control with the more rational (and civilized) Ralph.
What I liked: It's short. It's sweet. The writing is beautiful (typical for Nobel laureate books), and the plot zings along at a nice clip. It's also fairly easy to read (Lord of the Flies is generally classified as a young adult book, and definitely is less pretentious than a LOT of the books I've read as part of this project).
What I Disliked: At times, the central message of this book (that the noble savage myth is a myth and that humans will dissolve into chaos without civilization to guide us) feels REALLY heavy handed. It's not helped that the characters often feel more like allegories than like actual humans. (Probably in part due to the omniscent POV, which often robs characters of a bit of their identity, I think.)
Should it have won a Nobel: Yes. There is a reason this is required reading in a TON of schools. It's a really solid book. (As well as one of the few that truly is a great teaching book for late middle schoolers/early high schoolers.)
Next Up: "The Poetry of Jaroslav Seifert" by Jaroslav Seifert
Friday, October 28, 2022
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Name: Gabriel García Márquez
Year Won: 1982
Read: One Hundred Years of Solitude
Original Language: Spanish
Reason: "for his novels and short stories, in which the fantastic and the realistic are combined in a richly composed world of imagination, reflecting a continent's life and conflicts"
About: One Hundred Years of Solitude follows the lives of members of the Buendia family. One's a revolutionary. One is beautifully deadly. Most die. One is born with the tail of a pig.
It's an odd book, that flits between history (actual Columbian revolutions), fantasy, and fiction almost effortlessly. It also dives between the lives of each of the protagonists seemingly at random, dipping first into the life of one, then into the life of her grandmother, then into the life of her son, seemingly without any division between them, as though the past, present, and future are all one ill defined web.
What I liked: I know I'm in for a treat whenever the Nobel Committee selects a Latin American author and this time was no different. One Hundred Years of Solitude is excellent. I think you could take practically any line from it and be like, "wow, that's some good writing".
In addition, it's hard not to be strangely, almost pruiently fascinated, by the goings on of the strange Buendia family. Is one of them fathering 17 sons, all of whom will be executed by firing squad? Sure, why not? Is everyone in love with the beauty, and sure to die soon enough of their strange curse? Also, why not? It's wonderfully soap-y.
What I Disliked: Not really anything. To me, this is a masterpiece.
With that said, for someone who likes plots that, y'know, are linear. Or make sense. Or are conventional. This is going to be a tough read. It meanders all over the place (I think deliberately). While it's never confusing (and I'd say it's generally satisfying - the plots all do wrap up, even if you generally know their outcome before the story starts), it does go EVERYWHERE.
Should it have won a Nobel: This is one of those great classics for a reason. So yes.
Next Up: "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding
Year Won: 1982
Read: One Hundred Years of Solitude
Original Language: Spanish
Reason: "for his novels and short stories, in which the fantastic and the realistic are combined in a richly composed world of imagination, reflecting a continent's life and conflicts"
About: One Hundred Years of Solitude follows the lives of members of the Buendia family. One's a revolutionary. One is beautifully deadly. Most die. One is born with the tail of a pig.
It's an odd book, that flits between history (actual Columbian revolutions), fantasy, and fiction almost effortlessly. It also dives between the lives of each of the protagonists seemingly at random, dipping first into the life of one, then into the life of her grandmother, then into the life of her son, seemingly without any division between them, as though the past, present, and future are all one ill defined web.
What I liked: I know I'm in for a treat whenever the Nobel Committee selects a Latin American author and this time was no different. One Hundred Years of Solitude is excellent. I think you could take practically any line from it and be like, "wow, that's some good writing".
In addition, it's hard not to be strangely, almost pruiently fascinated, by the goings on of the strange Buendia family. Is one of them fathering 17 sons, all of whom will be executed by firing squad? Sure, why not? Is everyone in love with the beauty, and sure to die soon enough of their strange curse? Also, why not? It's wonderfully soap-y.
What I Disliked: Not really anything. To me, this is a masterpiece.
