Myshkin

Concerning Rushdie: the idea of him as a shitty attention whore has everything to do with the fatwa. Every time the man speaks on any subject that isn’t literature a chorus of voices shout out that he should keep his mouth shut and stop trying to inject himself into conversations where he doesn’t belong. We do not do this to say, Margaret Atwood or J.M. Coetzee. But everything Rushdie says or does is meticulously examined to find the most unflattering angle from which it can be used to discredit him. He and his wife get a divorce after years of living through an incredibly stressful situation, a situation that would strain any marriage, and it’s OMG look at this self centered piece of shit heartlessly abandoning his faithful wife for some model. He tweets about some celebrity or other, something that tens of millions of people do every day, and it’s OMG why can’t this attention seeking asshole just shut up already? Now I’m sure that his fame and success have had an impact on his ego, just as I’m sure that the fame and success of every other writer of his stature has had an impact on their egos. But his reputation as a fame hungry attention seeker is absolutely the product of a targeted campaign perpetrated by people who want to see him dead. The more this idea takes hold the easier it gets to say ‘well he was looking for attention when he wrote that book, and he sure got it’. And that’s the whole point. Concerning Seth: I suppose you and I just view him differently. To me it’s always felt like that while authors like Desai, Rushdie, Roy, and Mistry were showing us the beauty of India, they were also showing us its horrors. They were exposing the harsh truths of chauvinism, classism, fascism, terrorism, and violent nationalism in the world’s largest democracy. And it felt like Vikram Seth took advantage of the wave of popularity created by Desai and Rushdie to present a sanitized version of India. He made it safe for readers who didn’t really want to think about Indira Gandhi forcibly sterilizing people, or the RSS and BJP whipping Hindus into a murderous frenzy and sending them out to slaughter Muslims and Sikhs by the thousands. He made Indian literature safe for westerners who just wanted to imagine themselves sitting on the veranda of some English built hotel in the countryside, sipping tea served to them by dark skinned waiters in white Nehru jackets.

I can’t agree about Rushdie’s output. Sure, his peak was Midnight’s Children-Shame-The Satanic Verses-The Moor’s Last Sigh, but that’s a streak of novels that is nearly unparalleled in modern literature. Of his later works Shalimar the Clown, The Enchantress of Florence, and The Golden House are all top notch. And his latest, Quichotte, which I haven’t read yet, is supposed to be his best book in decades. Even his “bad” books like Fury are only really bad by the standards he’s set for himself, and would have been judged much less harshly if the name on the cover wasn’t Salman Rushdie. As for the stories of his personal life, I have a hard time swallowing most of it. There’s been a targeted effort for decades to turn public opinion against Rushdie, to turn him in the public eye into a conceited, self-centered, attention seeking prick. The goal of this effort is to shift blame for the fatwa onto Rushdie himself. I won’t take part in that. I also can’t agree about Vikram Seth. To me he’s always been one of the two main purveyors of the cheesy and exploitative side of Lyrical India, happily giving Western readers the safe exoticism they crave. If the Academy went with an Indian writer other than Rushdie, it would have to be Anita Desai.

So it’s getting to be that time of year again, and I’ve got to say I once again have no feel for what the Swedish Academy might do. After awarding both prizes to Europeans last year, thus wasting the opportunity to get a little more inclusive, non-Europeans might have a halfway decent chance this year. And after their plan to hide Handke behind Tokarczuk didn’t pan out, they probably won’t go with anyone too controversial (though they may just decide to say fuck the haters and give it to Michel Houellebecq). Other than that I’ve got no clue. Maybe it’ll be a poet (though not Ko Un), it’s been a while since they awarded a poet. So here’s my completely random shortlist, none of whom are at all likely to win: Duong Thu Huong Adunis Maryse Conde Can Xue Mircea Cartarescu And here’s my list of who I want to win, but have no chance: Salman Rushdie Milan Kundera Ngugi wa Thiong’o Don DeLillo And here’s who will almost certainly win: The eighth best writer in France

So you’re saying Primeval is a minor work for Tokarczuk? If that’s the case then she’s even worthier of the Nobel than I thought.

Have now read a novel each from Tokarczuk (Primeval and Other Times) and Handke (Short Letter, Long Farewell), and so can now express an opinion on their writing. Of course a single novel each is not enough to speak authoritatively about their entire bodies of work, but here are my takeaways from what I’ve read so far: Tokarczuk: Primeval and Other Times was a beautiful novel. Structurally very reminiscent of Garcia Marquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude, but still powerfully moving on its own merits. If Primeval is representative of Tokarczuk’s wider body of work she definitely deserved the Nobel. Handke: Short Letter, Long Farewell was one of the dullest books I’ve ever read. Full of shallow, self-centered existentialism and obsessed with detailing the extremely boring minutiae of everyday situations. If Short Letter is representative of Handke’s wider body of work then I see no reason why the Academy was so determined to give him a Nobel.

