Nobel frontrunners

[AuntShecky]

This just in--
evidently Reuters has announced that there is a short list
of the possible winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature, to be announced in Stockholm on Oct. 11.
The article stated that a British bookmaker, Ladbrokes, hs chosen an Italian, Claudio Magris,as the heavy favorite.
Other contenders: the "Bush" poet from Australia, Les Murray;American novelist Philip Roth; the local favorite,
Swedish poet Thoma Transtromer, and long-shot, Syrian-Lebanese Adonis.
With the exception of Philip Roth, yours truly is totally unfamiliar with any of the horses in this race, as she was with last year's winner, Orham Pamuk, of Turkey.
By the bye, the article states that Ladbrokes, the bookie,
successfully picked last year's winner.

Auntie

[Old Crow]

Like you, AuntShecky, the only one of these writers with whom I am even mildly familiar is Philip Roth, however a quick internet search of "Claudio Magris" has just lengthened my already over extended "Books To Buy" list by a few entries. Thanks.

[stlukesguild]

Of course I'm familiar with Philip Roth... but as a poetry fanatic I have also read a bit by Thomas Transtromer (actually I was just browsing a translation of his poems just the other day... but eventually opted for a couple of other books). I do vaguely remember reading the liner notes to Claudio Magris' Danube: A Sentimental Journey from the Source to the Black Sea but didn't end purchasing that one either. I'd love to read them all... but who has the time? I've actually read something by 6 of the Nobel Laureates from the 1990s... and own something by two others... but I've only read one of the Laureates after 2000 (Pinter).:(

[nebish]

Margaret Atwood at 20/1 is interesting as value ; Thomas Pynchon also at 20/1 is most deserving but would prove tricky for the prize panel to locate; Ian McEwan at 40/1 least deserving due to the literary travesty entitled Saturday

[Lambert]

Thomas Pynchon also at 20/1 is most deserving but would prove tricky for the prize panel to locate
Well, I would assume if he was awarded the prize, the nobel commitee could get in touch with him via his publishers. He is only living in Manhatten anyway.

Problem is, the nobel commitee has been nervous about a writer turning down the prize again. So they may just skip Pynchon this year, despite the fact, as you say, he is the most deserving (and roth as well).

[Virgil]

I've only heard of Roth out of those contenders. But does it matter? I've never cared for literary prizes and the Nobel prize tends to be a regular farce. It is not a forcast of how great a writer is. I frankly don't think any prize is.

[stlukesguild]

Virgil... of course the Nobel prize... like any literary award is flawed. The selections are marred by personal preferences and politics. Does anyone truly believe that Dereck Walcott was more deserving of this recognition than Gunter Grass (who had to wait another 7 years)... or Philip Roth, Thomas Pynchon, Geoffrey Hill, John Ashberry, etc...? But it did look very politically astute to award this prize to a Non-European writer from the Americas on the 500th anniversary of Columbus arrival. One suspects that Gunter Grass was blocked from recognition for years due to his political leanings... while in other cases one suspects that the committee was seeking out a Jewish, Arab, black, Asian, etc... to fill what they imagine was a gap in a broad representation of all peoples and all cultures. Why Marquez after ignoring Borges all those years? Where was Italo Calvino? What was the intention in awarding Hermann Hesse (who certainly deserved to be acknowledged) the Nobel the year after the end of the Second World War? Was he being acknowledged for having made the proper move in leaving his native Germany under the Nazis? Was the committee attempting to convey that they were in support of the best of German culture... in spite of all that had transpired? I have no doubt that many who earned the award clearly deserved it... and probably didn't "need" it: Faulkner, Yeats, Mann, Hesse, Grass, Hemingway, Steinbeck, T.S. Eliot, Neruda, Montale, Marquez, I.B. Singer, etc... In other instances the Nobel Prize seemingly drew attention to a rather unknown author worthy of greater recognition: Jose Saramago, Symborska, Czeslaw Milosz, Jaroslav Seifert, Vicente Aleixandre, etc... I don't think that any Nobel Laureate whom I have read struck me as being particularly undeserving of greater recognition... but certainly there are unforgivable omissions: James Joyce, Alejo Carpentier, J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Proust... It also happens at times that a writer seems to win for a single book that becomes so attached to his or her reputation to the exclusion of everything else. I think especially of Lagerkvist's Barabas (and I would encourage anyone to try his The Dwarf as well) or Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago (and no one should miss out on his marvelous poetry... especially considering that he was first and foremost a poet... perhaps Russians greatest modern poet). In the end all one can do is take the Nobel Prize as something that might point us to a writer of interest... but not as the last word on the best of most deserving writer alive.

