The Mookse and the Gripes discussion

Two months until the Nobel winner announcement on Thursday, 6 October, 13:00 CEST at the earliest. Anybody want to begin the speculation?

This always seems the oddest prize.

The other ones on here as soon as the long lists are announced and no matter how much everyone moans about them - many people sit down and read and discuss most if not all of the books.

The last two years I decided to read all of the winning author’s books and seem to be largely on my own.

And before that we had the Handke disgrace, all the scandals and the Dylan oddity.

I guess not everyone wants to read an author's entire oeuvre? And with Gluck, even many avid readers of prose/fiction feel that poetry isn't really for them.

I'd love to see Ernaux recognised.

Put me in the anyone but Annie camp

Oh no!

My money (metaphorically) is on Lyudmila Ulitskaya.

Cormac McCarthy?

Or Anne Carson? Though maybe not a Canadian woman associated with poetry after Gluck.

Glück and Gurnah have been excellent discoveries thanks to the Nobel prize. I have not read their oeuvre completely for sure, but I’m enjoying my slow chronological pace through Glücks collected work (in the nice hardback edition by Penguin). So far I’ve only read one Gurnah, but will be reading another with a couple of friends in October. Gumble’s reviews have been helpful with both authors.

I, too, would like to see Ernaux recognized.

Ulitskaya would be interesting too, a lot of her work has been and is all the time being translated into Finnish but still haven’t read a single one.

A few of Mia Couto’s novels are waiting on the shelf. I enjoyed one of his short story collections and the novels look interesting too. But maybe it’s about time to recognize a non-anglo author? [Edit: Couto writes in Portuguese, duh.]

The prize came to my mind today (and hence this new thread) as I was placing an order on Bernardo Atxaga’s new novel Water over Stones. I have no idea if he’s ever been considered for the prize and if he’s any good, but seemed like an author with a considerable body of recognized work. Not sure I’ve read a Basque author before to be frank.

I've got a few Nuruddin Farah novels that I need to get to, so I'll pull for him.

Ian McEwan given his blatant pitch in Lessons

Ha, then I'm in the anyone but McEwan camp!

But agree, it would be good to have someone not writing in English.

Lee wrote: "I've got a few Nuruddin Farah novels that I need to get to, so I'll pull for him."

This would be a great selection, although I've not read him.

The fun has rather got taken out of the Nobel with the loss of the leaks via the betting market. Which then makes speculation very hard as we've no idea who is in the running.

It also felt - if the Nobel library data is correct, plus some comments from some of the panel - that Gurnah hadn't been much in the running before. Whereas the rule had usually been that you had to have been on the shortlist in previous years to be a potential winner (which again made rumours of who'd missed ot last time more pertinent).

And they appear to have got less political - the Handke verdict would suggest if anything the winner this year might be someone who champions the invasion of Ukraine.

So now we only have literary quality as a benchmark - which is a shame.

And on that if one said 'authors whose influence and oeuvre is on a par with Gurnak' that would leave one with a list running in to the hundreds all equally likely to win.

Read everything from Glück start of the year and enjoyed it. Still hoping Atwood gets the prize🤞

Roman Clodia wrote: "Ha, then I'm in the anyone but McEwan camp!

But agree, it would be good to have someone not writing in English."

Me too. No McEwan, please!

I’m kind of partial to Cesar Aira, but I’d love to see Maryse Conde get the prize for real.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "This always seems the oddest prize.
...
The last two years I decided to read all of the winning author’s books and seem to be largely on my own"

Ah but the whole point of Nobel speculation is that an obscure writer wins it but you had predicted them beforehand (hopefully to financial reward), and are able to confidently proclaim on the merits of their works ("while the committee cited their 'magnus opus' The Books of X, they rather overlooked the earlier but far more focused "Y and other times"). The actual literary works are rather secondary.

Don DeLillo

As an obscure writer to win?

I just saw that a film version of White Noise is coming out soon. I’ve never read, or been interested in, DeLillo.

WndyJW wrote: "I just saw that a film version of White Noise is coming out soon. I’ve never read, or been interested in, DeLillo."

I know Underworld is a doorstopper but it is a marvellous read.

Paul wrote: "As an obscure writer to win?"

Haha, Paul, perhaps. No more so than a handful of others.

Salman Rushdie must be a very strong contender.

Robert wrote: "WndyJW wrote: "I just saw that a film version of White Noise is coming out soon. I’ve never read, or been interested in, DeLillo."

I know Underworld is a doorstopper but it is a marv..."

Underworld is truly brilliant, but my personal favorite, Libra, is ingenious.

There's a five-star review of "White Noise" in The Guardian today.

I recently completed a re-read of all Delillo’s novels. Libra is also my favourite.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Salman Rushdie must be a very strong contender."

