Announcement: Nobel Prize for Literature 2017 Speculation List

Hello Gentle Reader

Introduction –

It’s that time of year again, with a few months remaining to October, which means once again to speculate about this year’s possible Nobel Laureate in Literature. My personalized list will be coming on Monday, August 14th 2017. 

Here are the quick stats of the current speculation list:

A total of 76 writers have been listed.

51 are male

25 are female

Writers by Geographical Area:

Africa – 7

North Africa & Middle East – 11

Europe – 32

Australia & Oceania – 1

Asia & the Indo-Subcontinent – 17 

South & Latin America; Including the Caribbean – 8

To see the complete list, and those writers that have made it on the list, please come back Monday August 14th to review the entire list. Comments, thoughts, and other suggestions are always welcomed, and I would love to hear from you!

Unusual Precedents –

Last year the Nobel Prize for Literature was quite a shock, as it went to the American musician: Bob Dylan, on the grounds (and understanding) that his songs and works were best considered poetry. Needless to say, the awards announcement and the new Nobel Laureate in Literature caused controversy and criticism, and often divided opinions between support and uproar—there was no middle ground. My view and opinion of the matter was noted, and I stand by criticism. The years 2015 and 2016, were unique years for the Nobel Prize for Literature. In 2015, the Nobel went to the Belarussian journalist Svetlana Alexievich. Her work was noted for being very small, but dense. Yet what made Alexievich unique in the awards history is she was not what was considered the traditional precedent candidate. As already noted, Alexievich was a journalist, as a writer she was a documenter, reporter and cartographer of the soviet and post-soviet soul and reality; as can be seen in her works: “Wars Unwomanly Face,” “Voices from Chernobyl,” and her most recent work “Second Hand Time.” Now, prior laureates were known for dabbling in journalism as a career or a job alongside their literary endeavors, such as: Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Yet, Svetlana Alexievich would be the only Nobel Laureate (as so far) to write and produce work exclusively in a non-fiction and reportage format; the only other Nobel Laureate in Literature, who could be considered equivalent in their scope, would be Winston Churchill, for his memories about the war. With Alexievich’s new Nobel status, it would appear the award had now been more open to go beyond the conventional literary endeavors of previous Nobel Laureates, which was confined to: Prose (novel and short story), Poetry, and Playwriting.

Then last year, the prize had once again shifted its gaze from the traditional perspective of what literature was contained to, and awarded a musician and singer the Nobel Prize for Literature, on the grounds that Bob Dylan’s songwriting capabilities were considered the equivalent of poetry, and therefore was as deserving of the Nobel as any other poet before him. Whether or not one believes the reasoning for Bob Dylan’s Nobel has any merit at all, is a matter of perspective. Regardless though, at the end of the day—whether one agrees or disagrees with the decision; Bob Dylan is a Nobel Laureate in Literature. Once again though, the definition of literature was brought into controversial broadening. Many supported the move, with the reasoning that Literature encompasses the vastness of linguistic ingenuity and expression; it’s the ability to use words and language to portray narratives and emotions, and cannot be solely reserved for more conservative traditions and formats, which have been recognized by the Nobel Prize for Literature, for over a century. On these grounds—they would say—Dylan’s Nobel recognition, was long overdue, but inevitable at the very least, as ‘music,’ and poetry were both in the same family, even if poetry received greater cultural and intellectual recognition; while music appealed to the masses, and would find itself woven into the cultural phenomena of youth and daily life. Don’t expect to find the likes of Tomas Tranströmer and Wisława Szymborska inducted into the Rock ’n’ Roll hall of fame any time soon.

Despite these new precedents being enacted by the Swedish Academy and subsequent Nobel Committee, they will not change my speculation list. For one: I would have no idea how to gauge a journalistic piece of work in the confines of Literature. It is understandable how Svetlana Alexievich is capable of breaking out of the confines of one, and forming a hybrid of the two worlds—but beyond her, there is little to no other writer I could begin to name as an equivalent. The second: my perspective and opinion has not changed about the different categories of literature and music/songs. Literature retains its traditional boundaries of a narrative or emotional concept captured in linguistic concepts of language; but this is reserved for writing, which must have the most refined sense of language to make its impact and effect—not performing arts like music or songs, which are performed and accompanied by musical instruments to disguise poor writing. In other words: no singer or musical will be given any consideration in the formation of this speculative list. Despite a very unusual precedent being set by the Swedish Academy, it will have no bearing on how my list is compiled or conducted, neither now or in the future. The writers who are included are of course of personal choice, and fall into the set conventions of literature as a production of prose, poetry or theatrical writing.

In Defense of Dylan –

Despite the dissidence and detraction that last year’s award went to the pop culture icon: Bob Dylan, there were supporters who came to his defense, both in mainstream media as well as online. These defenders of Dylan proclaimed that Bob Dylan was not the first lyricist to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, but rather the second. The first winner—as they so eloquently screeched—was awarded over a hundred years ago to: Rabindranath Tagore, the Bengali polymath and Renaissance man. These defenders, populists, and applauders, claimed precedence was already set for Dylan to receive the prize, because Rabindranath Tagore, became a laureate on the basis of his songs; and after all Tagore is referred to as: the Bengal Bard—to which they posture themselves with a peacock of stance of victory and triumph. For those who have not witnessed this stance it’s a marvelous display of: head up ones ass.