[JCamilo]

The list of the forgotten names are more prestigious than the recalled names...the missed Kafka, Borges, Joyce, Woolf, Proust, Fernando Pessoa who are, if not the best writers of XX century, the most important. It is also funny that they discovered portuguese language in 1998 and missed Guimarães Rosa and Carlos Drummond de Andrade writing. Some of those names they have the excuse of death, but Borges is sooo funny. Then giving prizes for those who are bellow Borges like Neruda, Marquez and Paz, it is was almost like giving Virgil reason: The Nobel is low, at least lower than Borges.

[Virgil]

The list of the forgotten names are more prestigious than the recalled names...the missed Kafka, Borges, Joyce, Woolf, Proust, Fernando Pessoa who are, if not the best writers of XX century, the most important. It is also funny that they discovered portuguese language in 1998 and missed Guimarães Rosa and Carlos Drummond de Andrade writing. Some of those names they have the excuse of death, but Borges is sooo funny. Then giving prizes for those who are bellow Borges like Neruda, Marquez and Paz, it is was almost like giving Virgil reason: The Nobel is low, at least lower than Borges.

Not to mention Joseph Conrad, D.H. Lawrence, Henry James.

[stlukesguild]

Of course Kafka and Pessoa are easily forgiven omissions considering that in both cases little was published during the author's lifetime. Much still exists by Pessoa that has yet to come to light... that has yet been studied, sorted out and transcribed from the mountain of texts left in that famous trunk. Joyce, Proust and Borges are probably the most inexcusable omissions... and especially Borges when one considers that he only died as recently as 1986... nearly 50 years after his first important stories appeared and some 25 years after his landmark collections Ficciones and Labyrinths first appeared in English. Considering some of the authors who were recipients of the award (Faulkner, Hermann Hesse, Thomas Mann, Ernest Hemingway, W.B. Yeats, T.S. Eliot, Camus, Eugenio Montale, etc...) I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that the Nobel winners are some sort of group of literary "also-rans". Speaking of the Portuguese question... I certainly don't think that Jose Saramago was a poor choice... and I might even guess that he was a means of drawing attention to the forgotten Pessoa when one considers his novel, The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis. On the other hand... I will admit that my book shelves strain under the weight of authors who were surely just as worthy of recognition (if not far more so) than Anatole France or Pearl Buck.

[stlukesguild]

And Rilke!? Where was Rilke?!

[Taliesin]

Where is Astrid Lindgren? Or Roald Dahl?
We think that they have got something against children's literature. Okay, the main audience might be children, but still, that doesn't mean that their impact is not great and important.

[JCamilo]

Not to mention Joseph Conrad, D.H. Lawrence, Henry James.


Oh, yes, The list is almost endless. We can almost afirm that only sometimes they hit the right spot.
But when we think what literature became in the XX century, the history and most ambitious works of the 3 different genres (romance, short stories, poetry) they managed to forget the exactly names that are the most influential authors of the century and had to give the prize to their followers :P


Of course Kafka and Pessoa are easily forgiven omissions considering that in both cases little was published during the author's lifetime. Much still exists by Pessoa that has yet to come to light... that has yet been studied, sorted out and transcribed from the mountain of texts left in that famous trunk. Joyce, Proust and Borges are probably the most inexcusable omissions... and especially Borges when one considers that he only died as recently as 1986...

Yes, for Kafka and Pessoa there is still this excuse. Almost unforgetable, Max Brody should got the award anyways.
There is a joke that when one of the members of Nobel's voting group was asked about the chances of Joyce because of Ulysses said "Joyce who" and with Borges it seemed really a complex of inferiority - they just did not wanted to bring that giant there. Borges spent the last decades of his life saying it would be a honor to receive the Nobel, always was polite and generous with the prizes he earned and in the 70's, the Nobel started the politic of discovering Latin America...It is too odd that Borges used to say "It became a swedish tradition not present me with Nobel".