Former Permanent Secretary Sara Danius has died.

I haven’t read Handke, but from everything I’ve heard, if we look at his body of work in a vacuum, he probably does deserve the Nobel on the merits of his writing. We do not however live in a vacuum, and there are dozens of writers who deserve the Nobel on the literary merits of their work. So why go with the genocide denier/apologist instead of Kundera, Ngugi, Antunes, DeLillo, Pynchon, Ko Un, Nawal El Saadawi, Marias, Atwood, Maraini, Farah, Kadare, Conde, Adunis, Desai, or Can Xue? Hell, if they wanted to stir up a little controversy, and still be on the right side of history, they could have given it to Rushdie. And anybody who’s been around this forum for a little while knows that I’m not the type of person who boycotts authors based on their personal awfulness. Knut Hamsun was a literal Nazi, and I still think everyone on the planet should read Hunger. I just don’t think we should be legitimizing Peter Handke’s voice by giving him the world’s most prestigious literary award. Especially when there are so very many other writers who are just as deserving of the award as he.

PEN America blasts the Nobel Committee for the selection of Peter Handke: https://pen.org/press-release/statement-nobel-prize-for-literature-2019/

Also, for pedantry’s sake, Tokarczuk won the 2018 Prize, and Handke the 2019 Prize.

More than a bit disappointing to see both Prizes go to Europeans. Haven’t read either of them, but I did just buy Tokarczuk’s Flights a few weeks ago. The Academy really had a chance to do something exciting this year, and blew it. The choice to give it to Handke is mystifying, not least because it’s just courting controversy that the Academy really doesn’t need right now. If they were going to give one of the Prizes to Tokarczuk (who from everything I’ve heard, deserves it), why not finally recognize Ngugi with the other one? Or Hwang Sok-yong? Or Adunis? And if they were absolutely determined to give at least one of the Prizes to an old European man, it should have gone to Milan Kundera.

Antonio Lobo Antunes’ name has been kicked around for the past few years now. Most people thought his chances went down the drain when Jose Saramago won (he and Saramago were not friendly, and Antunes threw something of a hissy fit when Saramago was awarded the Prize), but it’s been more than 20 years now since Saramago’s victory, so Antunes is probably back in consideration.

Okay, so it’s a pretty complicated story, but we should start off by clearing up that it isn’t Sara Danius who is married to the rapist; that would be Katarina Frostenson. Sara Danius’s only crime appears to have been being a female Permanent Secretary during this scandal. She was forced out mostly because of former Permanent Secretary and all around shitty human Horace Engdahl and his clique. See, Horace Engdahl is good buddies with Jean-Claude Arnault, the rapist, and in an attempt to take the heat off his rapist buddy old Horace decided to try to make this whole scandal a referendum on Danius’s leadership abilities. It’s gross, but then everyone has known for a very long time that Horace Engdahl is a supremely gross person, and yet the Swedish cultural scene still puts up with him. As for Katarina Frostenson, there’s a little more there. During the course of the investigation it came out that Academy money was being misappropriated to subsidize a club that Frostenson and Arnault own. It also came out that Frostenson is the person who’s been leaking the names of Prize winners for the past decade or so. She would tell Arnault and then Arnault would tell his friends, and then they’d all presumably place bets on the winner. This all sounds relatively minor compared to the rapes Arnault committed, but the leaking of Prize winners names has been a hugely vexing problem for the Academy for years.

No idea how they’d be chosen. As for the ratio, my understanding is that the original plan was for 5 members and 5 non-members. But again, it’s been very difficult for me to find info on all of this so things might have changed.

So it’s actually rather difficult to get news on what’s going on with the Academy (unless you read Swedish), but what we know is that they will be handing out two Prizes this year, and I think the plan is still to have those Prizes awarded by a mix of Academy members and non-members. But that may have changed. Also I believe that Horace Engdahl has either resigned from the Academy, or at least from the Nobel committee, which if true is a very good thing. Anyway, some speculation. With two Prizes being awarded this year it’ll be the perfect opportunity to honor one of the famous snubs. Rushdie perhaps, or maybe a non insulting American pick like Pynchon or DeLillo. And if non Academy members are indeed voting then I think the chances of this happening are even better. This year will be a bit different from other years in which two people were awarded, because those other years were split Prizes in which generally two people writing in the same tradition were awarded. This year they’ll be handing out two separate Prizes, for 2018 and 2019, so I think we’ll see two very different writers awarded. Maybe a poet and a novelist, almost certainly writers writing in two different languages, and very probably writers of different genders. I also think the Academy can’t afford to court (bad) controversy by picking another obscure or out of left field winner this year, so I expect at least one, if not both, of the winners this year to be relatively well known. Personally I’m still holding out hope for Rushdie and/or Kundera, and would be ecstatic we we got something like Kundera and Louise Erdrich or Rushdie and Duong Thu Huong.

