Name: Ivan Bunnin
Year Won: 1933
Read: The Liberation of Tolstoy
Original Language: Russian
Reason: "for the strict artistry with which he has carried on the classical Russian traditions in prose writing"
About: The Liberation of Tolstoy is part biography of Tolstoy, part discussion of what Tolstoy's works mean, part autobiography of Bunnin's own life, and part description as to what Tolstoy's works mean to him and his own writing. It's a very peculiar piece of prose, yet is fantastically well researched and strangely compelling to read.
What I liked: I've never read anything quite like this. It's a very unusual piece of prose, yet does a wonderful job of explaining how Tolstoy's life affected his artistry and how his artistry affected other people.
What I Disliked: It's a strange piece of prose. I happen to like Tolstoy, so enjoyed this. But if you weren't already quite familiar with Tolstoy, I suspect this would be meaningless.
Should it have won a Nobel: On its own, probably not. It feels too personal and too trite. But it shows a creativity with prose that I suspect Bunnin's other prose is imbued with. I suspect that, as a whole (what the Nobel is given for), this makes a great deal of sense to have awarded him the prize.
Next up: Luigi Pirandello's "Six Characters in Search of an Author"
Sunday, October 25, 2020
Sunday, October 18, 2020
John Galworth's The Forsyte Saga
Name: John Galsworthy
Year Won: 1932
Read: The Forsyte Saga
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his distinguished art of narration, which takes its highest form in The Forsyte Saga"
About: The Forsyte Saga follows the rise and fall of the Forsytes (sound familiar?), particularly Soames Forsyte, a businessman who cares for little other than what his money can buy who remains baffled by his beautiful wife, Irene, who longs for romance and love.
What I liked: Not much, to be honest. This is one of the few books I haven't been able to finish or even particularly get into. I think this is a combination of it being dry (oh so dry) as well as constantly telling us how the characters are feeling rather than showing it to us. I do think there are moments when the prose is lovely, but mere moments. Maybe I would have seen how it was sublime if I'd been able to bring myself to finish it, but I just couldn't.
What I Disliked: This feels like all the bad parts of a saga (many characters, spanning a huge time frame, not necessarily having much of a plot) with none of the good parts (the sense of awe and things coming together). One of the reasons is the long, long strings of exposition that are everywhere where Galsworthy regales us for pages about precisely how the character feels about some minutiae. I'd like to see Irene wrestling with her feelings or Soames doing the same. But instead they just tell us how they feel about everything, including the temperature of their pudding.
Should it have won a Nobel: No. This feels like someone said, "Oh, the Buddenbrooks is great! Let's go for something else like that!" And they did...just they found something like a bad rip off of it that lacks the emotive power.
Next up: Ivan Bunnin's "The Liberation of Tolstoy"
Year Won: 1932
Read: The Forsyte Saga
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his distinguished art of narration, which takes its highest form in The Forsyte Saga"
About: The Forsyte Saga follows the rise and fall of the Forsytes (sound familiar?), particularly Soames Forsyte, a businessman who cares for little other than what his money can buy who remains baffled by his beautiful wife, Irene, who longs for romance and love.
What I liked: Not much, to be honest. This is one of the few books I haven't been able to finish or even particularly get into. I think this is a combination of it being dry (oh so dry) as well as constantly telling us how the characters are feeling rather than showing it to us. I do think there are moments when the prose is lovely, but mere moments. Maybe I would have seen how it was sublime if I'd been able to bring myself to finish it, but I just couldn't.
What I Disliked: This feels like all the bad parts of a saga (many characters, spanning a huge time frame, not necessarily having much of a plot) with none of the good parts (the sense of awe and things coming together). One of the reasons is the long, long strings of exposition that are everywhere where Galsworthy regales us for pages about precisely how the character feels about some minutiae. I'd like to see Irene wrestling with her feelings or Soames doing the same. But instead they just tell us how they feel about everything, including the temperature of their pudding.
Should it have won a Nobel: No. This feels like someone said, "Oh, the Buddenbrooks is great! Let's go for something else like that!" And they did...just they found something like a bad rip off of it that lacks the emotive power.
Next up: Ivan Bunnin's "The Liberation of Tolstoy"
Sunday, October 4, 2020
Sinclaire Lewis' It Can't Happen Here
Name: Sinclaire Lewis
Year Won: 1930
Read: It Can't Happen Here
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his vigorous and graphic art of description and his ability to create, with wit and humour, new types of characters"
About: "It Can't Happen Here" follows "Buzz" Windrip, a demogauge who rises to power by promising massive reforms to everything and "traditional" values, while shepherding in totalitarianism. It's supposedly satirical, but not really funny.