I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that the Nobel winners are some sort of group of literary "also-rans".

Of course, Faulkner, Bernard Shaw, Yeats, Nabokov and some others are literary giants. They may not be as great as Joyce or Borges or Proust, but certainly are giants. But the presence of them certainly have an effect to make the absence of the others- which they are so closely related - even more strange.


Speaking of the Portuguese question... I certainly don't think that Jose Saramago was a poor choice... and I might even guess that he was a means of drawing attention to the forgotten Pessoa when one considers his novel, The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis.

Saramago is a great writer, odd is how they discovered Portuguese authors only in the end of the XX century when Portuguese literature is in a process of decadency. Until the 50's brazil literature was considerable more powerful or in the same level as the french, north-american, hispanic, russian, etc. But the language is totally ignored and the prize to Saramago do smell as a politics of geographic merit.

Another thing is how the Nobel oversees (and that is not bad) certain writers because their genre... Chesterton and H.G.Wells were writing in the first half of XX century and they are giants as well, but the funny thing is when we complain about the absences we forget those two very easily.
And if we consider Bertrand Russell is here (a philosophy writer, not fictional) we could wonder Foucault, Bourdier, Derrida, Barthez - who are all great writers above all (hence the way their ideas about the text gained strength) are never mentioned. Even those who disagree with them accept the power of their text. I can not even say the Nobel winners do not like left wing writers, since a crazy left wing like Shaw is there.

Meanwhile I agree with Virgil, the prize is meaningless. Quality is timeless and the Nobel is not. However, we find the most odd reasons to chit-chat.

[Aiculík]

Then giving prizes for those who are bellow Borges like Neruda, Marquez and Paz, it is was almost like giving Virgil reason: The Nobel is low, at least lower than Borges.


Of course, Faulkner, Bernard Shaw, Yeats, Nabokov and some others are literary giants. They may not be as great as Joyce or Borges or Proust, but certainly are giants.

Now I'm interested. Why are Marquez and Neruda "below" Borges?
How do you decide which giant is the greatest? :)

[Aiculík]

The Nobel Prize for literature may not be perfect - after all, it is granted by humans to another humans... I agree that sometimes there might be political reasons for giving the prize to certain writer. But I still find the list of Nobel winners much more inspiring than all those "top 100 novels of the 20th century" which always turn out to be "top 100 novels of the 20th century written by British and American authors". As if the rest of the world didn't exist...

So let me see - by now, I've read Pamuk, Coetzee, Kertesz, Grass, Morrison, Mahfouz, Seifert, Golding, Marquez, Canetti, Singer, Bellow, Neruda, Solzenitsyn, Beckett, Sholokhov, Sartre, Steinbeck, Andric, Camus, Hemingway, Mauriac, Faulkner, Eliot, Gide, Hesse, Pirandello, Galsworthy, Mann, Shaw, Yeats, Hamsun, Rolland, Maeterlinck, and Sienkiewicz.

Sure I didn't like all of them - Sartre and Camus will never be my favourites, for example, and I still prefer Jan to Pablo (Neruda) - but I can't say that some of those authors didn't deserve to get the prize. All those books were great reading and I'm not sorry I've read any of them. And I'm looking forward to find out who's the next winner.

Joyce is famous even without Nobel prize, and so is Borgess. On the other hand, there are great authors on the list, that would remain unknown to many people like me - for example Maeterlinck or Hamsun, if they weren't on this list.

[Noisms]

But I still find the list of Nobel winners much more inspiring than all those "top 100 novels of the 20th century" which always turn out to be "top 100 novels of the 20th century written by British and American authors". As if the rest of the world didn't exist...

I completely agree. I like the fact that the Nobel committee are somewhat eccentric, because the alternative would just be to trot out the bestseller lists as potential winners.

That said, I always complain about the Booker Prize, because they seem to deliberately pick books nobody has read. As if the only good books are the ones that are too difficult for the common man to read.

Sometimes I think the Nobel committee should think more about genre fiction (just because somebody writes Science Fiction or historical novels doesn't make their work somehow 'beneath' others) but then again, most genres have their own prizes (like the Hugo and Nebula awards for SF).