Update on the super fucked up Swedish Academy: Since the Nobel Foundation has refused to release the Prize money until the Academy had cleaned itself up, and since the Academy no longer seems to have enough members to actually award the Prize, a compromise has been made. The belated 2018 Prize, the 2019 Prize, and the 2020 Prize will be awarded by a jury comprised of 5 Academy members and 5 non-members. I can’t find the names of the Academy members who will be on this jury, but hopefully Horace Engdahl isn’t one of them. As for whether or not the Swedish Academy will continue to exist much longer, that’s still up in the air. Though the Nobel Foundation has hinted that should the Academy cease to exist, or fail to get their shit together, awarding of the Nobel Literature Prize could be handed to another institution.

Bob Dylan should send his Nobel to Roth’s family to be placed in his headstone.

The Academy has run out of time in regards to Philip Roth. RIP.

For those who haven’t been following it, the Swedish Academy is muddling its way through a world of shit right now, having to do with at least 18 allegations of sexual assault against the husband of one of the members. It’s a very twisty and convoluted story, so I’ll leave it to you to look it up yourselves if you want details. Anyway it’s resulted in Sara Danius resigning her position as Permanent Secretary, as well as several other members resigning or threatening to resign their positions on the Academy. And today it was announced that the Academy will not be awarding a Lit Prize for 2018, with plans to award two Prizes in 2019.

Well if you didn't like Midnight's Children, Rushdie just might not be for you. If you're determined to give him another go though, I'd say try The Enchantress of Florence. It's not so thematically heavy as Rushdie's other works, but instead really focuses of the beauty of the language. And language is where Rushdie really shines.

Some thoughts: This choice proves the Swedish Academy isn't completely allergic to massively popular writers. Two English language winners in a row means that next year's winner probably won't be writing in English. Ishiguro's win means that Rushdie won't be winning anytime soon. Probably hurts Murakami's chances of winning too. Murakami and Ishiguro are tied closely together in the public mind, based solely as far as I can tell on the facts that they are both hugely popular and both are of Japanese descent. Doesn't really seem to matter that they write in different languages and different traditions. The Swedish Academy pulled off choosing a very deserving and well known writer, while still managing to surprise pretty much everyone. Ishiguro comes closer to writing genre than any previous winner. Never Let Me Go is straight dystopian SF. It's also one of the most beautiful novels I've ever read. If you're looking for a place to start with Ishiguro, Never Let Me Go is a good choice.

Kazuo Ishiguro wins. Very surprised by this choice, but also very pleased. Ishiguro is awesome, I just didn't think he'd win for another decade or so.

I'll make a bold prediction: Horace Engdahl and Peter Englund will share the prize this year.

Adonis wouldn't be a surprising or controversial (in a literary sense) pick. I'd certainly put him in the running. Allende doesn't really have the literary reputation to be considered. I think the Academy is acutely aware of how male the prize has been throughout its history, but I doubt they'd do something so obvious as make it a point to rotate between male and female authors on a yearly basis. I'd like to see them finally give back-to-back prizes to female authors. Say, Desai and Atwood, or Erdrich and Maraini. It's obvious that the Academy likes to surprise (which has led to some really bad choices), but they also need to choose worthy writers if they want to protect the Nobel's reputation. If they want to do both this year, the obvious choice would be Rushdie. BTW, Ladbrokes currently has Ngugi at 4/1, Murakami at 5/1, and Atwood at 6/1. I'm skeptical of those odds. Ngugi has been a front runner for the past 5 or 6 years, and I've lost faith in his chances. Murakami is also a perennial front runner in the betting odds, but he's the type of writer that the Academy seems to hate; massively popular with a huge international following. Atwood's chances were diminished when Munro won the prize in 2013, plus her recent surge in popularity due to the Hulu adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale will probably be counted against her. If I were to place a bet I'd put my money on Javier Marias at 10/1. But then what do I know? I'm on record as saying that neither Alexievich or Dylan would ever win the prize.

Well, this year's prize will be handed out on Thursday. I haven't been able to muster up much interest in the prize since last year's travesty. I won't bother trying to guess who it will be this time around, but after three straight years of surprise picks, two years of extremely unconventional picks, and last year's insulting pick, I'm hoping this year we'll get a more straightforward pick. Maybe Ngugi, Kadare, or Kundera. Hey, maybe they even try to fix the damage from last year, and give it to DeLillo. Probably not though.

Dylan has finally acknowledged that he has indeed heard that he won the Nobel. Says he'll be at the ceremony "if it's at all possible". I'm loving the way Dylan is treating the Academy right now, and I sincerely hope showing up to the ceremony turns out to be not "at all possible" for him. Hopefully this will make the Academy think twice before pulling another shitty stunt like this again.