What I liked: Boy does this feel timely! The similarlities between Buzz and Trump are unnerving and Lewis does a phenomenal job in showing just how someone can take advantage of "traditional" values, media, and people's willingness to be gulled to instate a totalitarian government.
What I Disliked: I found this to be a bit of a slog. There were a lot of characters, so I had to work to remember them all, and none felt particularly well developed or interesting to me. Also, it wasn't funny in the way Shaw's plays are. Possibly, too, it just felt too real for me to be able to enjoy at this precise moment in time.
Should it have won a Nobel: Maybe? The novel shows remarkable foresight, but compared to many of the others, I just didn't find it enjoyable. (One could argue whether that's important in a Great Book, but I think it is. You're more likely to have an effect if people *want* to hear your message than if they have to slog through a bunch of vaguely stereotypical Americans.)
Next up: John Galsworthy's "The Forsyte Saga". Unfortunately, my library did not have the poems of Erik Axel Karlfeldt
Year Won: 1930
Read: It Can't Happen Here
Original Language: English
Reason: "for his vigorous and graphic art of description and his ability to create, with wit and humour, new types of characters"
About: "It Can't Happen Here" follows "Buzz" Windrip, a demogauge who rises to power by promising massive reforms to everything and "traditional" values, while shepherding in totalitarianism. It's supposedly satirical, but not really funny.
What I liked: Boy does this feel timely! The similarlities between Buzz and Trump are unnerving and Lewis does a phenomenal job in showing just how someone can take advantage of "traditional" values, media, and people's willingness to be gulled to instate a totalitarian government.
What I Disliked: I found this to be a bit of a slog. There were a lot of characters, so I had to work to remember them all, and none felt particularly well developed or interesting to me. Also, it wasn't funny in the way Shaw's plays are. Possibly, too, it just felt too real for me to be able to enjoy at this precise moment in time.
Should it have won a Nobel: Maybe? The novel shows remarkable foresight, but compared to many of the others, I just didn't find it enjoyable. (One could argue whether that's important in a Great Book, but I think it is. You're more likely to have an effect if people *want* to hear your message than if they have to slog through a bunch of vaguely stereotypical Americans.)
Next up: John Galsworthy's "The Forsyte Saga". Unfortunately, my library did not have the poems of Erik Axel Karlfeldt
Monday, September 14, 2020
Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks
Name: Thomas Mann
Year Won: 1929
Read: Buddenbrooks
Original Language: German
Reason: "principally for his great novel, Buddenbrooks, which has won steadily increased recognition as one of the classic works of contemporary literature"
About: Buddenbrooks follows the Buddenbrook family over a long period of time (maybe 40 years?). They decline from being a wealthy industrialist family to falling into artistic depravity. Along the way they marry, divorce, have children, and otherwise exist in late 19th century Germany.
Fun (and kind of amazing) fact! This was written when Mann was 25! (What am I doing with my life? Seriously!) It's semi-autobiographical.
What I liked: It's an amusing comedy of manners that wonderfully captures what it was like to live in this era. Also, there are parts that are delightfully gossipy (like when one of the girls - Tony - has her husband admit that he only married her for money after going bankrupt and her leaving him with their daughter to live with her father).
What I Disliked: This book feels very uneven to me. For every part that is wonderful, there's another that seems to just kind of drag. Also, thre are so many characters that it's hard to know who to follow or care about at a given time.
Should it have won a Nobel: Maybe? It's quite impressive (esp. considering the age of the author), but I feel like there are other novels from the same era that are better.
Next up: Sinclaire Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here"
Year Won: 1929
Read: Buddenbrooks
Original Language: German
Reason: "principally for his great novel, Buddenbrooks, which has won steadily increased recognition as one of the classic works of contemporary literature"
About: Buddenbrooks follows the Buddenbrook family over a long period of time (maybe 40 years?). They decline from being a wealthy industrialist family to falling into artistic depravity. Along the way they marry, divorce, have children, and otherwise exist in late 19th century Germany.
Fun (and kind of amazing) fact! This was written when Mann was 25! (What am I doing with my life? Seriously!) It's semi-autobiographical.
What I liked: It's an amusing comedy of manners that wonderfully captures what it was like to live in this era. Also, there are parts that are delightfully gossipy (like when one of the girls - Tony - has her husband admit that he only married her for money after going bankrupt and her leaving him with their daughter to live with her father).
What I Disliked: This book feels very uneven to me. For every part that is wonderful, there's another that seems to just kind of drag. Also, thre are so many characters that it's hard to know who to follow or care about at a given time.
Should it have won a Nobel: Maybe? It's quite impressive (esp. considering the age of the author), but I feel like there are other novels from the same era that are better.
Next up: Sinclaire Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here"
Tuesday, September 8, 2020
Sigrid Undset's Kristin Lavransdottir
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"
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"
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"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)