[Aiculík]

Yes, but those prizes are not that recognised. It's a pity there's no prize for literature with categories... e.g. prose, poetry, children literature, popular literature...

Maybe we should create some. With a bit of promotion and good marketing, it could soon be known and respected all around the world. ;)

[Virgil]

Maybe we should create some. With a bit of promotion and good marketing, it could soon be known and respected all around the world. ;)

Do you have a spare couple of hundred thousand dollars as a prize? :D I do think they each have their own prizes within their respective worlds.

[JCamilo]

Now I'm interested. Why are Marquez and Neruda "below" Borges?
How do you decide which giant is the greatest? :)


Obviously, Much of this is just because it is my opinion :D

But, since this is a forum and if we say nothing the topic just may die and I believe I can defend my opinion, even if just for the fun of it...

With Borges and the rest of hispanic writers, specially in the case of Marquez. (Neruda, is as Borges said, a second class romantic poet. It was of course a witty joke of Borges, he and Neruda always in oposite fields, but now, come to think off, a second class romantic poet sounds like a great feat, after all, not everyone can be Yeats, Keats, Baudelaire or Wordsworth...but anyways, Neruda seems to me a great poet, but much irregular in his poetry. ) Borges is somehow the great "fact" os hispanic literature in the XX century (and some may say the great fact since Cervantes), this means he opened the possibilities and doors to all others, became some short of institution and example, even to one as good as Marquez. He is pretty much a shadow, and this is have seen Paz, Marquez, Llosa, and a few others reckoning. Borges is not one of them, it is walking Myth to them. That is why, in relation to hispanic literature. (And I believe, that there is some level of quality that it is pointless to rank, they are just good enough, great enough, and depending where the suns shines we are going to see who is the greatest.)

As the Joyce,Proust, Borges, which I would include Kafka and Fernando Pessoa, they are pretty much the authors of the main works that would define moderm literature. Borges and Kafka in the short stories, Fernando Pessoa in poetry, Proust, Joyce and Kafka in the romance. Their ambitions, experiences, aestetic creations are those we can see as more unique than most. Sure, Yeats was a suberp poet, Woolf and Faulkner could write romance as well as anyone else, Sartre, Camus or Shaw had unique inteligence - but those are the difference, the uniqueness of the XX century. In a way we can find Joyce and Borges in Nabokov, but not Nabokov in any of them. (Of course, this a somewhat flawed notion, but I would not create a science because of the Nobels). So, if you are going to teach literature in XX century, about the XX century it is impossible to not explain the fake narrator of Borges's tales or his idea about finite-infinite and literary influence, It is impossible not talk about Proust experiences with Memory in the narrative, or his and Joyce experiences with time-space and Joyce linguistic works, It is not possible to not refer to Pessoa and Borges creation of narrators in the text and the fragmentation and possible "death" of the author, neither it is possible to not talk about kafka works and his question about the place of the individual and misunderstanding of the reasons that are so rational and those are probally the most important things in literature (western of course) in the XX century.

[JBI]

Everyone seems to be forgetting Ibsen from the omitted list. Oh, and we mustn't forget Tolstoy's omission. It is easy to pick out forgotten names, but it is difficult to pick out names that didn't deserve some sort of recognition (I think in the first 30 or so years a few of them weren't worthy, but that is just me).

[nebish]

Philip Roth is now clear favourite (7/2); next best are Murakami (5/1) and Amos Oz (6/1). They have shortened up Thomas Pynchon (20s to 10/1) -looks like the Fallon Mob may be getting in on the action there.

[Virgil]

Results are in!!


Doris Lessing Wins Nobel Prize in Literature

By REUTERS
Published: October 11, 2007
STOCKHOLM, Oct 11 (Reuters) - British novelist Doris Lessing won the 2007 Nobel Prize for a body of work that delved into human relationships and inspired a generation of feminist writers, the Swedish Academy said on Thursday.

The academy, which awards the prestigious 10 million Swedish crowns ($1.54 million) prize, called 87-year-old Lessing an "epicist of the female experience, who with scepticism, fire and visionary power has subjected a divided civilisation to scrutiny".


She was the 34th woman to win a Nobel and the 11th to take the literature award. The awards began in 1901.