The rumor (opinions from various and obscure websites) is that Rushdie has been a "finalist" for a least a decade, along with Phillip Roth (before he died), Cormac McCarthy, even Joyce Carol Oates.

Whenever I remember that Rushdie hasn't already won it I'm surprised. Possibly there have been concerns that he might be something of a risky or controversial pick, but there probably isn't a better year to give it to him than this if they want to make a point. Joyce Carol Oates though, really??

I read recently that the Nobel didn't stand behind Rushdie when the fatwa was issued in 1989, resulting in two members denouncing the committee and ultimately resigning.

What response was expected of the Nobel committee after the fatwa was issued?

David wrote: "What response was expected of the Nobel committee after the fatwa was issued?"

The implication in the article was that the committee should've spoken out in support of his freedom of speech. They didn't and, again implied, were apparently fearful of putting themselves at risk of condemnation.

From Reddit.com:

Who will win the 2022 Nobel Prize in Literature? It’s less than 2 months now until the Nobel Prize in Literature 2022 is announced. As usual, lots of speculation is abound and bets are even starting to arise. According to the Wikipedia page for 2022 these are the favourites:
• Romania: Mircea Cărtărescu (novelist)
• Japan: Haruki Murakami (novelist), Yoko Tawada (novelist)
• Russia: Lyudmila Ulitskaya (novelist)
• France: Anne Ernaux (memoirist), Hélène Cixous (writer), Michel Houellebecq (writer)
• Canada: Margaret Atwood (novelist), Anne Carson (poet)
• Norway: Jon Fosse (playwright)
• Guadeloupe-France: Maryse Condé (writer)
• China: Can Xue (writer), Yan Lianke (writer)
• Nigeria: Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (novelist)
• Britain: Hilary Mantel (author), Martin Amis (author)
• Ireland: Edna O’Brien (novelist)
• Germany: Botho Strauss (playwright), Jürgen Habermas (philosopher)
• America: Colson Whitehead, Edmund White, Joyce Carol Oates, Cormac McCarthy, Stephen King, and Thomas Pynchon (all novelists), Martha Nussbaum (philosopher)
• Mozambique: Mia Couto (novelist)
• Rwanda: Scholastique Mukasonga (writer)
• Jamaica-born British: Linton Kwesi Johnson (poet)

Colson Whitehead and Stephen King?? Wikipedia means anyone can guess any writer they want, right? I can’t imagine Steven King thinks Steven King is a Nobel worthy writer.

I'd have no problem with Stephen King winning. He is prolific, but his writing is decent and he's a good person. He's certainly a better choice than Dylan. Wouldn't be my first choice though. I think it for all sorts of reasons, including that he is a great writer, it should go to Rushdie.

Edna O’Brien certainly has been writing for a long time- I’ve loved many of her works, but others, not so much.
And JCO is very prolific- I’ve read a few of her books, and enjoyed exactly one: Marya.
Pynchon might have to come out of hiding for a little while to accept the award. And though I love Cormac McCarthy, I don’t know if his books tell enough different stories. Same goes for Stephen King- lots of works, but not a lot of variety.
Maybe they should award Sir Paul McCartney this year. 🙂

As others have commented here, I’d love to see Rushdie win this year. Yes, he is a great writer.

With the Nobel Library not showing which books have been checked out anymore we've been left more in the dark this year, indeed...

I'm curious about Rushdie; I wouldn't mind him winning if his whole output were consistent, and while I haven't read his later works, the reviews of them are not very encouraging... I believe some of you can speak of them better, since this group seems to be more focused on the Booker, and he's recently been nominated for Quichotte...

Taking a look at the recent winners, tho, it seems that the Swedish Academy has been favouring authors with a tautly composed oeuvre (think of Aleksievitch with her five emotionally demanding books; Ishiguro with only 7 novels, each working on a different genre; Tokarczuk's curious mind; Glück's carefully and thematically arranged collections; Gurnah with his 10 rather slim novels always obsessively returning to the same topic), with the sprawling exceptions of Handke (hands down the best choice they've made this century) and Dylan (another great induction, his words themselves singing on the page, just read him and you get your mind wired to his diction) because of their undeniable brilliance.

what I mean to say is we should think of writers whose themes and motifs are clearly seen in a body of work that is more hit than miss...

So, of the writers I'm somehow familiar with, I'd believe Krasznahorkai, Ernaux, Houellebecq, Cartarescu, Fosse, Can Xue to fit the bill quite nicely...

A name that has been puzzling me, one I haven't read yet, is David Grossman. Is anyone familiar with his writings and could speak of him?

And, ah! Thank goodness this prize is continually becoming one where literary quality is the sole benchmark! For other purposes we have the Peace prize!

Bartleby wrote: "what I mean to say is we should think of writers whose themes and motifs are clearly seen in a body of work that is more hit than miss..."