With that said, for someone who likes plots that, y'know, are linear. Or make sense. Or are conventional. This is going to be a tough read. It meanders all over the place (I think deliberately). While it's never confusing (and I'd say it's generally satisfying - the plots all do wrap up, even if you generally know their outcome before the story starts), it does go EVERYWHERE.
Should it have won a Nobel: This is one of those great classics for a reason. So yes.
Next Up: "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding
Wednesday, October 19, 2022
"Auto Da Fe" by Elias Canetti
Name: Elias Canetti
Year Won: 1981
Read: Auto Da Fe
Original Language: German
Reason: "for writings marked by a broad outlook, a wealth of ideas and artistic power"
About: Auto Da Fe supposedly follows a number of people obsessed to the death with something. Depending on the character, they are crazy, wildly, madly obsessed. Which sounds *amazing*.
As it turns out, the writing felt so random and haphazard that I had a hard time figuring out what the plot was, if anything. A boy goes into a bookstore. He talks to a man. There are long descriptive passages, yet nothing seems to happen. It all seems incredibly random.
What I liked: The premise seems really cool. I was never able to grasp it, small minded that I am. But reading the notes made me think, "wow, this seems super cool!"
What I Disliked: I literally had no idea what was going on. Ever. I gave this about 50 pages before being like, "WTF is this?" and returning it to my library. The premise might seem cool, but the story itself was almost impossible to parse, IMO. (And the writing itself struck me as very meh. The first chapter was just a bunch of dialogue with nothing else going on. Like, "hey". "I'm here" "That's good to hear" "I'm glad to hear that" etc. going on seemingly endlessly. I may just not be literary enough for this kind of BS)
Should it have won a Nobel: No. At least not for this. I am done with "let's just do something weird, but talk about it to make it seem special" being seen as special. Like, give the prize to something that's good. There are a LOT of good novels out there. This is...just not one of them.
Next Up: "One Hundred Years of Solitude" by Gabriel García Márquez (yes!!!!!)
Year Won: 1981
Read: Auto Da Fe
Original Language: German
Reason: "for writings marked by a broad outlook, a wealth of ideas and artistic power"
About: Auto Da Fe supposedly follows a number of people obsessed to the death with something. Depending on the character, they are crazy, wildly, madly obsessed. Which sounds *amazing*.
As it turns out, the writing felt so random and haphazard that I had a hard time figuring out what the plot was, if anything. A boy goes into a bookstore. He talks to a man. There are long descriptive passages, yet nothing seems to happen. It all seems incredibly random.
What I liked: The premise seems really cool. I was never able to grasp it, small minded that I am. But reading the notes made me think, "wow, this seems super cool!"
What I Disliked: I literally had no idea what was going on. Ever. I gave this about 50 pages before being like, "WTF is this?" and returning it to my library. The premise might seem cool, but the story itself was almost impossible to parse, IMO. (And the writing itself struck me as very meh. The first chapter was just a bunch of dialogue with nothing else going on. Like, "hey". "I'm here" "That's good to hear" "I'm glad to hear that" etc. going on seemingly endlessly. I may just not be literary enough for this kind of BS)
Should it have won a Nobel: No. At least not for this. I am done with "let's just do something weird, but talk about it to make it seem special" being seen as special. Like, give the prize to something that's good. There are a LOT of good novels out there. This is...just not one of them.
Next Up: "One Hundred Years of Solitude" by Gabriel García Márquez (yes!!!!!)
Friday, September 9, 2022
"Selected Poems" by Czesław Miłosz
Name: Czesław Miłosz
Year Won: 1980
Read: Selected Poems
Original Language: Polish
Reason: "who with uncompromising clear-sightedness voices man's exposed condition in a world of severe conflicts"
About: Hey, more poems! Which is to say, do you like poems? I don't know if you do or not, but the Nobel committee sure does!!!
What I liked: It's hard to know how good poetry is since, translation, yo. With that said, I really liked the way in which Milosz evoked an interesting and unique landscape. There was some interesting writing here, with nice, vivid descriptions.