"We're absolutely delighted and it's very well-deserved, of course," Lessing's long-time agent Jonathan Clowes said in a statement read to Reuters.



http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/reuters-lessing.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I've never read anything by her. Does anyone have any opinion? Or do I need to ask? ;)

[Noisms]

I've never read anything by her. Does anyone have any opinion? Or do I need to ask? ;)

Yeah, Doris Lessing's great. We were just talking about how it's odd that genre fiction doesn't get nominated for things like Nobel prizes, but Lessing has always been keen to associate herself with the field of science fiction. So hooray for the Nobel committee in awarding it to her.

[stlukesguild]

Everyone seems to be forgetting Ibsen from the omitted list. Oh, and we mustn't forget Tolstoy's omission.

I will assume that this is largely owing to the fact that they were both essentially 19th century authors. Ibsen died in 1906 and his last work was dated 1899... while Tolstoy died in 1906 and little by him was penned after 1900. Ibsen might have had the added strike against him of appearing controversial at the time. Of course either choice would have been a greater choice than any of the recipients of the first ten years... but then again Tolstoy (especially) would have been a more deserving recipient than any writer of the 20th century, Nobel Laureate or not.

[stlukesguild]

Neruda, is as Borges said, a second class romantic poet. It was of course a witty joke of Borges, he and Neruda always in opposite fields, but now, come to think off, a second class romantic poet sounds like a great feat, after all, not everyone can be Yeats, Keats, Baudelaire or Wordsworth...

Borges and Neruda were certainly opposite poles of Latin-American literature... and they essentially stand as the two foundations of most of that which would follow. Not only are they opposites in sensibilities (Neruda the grandiose, verbose, romantic... Borges the concise, scholarly Modernist) but they were also political polar opposites. Borges had been one of the few Argentines to speak openly and early against the Nazis and antisemitism in Germany (and its support in Argentina) in spite of his deep love of German culture. He would later be publicly humiliated (fired from his position in the National Library and "promoted" to the position of poultry inspector for the Buenos Aires municipal market) by the Peron government for having signed a pro-democratic petition. Borges had no romantic idealisms concerning any populist, authoritarian forms of government unlike Neruda, who like many intellectuals of his era became an ardent communist in response to the Spanish Civil War (and especially the execution of Federico Garcia Lorca). Unlike many of his peers, Neruda remained in support of the communists even after the abuses of the Stalin regime became known and even after the efforts to muzzle important writers such as Nabokov. Perhaps the greatest comment by Borges upon Neruda was his short story, The Aleph. Ironically Borges uses this ancient Hebrew myth of the Aleph, the only place on earth where all places are -- seen from every angle, each standing clear, without any confusion or blending, and invents a poet who having been witness to this wonder uses it to create a huge, bombastic, poem that attempts to catalog the entire world... quite the opposite of Borges' own literary methods.

Personally, I greatly enjoy much by Neruda. Perhaps he is not of the level of Whitman (his true precursor) or Wordsworth... but then again, as already noted, who is. I, however, for better or worse, am one of those of whom the critic, Harold Bloom speaks, who having read Borges much and often has become a Borghesian.

he opened the possibilities and doors to all others, became some sort of institution and example, even to one as good as Marquez.

I certainly agree. And in a way many national bodies of literature have such a figure. It would not be far from the fact to suggest that Dante "invented" Italian literature, Goethe German, Chaucer, Shakespeare and perhaps Spencer British, and Whitman American. Borges is certainly such a figure within the body of Latin-American literature that has become among the strongest in the world: Cortazar, Paz, Neruda, Monterroso, Marquez, Fuentes, Alejo Carpentier, Machado de Assis, Mario Vargas Llosa, etc...

As the Joyce, Proust, Borges, which I would include Kafka and Fernando Pessoa, they are pretty much the authors of the main works that would define moderm literature.

I would not necessarily disagree... although there are certainly others... perhaps not much less: T.S. Eliot, Yeats, Wallace Stevens, William Faulkner, Rilke, Montale... but then you can tell I'm the poetry lover;)

Borges and Kafka in the short stories...

