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
Saturday, December 19, 2020
Friday, November 20, 2020
Eugene O'Neill's Emperor Jones
Name: Eugene O'Neill
Year Won: 1936
Read: Emperor Jones
Original Language: English
Reason: "for the power, honesty and deep-felt emotions of his dramatic works, which embody an original concept of tragedy"
About: Emperor Jones is an experimental play told mostly in monologue form by the titular Emperor Jones, a black man who sets himself up as the emperor of a small Carribean island. Eventually he dies, after going through descents into grandiosity and madness.
What I liked: The concept is intriguing and I love the titular character. He's quite interesting. And the play is short yet succinct.
What I Disliked: The dialectic is so heavy that it's hard to read. It's also potentially offensive, due to heavily using a particular slur.
Should it have won a Nobel: Probably. This is only one of O'Neill's many great plays (and probably not the greatest), yet it's still pretty good. (I do feel that it would be more interesting to catch this on stage, but que sera.)
Next up: "The Postman" by Roger Martin du Gard
Year Won: 1936
Read: Emperor Jones
Original Language: English
Reason: "for the power, honesty and deep-felt emotions of his dramatic works, which embody an original concept of tragedy"
About: Emperor Jones is an experimental play told mostly in monologue form by the titular Emperor Jones, a black man who sets himself up as the emperor of a small Carribean island. Eventually he dies, after going through descents into grandiosity and madness.
What I liked: The concept is intriguing and I love the titular character. He's quite interesting. And the play is short yet succinct.
What I Disliked: The dialectic is so heavy that it's hard to read. It's also potentially offensive, due to heavily using a particular slur.
Should it have won a Nobel: Probably. This is only one of O'Neill's many great plays (and probably not the greatest), yet it's still pretty good. (I do feel that it would be more interesting to catch this on stage, but que sera.)
Next up: "The Postman" by Roger Martin du Gard
Tuesday, November 10, 2020
Luigi Pirandello's Six Characters in Search of an Author
Name: Luigi Pirandello
Year Won: 1934
Read: Six Characters In Search of an Author
Original Language: Italian
Reason: "for his bold and ingenious revival of dramatic and scenic art"
About: Six Characters in Search of an Author is an extremely unusual play. It starts with the production staff of a play (director, stage hand etc.) getting ready to perform a play just for six characters (two of whom don't speak) to arrive on set and demand an author for their play. The charaters then perform scenes, sometimes with input from the production staff (the director wants to recreate some of what they're saying), and sometimes with input from the other characters (who are sometimes appalled by what their family members are saying). It's all very strange.
What I liked: This is one of the most unique pieces I have ever read. Especially considering how long ago it was written, it's quite unusual.
What I Disliked: I never felt especially emotionally stirred by this. (Which is fairly typical for things that seem more to taking major steps in how to change the standard form of things). It might also suffer, somewhat, from that it's a play, which is meant to be performed vs. read. (I think some of the shock of seeing the staff of a play discussing things vs. an actual play, then the actors breaking in is somewhat muted when you'r not seeing it happening.)
Should it have won a Nobel: A quote from the little "about" said something about how this might not be the greatest play, but it was the most unique. I'd agree (well, maybe not most, but it sure as heck was unique). As such, it probably does deserve an award. (Esp. if you throw in that this is hardly Pirandello's only work. If he regularly put out work as unique and ground breaking as this, he definitely deserves a prize for it.)
Next up: The Plays of Eugene O'Neill (unsure which. The library just has a collection so we'll see what catches my interest!)
Year Won: 1934
Read: Six Characters In Search of an Author
Original Language: Italian
Reason: "for his bold and ingenious revival of dramatic and scenic art"
About: Six Characters in Search of an Author is an extremely unusual play. It starts with the production staff of a play (director, stage hand etc.) getting ready to perform a play just for six characters (two of whom don't speak) to arrive on set and demand an author for their play. The charaters then perform scenes, sometimes with input from the production staff (the director wants to recreate some of what they're saying), and sometimes with input from the other characters (who are sometimes appalled by what their family members are saying). It's all very strange.
What I liked: This is one of the most unique pieces I have ever read. Especially considering how long ago it was written, it's quite unusual.
What I Disliked: I never felt especially emotionally stirred by this. (Which is fairly typical for things that seem more to taking major steps in how to change the standard form of things). It might also suffer, somewhat, from that it's a play, which is meant to be performed vs. read. (I think some of the shock of seeing the staff of a play discussing things vs. an actual play, then the actors breaking in is somewhat muted when you'r not seeing it happening.)
Should it have won a Nobel: A quote from the little "about" said something about how this might not be the greatest play, but it was the most unique. I'd agree (well, maybe not most, but it sure as heck was unique). As such, it probably does deserve an award. (Esp. if you throw in that this is hardly Pirandello's only work. If he regularly put out work as unique and ground breaking as this, he definitely deserves a prize for it.)
Next up: The Plays of Eugene O'Neill (unsure which. The library just has a collection so we'll see what catches my interest!)
Sunday, October 25, 2020
Ivan Bunnin's The Liberation of Tolstoy
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"
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 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"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)