With that said, it's still poetry, so all I've got to go off of are cool descriptions. (I guess there are poets who do more - Rita Dove comes to mind - but not a great many.)
What I Disliked: Not really anything. But poetry is hard to critique. I can't comment on characters or plot or suspense. That's not what this medium does. It's all about is the language unique? Which...IDK? I mean, I don't speak Polish. So...
Should it have won a Nobel: I retain my belief that I can't really evaluate poetry in a langauge that's not my own. I suck at it even in my own language. So...
Next Up: "Auto Da Fe" by Elias Canetti (Which...sure. Let's make no real sense of the spelling.)
Year Won: 1980
Read: Selected Poems
Original Language: Polish
Reason: "who with uncompromising clear-sightedness voices man's exposed condition in a world of severe conflicts"
About: Hey, more poems! Which is to say, do you like poems? I don't know if you do or not, but the Nobel committee sure does!!!
What I liked: It's hard to know how good poetry is since, translation, yo. With that said, I really liked the way in which Milosz evoked an interesting and unique landscape. There was some interesting writing here, with nice, vivid descriptions.
With that said, it's still poetry, so all I've got to go off of are cool descriptions. (I guess there are poets who do more - Rita Dove comes to mind - but not a great many.)
What I Disliked: Not really anything. But poetry is hard to critique. I can't comment on characters or plot or suspense. That's not what this medium does. It's all about is the language unique? Which...IDK? I mean, I don't speak Polish. So...
Should it have won a Nobel: I retain my belief that I can't really evaluate poetry in a langauge that's not my own. I suck at it even in my own language. So...
Next Up: "Auto Da Fe" by Elias Canetti (Which...sure. Let's make no real sense of the spelling.)
Tuesday, August 16, 2022
"Eros, Eros, Eros" by Odysseas Elytis
Name: Odysseas Elytis
Year Won: 1979
Read: Eros, Eros, Eros
Original Language: Greek
Reason: "for his poetry, which, against the background of Greek tradition, depicts with sensuous strength and intellectual clear-sightedness modern man's struggle for freedom and creativeness"
About: "Eros, Eros, Eros" is a collection of poems which, as the name might imply, tend to focus on love. Most are set in with a sweeping Greek backdrop, in which myth and the modern day are mingled.
What I liked: I really enjoyed the sense of the mythic that was imbued within this world. There's something kind of cool about the feeling that the past is real and present everywhere, imbued in everything we do or see.
What I Disliked: There were some lengthy prose sections that felt very meh. Like, I'm here for the poetry. The poetry is what this guy is I guess known for. But, sure, let's discuss some random philosophical stuff poorly, I guess?
Should it have won a Nobel: I have no idea. It's hard enough to evaluate poetry in any language, far less one that's not your native one.
With that said, sure, why not. This isn't any worse than any of the other poets they've awarded the prize to. I don't know that it's any better, either, but...
Next Up: "Selected Poems" by Czesław Miłosz
Year Won: 1979
Read: Eros, Eros, Eros
Original Language: Greek
Reason: "for his poetry, which, against the background of Greek tradition, depicts with sensuous strength and intellectual clear-sightedness modern man's struggle for freedom and creativeness"
About: "Eros, Eros, Eros" is a collection of poems which, as the name might imply, tend to focus on love. Most are set in with a sweeping Greek backdrop, in which myth and the modern day are mingled.
What I liked: I really enjoyed the sense of the mythic that was imbued within this world. There's something kind of cool about the feeling that the past is real and present everywhere, imbued in everything we do or see.
What I Disliked: There were some lengthy prose sections that felt very meh. Like, I'm here for the poetry. The poetry is what this guy is I guess known for. But, sure, let's discuss some random philosophical stuff poorly, I guess?
Should it have won a Nobel: I have no idea. It's hard enough to evaluate poetry in any language, far less one that's not your native one.
With that said, sure, why not. This isn't any worse than any of the other poets they've awarded the prize to. I don't know that it's any better, either, but...
Next Up: "Selected Poems" by Czesław Miłosz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)