I'd almost suggest one define Borges' and Kafkas' contributions as being the creation (or expansion?) or short literary forms... (miniatures?)... which blurred all the previously accepted forms. Not only do we have Kafka's short stories and his unfinished novels... but we also have the equally marvelous aphorisms, parables, and notebook entries. Borges, on the other hand, clearly blurred or confused criticism with essays with science fiction with fables... etc... in his "fictions"... but he was also a fabulous writer of non-fiction essays and a great poet. In a way, I would place Pessoa along with Borges and Kafka as one of the writers who did the most to rethink what literature might be (and Joyce and Beckett both belong there as well). He is not merely a poet (or shouldn't one say a number of poets) but he challenges the very notion of poetry seen as the one true or authentic voice of the poet and invents poetry as drama, in a sense... inventing a world of very different authentic poetic voices... and voices of critics and other literary figures who write about these poets.

So, if you are going to teach literature in XX century, about the XX century it is impossible to not explain the fake narrator of Borges's tales or his idea about finite-infinite and literary influence, It is impossible not talk about Proust experiences with Memory in the narrative, or his and Joyce experiences with time-space and Joyce linguistic works, It is not possible to not refer to Pessoa and Borges creation of narrators in the text and the fragmentation and possible "death" of the author, neither it is possible to not talk about kafka works and his question about the place of the individual and misunderstanding of the reasons that are so rational and those are probally the most important things in literature (western of course) in the XX century.

Certainly... such is as impossible... or false... as discussing 20th century art without mention of Picasso or Matisse.

[AuntShecky]

I attempted to read The Golden Notebook once, but my attention span in its flightiness would not allow it. Evidently her opus is erected upon enormous science fiction-like construct (similar to the great body of myth behind the poetry of Yeats, let's say.) In any event, I will attempt to try to give this Nobel laureate another try.(Someday)

Here is the report from the NY Times, followed by a lengthy but quite insightful analysis from the NY Review of
Books.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/world/11cnd-nobel.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19660

[JCamilo]

Borges and Neruda were certainly opposite poles of Latin-American literature... and they essentially stand as the two foundations of most of that which would follow. Not only are they opposites in sensibilities (Neruda the grandiose, verbose, romantic... Borges the concise, scholarly Modernist) but they were also political polar opposites. Borges had been one of the few Argentines to speak openly and early against the Nazis and antisemitism in Germany (and its support in Argentina) in spite of his deep love of German culture.

I would say, Because of this love, his only possible reaction was to condem the ignorance of Nazism.


Perhaps the greatest comment by Borges upon Neruda was his short story, The Aleph. Ironically Borges uses this ancient Hebrew myth of the Aleph, the only place on earth where all places are -- seen from every angle, each standing clear, without any confusion or blending, and invents a poet who having been witness to this wonder uses it to create a huge, bombastic, poem that attempts to catalog the entire world... quite the opposite of Borges' own literary methods.

I read an interview of Borges about a meeting with Neruda. They both started to talk, not willing to give an opening to each other. Then they started to talk about spanish idiom and how it was not as good as english to write poetry. They came to the conclusion it was impossible to write poetry in spanish, so they both would stop it. Then Borges mocked saying to the journalist that obviously both lied, since they kept writing...



Personally, I greatly enjoy much by Neruda. Perhaps he is not of the level of Whitman (his true precursor) or Wordsworth... but then again, as already noted, who is. I, however, for better or worse, am one of those of whom the critic, Harold Bloom speaks, who having read Borges much and often has become a Borghesian.

I like Neruda, as a poet, he produced better poems than Borges, but then, Borges was writing something else. He was taking that aphorism of Baudelaire (Make poetry even in prose) to a new level (make poetry even in essays).
I think the political (and that is funny, not the opinion of Borges, who considered the political idealism of Neruda the great identidy of his work and also which give soul to Neruda's poetry) aspect of Neruda added to some irregularity. Some political poems of Neruda I consider really poor (But then I remember Ezra Pound saying that the worst poem he read was written By Shelley), which make me remember a precusor of Neruda, Ruben Dario, who also had good poems mixed with political poems that are in a lower level. Anyways, one of my favorite romantic poems of XX century was Neruda's.


I certainly agree. And in a way many national bodies of literature have such a figure. It would not be far from the fact to suggest that Dante "invented" Italian literature, Goethe German, Chaucer, Shakespeare and perhaps Spencer British, and Whitman American. Borges is certainly such a figure within the body of Latin-American literature that has become among the strongest in the world: Cortazar, Paz, Neruda, Monterroso, Marquez, Fuentes, Alejo Carpentier, Machado de Assis, Mario Vargas Llosa, etc...