Interesting observations. I think the bit about recent winners having a tautly composed oeuvre is spot on and a good way to make sense of the last 5 years or so.

I'm not sure if I'd necessarily say that literary quality is the sole benchmark, but literary consistency does seem to be relevant. Last year's winner (Gurnah) perhaps being the best example of that.

Maybe they should revert to the Handke type choices - there must be a pro Putin apologist Russian novelist they can find.

Enjoying the thoughts, humor and insights here, fellas. As for David Grossman, Bartleby, To the End of the Land and A Horse Walks Into a Bar were both great. His last novel, a kind of auto-fiction tributary, didn't work for me. Also, since you highlighted Handke in your praise, what would you consider his best works? Thanks.

Gumble wrote: "Maybe they should revert to the Handke type choices."

Well, there's Yoko Tawada who's been accused of misgendering a trans character in Scattered All Over the Earth.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Maybe they should revert to the Handke type choices - there must be a pro Putin apologist Russian novelist they can find."

Boris sees himself as Churchill reincarnated so perhaps he will aim for a Nobel next. Although if they are after a Putin apologist the former LOTO could have a shot (I would say “if only he had written a book” but that didn’t stop Dylan).

^Dylan may not have set out to write poetry collections, but everything he's sung he's put to paper beforehand (and even if he hadn't that didn't stop great literature from being orally composed) and was afterwards collected in book form :).


@Scott Boyd, thanks for recommending those two books by Grossman! I'm sorry you didn't like his last one, I was very interested in reading it, the first few pages were quite amazing, as they shifted through time, and very economically informed the characters' internal landscape... maybe I'll go on to read it anyway and risk getting disappointed...

as for Handke, if you want to have a glimpse of what he's capable of, I'd suggest tackling "Repetition". It is a bit of a slow read, and it requires a patient and attentive reader, but if one so applies oneself, the rewards are plenty. Basically each page is a treasure. The stuff he does in conjuring vivid images after images, full of metaphorical significance, is unparalleled. Sebald has written an essay on the novel and you can read it here https://thelastbooks.org/wordpress/wp...

he can speak of it better than I could ever try to.

David wrote: "Gumble wrote: "Maybe they should revert to the Handke type choices."

Well, there's Yoko Tawada who's been accused of misgendering a trans character in Scattered All Over the Earth."

I saw that but I think - and obviously I could be being insensitive here - that as each section has a different narrator who 'speaks' any opinions expressed relate to different characters' attitudes/values rather than representing the voice of the author - or sometimes to the people they encounter on their journey who have differing levels of/sometimes an entire lack of awareness around gender issues. Part of what the narrative involves is a commentary on communication/miscommunication and 'othering' and how language or use of language operates to shape or represent particular perspectives on the world, and as the narrative unfolds positions shift and use of language shifts. Since it's a trilogy it will be interesting to see how that unfolds over the following volumes. I know some bloggers/reviewers have added TWs about the attitudes of certain characters but I don't tend to do that myself. That was my reading of the text anyway.

I read it a few months ago and found the chapters where Akash herself speaks to be more problematic, but more from a tone deaf standpoint than anything malicious. Something to discuss at a later date :)

Her characters tend to be awkwardly drawn, they're more rounded here than in other books of hers I've read. But she's really someone more interested in exploring particular ideas through narrative partly politically and partly semi-philosophically, in some ways I wonder if she wouldn't be more suited to writing non-fiction. 'Memoirs of a Polar Bear' went completely off the rails towards the end and the ideas expressed ended up being slightly contradictory. So I'm reserving my judgement until I've read more of the trilogy. But I liked the underlying critique of nationalism and identity, and other elements of this one.

@David Caves as for what matters for the SA when awarding a writer, I get why it's a tricky subject, considering how secretive they are in their processes. If only one could be a fly on the walls of their meetings...

apart from that, we have only the members' words, and we can decide to believe in them or not :) otherwise we'll have to wait 50 years to see what's happening right now, and not many of us will survive this long... laws of nature...

anyway, here is an interesting interview with Peter Englund when he was the Permanent Secretary https://www.theguardian.com/books/aud...

more recently members Ellen Mattson and Anders Olsson have spoken about the selection process https://youtu.be/mO0xGKO4z-A https://youtu.be/3-_QiPmEDRE

and another member has written an update of a previous book on the Nobel prize in Literature, talking more about the 21st Century (the section "Political Integrity" is very much worth the read) https://www.svenskaakademien.se/sites...

Alwynne wrote: "Her characters tend to be awkwardly drawn, they're more rounded here than in other books of hers I've read. But she's really someone more interested in exploring particular ideas through narrative partly politically and partly semi-philosophically"

Totally agree with this. As someone who likes ideas more than characters, she's a writer that tends to work for me.

That history of the prize you linked to Bartleby is fascinating. Thanks for that.

I'm glad you liked it :)