Name: Boris Pasternak
Year Won: 1958
Read: "Doctor Zhivago"
Original Language: Russian
Reason: "for his important achievement both in contemporary lyrical poetry and in the field of the great Russian epic tradition"
About: To be honest, I'd have a hard time saying exactly what "Doctor Zhivago" is about. This is in part due to its enormous cast of charaters, in part due to the plot more or less changing every "act" (think chapter - they're not super long).
To the extent that "Doctor Zhivago" is about anything, it's about the upheaval of the Russian world after the Soviet Union, told very realistically. (There is a hint of a love story between two characters, but it's pretty subdued.
What I liked: It's fascinating (and kind of depressing) to read about what revolution is like to ordinary people who don't care much about the politics of it. It SUCKS. (And perhaps this should be required reading for everyone who wants to bring about the great revolution.)
What I Disliked: It is really, really, REALLY hard to follow this book due to the huge numbers of characters, the seemingly lack of plot, etc. It's annoying.
Should it have won a Nobel: I'm torn. On one hand, this was a greatly influential book. On the other, it's (in my opinion), not an especially good book.
Next Up: "Anabasis" by Saint-John Perse (my library has nothing by Salvatore Quasimodo)
Friday, July 23, 2021
Saturday, June 12, 2021
The Plague by Albert Camus
Name: Albert Camus
Year Won: 1957
Read: "The Plague"
Original Language: French
Reason: "for his important literary production, which with clear-sighted earnestness illuminates the problems of the human conscience in our times"
About: "The Plague" follows what happens as a plague hits a French Algerian town. At first, it seems like nothing but dead rats. But before long, the hospitals are crowded with people who have the bubonic plague. The city is quaratined. Supplies dip low. Plague serum is rushed in. People panic. And then, at last, it goes away.
It's really interesting reading this in the time of COVID to compare the two. Oddly, things like the opera continue despite the characters warning that the plague may go pneumatic. (Why????) Alternately, it's kind of weird that the town gets so low on supplies (even with the quarantine), considering that it doesn't seem that hard to ship them in. (Esp. as it's only this town that's affected.) Also, for all the gnashing of teeth and wailing, not all that many people die, considering. Aside from that, though, it seems a fairly accurate portrayal of what a plague actually *is* like, down to it not affecting the rich very much, but being horrifying to the poor.
What I liked: I can see why this became a go-to read in the time of COVID. It really is an incredibly well thought out scenario as to what a plague would be like.
Strangely, I don't think this is even what Camus was trying to achieve. (Wikipedia claims this is a nilhist masterpiece, not a supposedly accurate portrayal of a small town affected by plague. Go figure?) So that he does this as well as creates a well written, nilhistic work is quite impressive indeed.
What I Disliked: There's not much of a plot besides "plague ravishes small town". And I never cared much for the characters, so their ultimate fates didn't especially bother me. Definitely if I wanted a page turner about the plague, I'd check out "The Stand" by Steven King, instead. (But this isn't much of a critique as I don't think this was what Camus was trying to achieve. Also, at 300 pages, this isn't a huge book, so the fact that I was fairly indifferent to the fates of the characters wasn't as big a deal as it would have been in something longer.)
Should it have won a Nobel: I don't think Camus is really known for his fiction, per se. He's considered more of a philosopher. So that his fiction *is* this good - and still relevant decades later - is really a testimate to his genius. So yes.
Next Up: "Doctor Zhivago" by Boris Pasternak
Year Won: 1957
Read: "The Plague"
Original Language: French
Reason: "for his important literary production, which with clear-sighted earnestness illuminates the problems of the human conscience in our times"
About: "The Plague" follows what happens as a plague hits a French Algerian town. At first, it seems like nothing but dead rats. But before long, the hospitals are crowded with people who have the bubonic plague. The city is quaratined. Supplies dip low. Plague serum is rushed in. People panic. And then, at last, it goes away.