And of course, Borges would disagree with his position as the central name in Hispanic Literature, but then we could just pinpoint to him how non-latin american he was and how the "National writer" was always less national- something he often pointed himself :D


I would not necessarily disagree... although there are certainly others... perhaps not much less: T.S. Eliot, Yeats, Wallace Stevens, William Faulkner, Rilke, Montale... but then you can tell I'm the poetry lover;)

Faulker is phenomenal, very near to Joyce, near enough to sit in the same table as him without any problem. Yeats is of course, alongside Pessoa, the great poet of XX century... Wallace Stevens and Rilke, both very good, but I am not as keen to them, Montale I have no experience with him. T.S.Eliot I think is more important for his criticism, even having Waste Land or Hollow Men, two of the greatest poetic works of moderm literature. I just think that the exploration of language Eliot did was done by others (such as Pessoa or Joyce) with more power.


I'd almost suggest one define Borges' and Kafkas' contributions as being the creation (or expansion?) or short literary forms... (miniatures?)... which blurred all the previously accepted forms. Not only do we have Kafka's short stories and his unfinished novels... but we also have the equally marvelous aphorisms, parables, and notebook entries. Borges, on the other hand, clearly blurred or confused criticism with essays with science fiction with fables... etc... in his "fictions"... but he was also a fabulous writer of non-fiction essays and a great poet.

Yes, fact is, Borges is possible the greatest literary critic of this century. Simple because he was able to use the same ideas about literature to create his fictions. In the end, as Octavio Paz said "Borges is his works", I think we can understand as a writer who had a conscistency all long his career. (Being this also one of proposals of Calvino, which by the way,could be named "Six Proposals to be Borges in the new Millenium)


In a way, I would place Pessoa along with Borges and Kafka as one of the writers who did the most to rethink what literature might be (and Joyce and Beckett both belong there as well). He is not merely a poet (or shouldn't one say a number of poets) but he challenges the very notion of poetry seen as the one true or authentic voice of the poet and invents poetry as drama, in a sense... inventing a world of very different authentic poetic voices... and voices of critics and other literary figures who write about these poets.

Yes, that is much of that list of giants, they are in a sense those who are modificating the literature, the role of the author, the voices. Of course some others did it also. For example, Woolf and Faulkner did in Romance much similar experiences to Joyce, but I just think Joyce pulled the big trick with Ulysses and then Finnegans Wake. (In the sense that Joyce probally dominated the romance technique in Ulysses to a point that he could kill it in Finnegans). I would not mention Beckett because he is almost an extenssion of Joyce... but yeah, my list was a bit of quality + revolution.

[Aiculík]

Obviously, Much of this is just because it is my opinion :D

But, since this is a forum and if we say nothing the topic just may die and I believe I can defend my opinion, even if just for the fun of it...

Personal opinions are what I value most, as I believe we can never be 100% objective, especially about literature. :) My post is also just a personal opinion, based on my experience in life and in reading...


With Borges and the rest of hispanic writers, specially in the case of Marquez. (Neruda, is as Borges said, a second class romantic poet. It was of course a witty joke of Borges, he and Neruda always in oposite fields, but now, come to think off, a second class romantic poet sounds like a great feat, after all, not everyone can be Yeats, Keats, Baudelaire or Wordsworth...but anyways, Neruda seems to me a great poet, but much irregular in his poetry. )
Poor Neruda... lol... though as I said, I prefer Jan Neruda, I don't think Pablo is "second-class". And was Baudelaire a romantic? Wasn't he one of those who reacted against romanticism?


Borges is somehow the great "fact" os hispanic literature in the XX century (and some may say the great fact since Cervantes), this means he opened the possibilities and doors to all others, became some short of institution and example, even to one as good as Marquez. He is pretty much a shadow, and this is have seen Paz, Marquez, Llosa, and a few others reckoning. Borges is not one of them, it is walking Myth to them. That is why, in relation to hispanic literature. (And I believe, that there is some level of quality that it is pointless to rank, they are just good enough, great enough, and depending where the suns shines we are going to see who is the greatest.)
Yes, he is a Myth... There are other authors who became myths, e.g. Shakespeare, or Joyce... and that's exactly what I don't like. Starting at elementary school, you hear how great these authors were, how other authors can't be match to them... if someone who studied literature dares to say he doesn't think they're that great, or even admit he hadn't read Hamlet, he's considered to be primitive, uneducated, unintelligent. Because everyone must like these authors. I think Lodge jokes about this in one of his novels...
And I think, that much more people would read Joyce's novel, but don't dare to - "I don't think I'd understand it", "it's for professionals, not average men like me", "that's too high for me", "my professor said it's useless even to try if you haven't read tons of other books, without that you can't understand one bit" - these are answers I usually hear when I talk with people about Joyce. Maybe it's just my country, maybe it's different elsewhere in the world, but somehow I doubt it.
I think that de-mythicisation would really help... just as you said, they're all '"great enough". :)


As the Joyce,Proust, Borges, which I would include Kafka and Fernando Pessoa, they are pretty much the authors of the main works that would define moderm literature. Borges and Kafka in the short stories, Fernando Pessoa in poetry, Proust, Joyce and Kafka in the romance. Their ambitions, experiences, aestetic creations are those we can see as more unique than most.
I agree with that. They are greatest modernist, sure. But I think it's still not enogh to make them the greatest authors or the 20th century, to mythicize them so much... maybe because I generally don't like modernists and modern literature :) But I guess it's still too early to say that... maybe at the end of this century it will be clearer.

[SleepyWitch]

i tried to read a book by Lessing once (don't remember which one it was.. something set in Africa?) and I just couldn't get into it... is it worth trying again?

[JCamilo]

Poor Neruda... lol... though as I said, I prefer Jan Neruda, I don't think Pablo is "second-class". And was Baudelaire a romantic? Wasn't he one of those who reacted against romanticism?

That come from Borges, he and Neruda had a not very friendly relationship because Neruda and most of his generation expected from Borges some attitude, that the old, aristocratic Writer would never have. Of course, consider it: If the first class romantic poets are likes of Blake, Wordsworth, Keats, etc and people like Byron or Gonçalves dias are a little bellow them, being a second class romantic poet is being a great poet :D
In the world of illogical genre and period divisions, I have seen Baudelaire more often linked with Romanticism (he actually have some of the traits, morbid thinking, mystic idea, revolt against a previous system, themes taken from the popular class, etc) than realism (certainly not) and symbolism (which he is considered the main influence). In a way, Baudelaire is a link between those generations... But he may had his fits against some romantic poets, but, Poe (romantic poet also) one of his influences or the defense of Wagner and Delacroix, two romantic myths in music and painting certainly can make us consider how he had not so much against romanticism.



Yes, he is a Myth... There are other authors who became myths, e.g. Shakespeare, or Joyce... and that's exactly what I don't like. Starting at elementary school, you hear how great these authors were, how other authors can't be match to them... if someone who studied literature dares to say he doesn't think they're that great, or even admit he hadn't read Hamlet, he's considered to be primitive, uneducated, unintelligent. Because everyone must like these authors. I think Lodge jokes about this in one of his novels...

All we need is Borges and the notion that read only what you like. Even Ezra Pound that also said that if you do not like a classic is because it was not ment to you like it, so pick another book.
Of course the cult of great writers may be misleading, but that is part of their talent.


And I think, that much more people would read Joyce's novel, but don't dare to - "I don't think I'd understand it", "it's for professionals, not average men like me", "that's too high for me", "my professor said it's useless even to try if you haven't read tons of other books, without that you can't understand one bit" - these are answers I usually hear when I talk with people about Joyce. Maybe it's just my country, maybe it's different elsewhere in the world, but somehow I doubt it.

I read Finnegans Wake and I didn't understand it all. Gladly, so I can read it again. Understanding is overated, only really academics should bother with this, the rest may have just fun.


I agree with that. They are greatest modernist, sure. But I think it's still not enogh to make them the greatest authors or the 20th century, to mythicize them so much... maybe because I generally don't like modernists and modern literature :) But I guess it's still too early to say that... maybe at the end of this century it will be clearer.

I would not bother with calling them modernist, I am favorable to Percey Shelley and his "all poets in the world are writing the same book" ...