It's really interesting reading this in the time of COVID to compare the two. Oddly, things like the opera continue despite the characters warning that the plague may go pneumatic. (Why????) Alternately, it's kind of weird that the town gets so low on supplies (even with the quarantine), considering that it doesn't seem that hard to ship them in. (Esp. as it's only this town that's affected.) Also, for all the gnashing of teeth and wailing, not all that many people die, considering. Aside from that, though, it seems a fairly accurate portrayal of what a plague actually *is* like, down to it not affecting the rich very much, but being horrifying to the poor.
What I liked: I can see why this became a go-to read in the time of COVID. It really is an incredibly well thought out scenario as to what a plague would be like.
Strangely, I don't think this is even what Camus was trying to achieve. (Wikipedia claims this is a nilhist masterpiece, not a supposedly accurate portrayal of a small town affected by plague. Go figure?) So that he does this as well as creates a well written, nilhistic work is quite impressive indeed.
What I Disliked: There's not much of a plot besides "plague ravishes small town". And I never cared much for the characters, so their ultimate fates didn't especially bother me. Definitely if I wanted a page turner about the plague, I'd check out "The Stand" by Steven King, instead. (But this isn't much of a critique as I don't think this was what Camus was trying to achieve. Also, at 300 pages, this isn't a huge book, so the fact that I was fairly indifferent to the fates of the characters wasn't as big a deal as it would have been in something longer.)
Should it have won a Nobel: I don't think Camus is really known for his fiction, per se. He's considered more of a philosopher. So that his fiction *is* this good - and still relevant decades later - is really a testimate to his genius. So yes.
Next Up: "Doctor Zhivago" by Boris Pasternak
Thursday, June 10, 2021
Juan Ramon Jimenez's "The Poet and the Sea"
Name: Juan Ramon Jiménez
Year Won: 1956
Read: "The Poet and the Sea"
Original Language: Spanish
Reason: "for his lyrical poetry, which in Spanish language constitutes an example of high spirit and artistical purity"
About: "The Poet and the Sea" is a collection of poems. Almost all of them are about the ocean. I have no idea whether Jimenez has written non-ocean based poetry, but that's what's in this collection.
What I liked: The poetry is quite lovely and has a rhythmic cadence almost like crashing waves. The meter is almost meditative.
What I Disliked: It's several hundred pages...of descriptions of the ocean. And they're almost all meditative in nature. (e.g. no angry, furious waves. Which waves can be.) It never changes. Eventually it gets pretty dull. There's only so many times I can read, "Olas, olas, olas" before wondering whether Jimenez had literally anything else to inspire him.
Should it have won a Nobel: If this is the full extent of his range, probably not. It just got really repetitive. But I'm assuming that the translators picked out specifically the ocean related poems for this volume. Maybe? Hopefully? If so, his writing is beautiful and may deserve a Nobel.
Next Up: "The Plague" by Albert Camus
Year Won: 1956
Read: "The Poet and the Sea"
Original Language: Spanish
Reason: "for his lyrical poetry, which in Spanish language constitutes an example of high spirit and artistical purity"
About: "The Poet and the Sea" is a collection of poems. Almost all of them are about the ocean. I have no idea whether Jimenez has written non-ocean based poetry, but that's what's in this collection.
What I liked: The poetry is quite lovely and has a rhythmic cadence almost like crashing waves. The meter is almost meditative.
What I Disliked: It's several hundred pages...of descriptions of the ocean. And they're almost all meditative in nature. (e.g. no angry, furious waves. Which waves can be.) It never changes. Eventually it gets pretty dull. There's only so many times I can read, "Olas, olas, olas" before wondering whether Jimenez had literally anything else to inspire him.
Should it have won a Nobel: If this is the full extent of his range, probably not. It just got really repetitive. But I'm assuming that the translators picked out specifically the ocean related poems for this volume. Maybe? Hopefully? If so, his writing is beautiful and may deserve a Nobel.
Next Up: "The Plague" by Albert Camus
Friday, May 28, 2021
The Fish Can Sing by Halldór Laxness
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)