What these Dylan supporters fail to mention with regards to their rationalization is: Rabindranath Tagore wrote more than just songs. Tagore also wrote, traditional poetry, essays, plays, short stories, and novels, as well as painted. To this effect, Rabindranath Tagore, is considered the sole revolutionary force behind the modernization of Bengali artistic expression. On these grounds, Tagore was not and is not limited to songs. The argument that Tagore was only a songwriter or a lyricist is superficial at best. The same logic could be applied to Shakespeare being a rock star, because he is colloquially called: “The Bard.” Last time I checked there was no guitar strumming (or smashing) portrait of Shakespeare.

The above defense fails to move me; it does not change my opinion of Bob Dylan nor his undeserved laureate status. It does not encourage me to accept Bob Dylan as a Nobel Laureate either. Though, there is nothing I can do about it. In these regards its best summed up as: what is done is done. OR: ashes to ashes, dust to dust—to which I slap my hands together and walk away. The truth is, I do not accept Bob Dylan as a worthy Nobel Laureate in Literature, as his work is not literature; it is music, and that is fine, but it is not literature, and does not constitute as literature. His songs are not poems—to which he confessed in his Nobel lecture; and therefore Bob Dylan is not a poet.

My resentment towards Bob Dylan has now run its extinguished course. I’ve learned to tolerate last year’s blight, as a lack of judgment at best; while at worst, poor judgment. Some years you celebrate, while others you wallow in petulance and disappointment. Thankfully, there is always a new year, and a new laureate. Redemption is on the horizon.

Patterns to Predict the Nobel –

Many seek to find some hidden patterns, reasoning’s, and rational to which they may promote their personal candidate, and deduce others as less then worthy. The names presented each sit on a varied scale of extremely possible to non-existent; though the scale is only drafted on a general basis, and it itself has no validity or specifications. When drafting the Nobel Prizes, Alfred Nobel dedicated a part of his last will and testament to the creation of each original prize: Medicine, Chemistry, Physics, Literature and Peace.

For the Literature Prize, Alfred Nobel left the following as the conditions for the prize to be awarded:

“one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction ...”

The statement is vague. What constitutes as an “outstanding work in an ideal direction,”? That is where the Swedish Academy and its Nobel Committee come into play. They interpret and apply their interpretation of this clause, when deliberating, debating and finally naming the Nobel Laureate in Literature. The interpretations of the academy have often changed through the decades, as they have awarded politically aware writers and dissident writers, to marvelous poets, apolitical writers, writers who have been held in international recognition, to the obscure and worthy gems.

At the end of the day there is no surefire way to predict the Nobel Prize for Literature; and here are some examples to prove the point.

Some have argued that a writer needs to have an international presence to be considered; whereby they have won numerous prestigious international awards. For example: Alice Munro, won the Man Booker International Prize; Herta Müller and Orhan Pamuk both won the International Literary Dublin Award, and Mario Vargas Llosa won the Cervantes Prize.

This line of reasoning however is quickly debunked, when presented in comparison of other Nobel Laureates. Mo Yan did not win any high ranking international literary award. Though he was nominated for the Neustadt International Prize for Literature, and the Man Asian Literary Prize—he did not win; and nomination and winning are two separate matters. J. M. G. Le Clézio did not win any international awards to speak of; all of his awards were French language awards, with the exception of the Stig Dagerman Prize, which is a Swedish language award, given to institutions and individuals who embody the spirit of freedom of expression and speech. Gao Xingjian, an avant-garde playwright and casual prose writer, as well as painter, did not receive any high profile international literary awards.  This line of logic and argument does not support the reasoning that a Nobel Laureate has already won international recognition via other prizes.

One can then look back and say the academy favoured dissidence and social engagement: Herta Müller, was a dissident writer from Communist Romania, and was adamant critic in her extensive writings; Elfriede Jelinek was socially and even politically engaged with Austria’s Nazi’s past, and her scathing critique of women in society with her ultraviolent/sarcastic plays and novels dealing with feminist themes; Harold Pinter in his later stages was politically critical; and then there was Doris Lessing with her long and varied career, which she documented and codified the socio-political changes of the latter half of the twentieth century; or Svetlana Alexievich the cartographer of the Soviet Soul and individual, reported with journalistic integrity and the spirit of a storyteller, the personal stories and the true faces of the Soviet Union, through tragedies and war.

But this line of reasoning is quickly dismissed as well. Alice Munro was not a writer who would be considered socially engaged beyond writing, she never criticized or took up social or political platforms.  Wislawa Szymborska and Tomas Tranströmer, were at best politically indifferent and deprived of ideological thoughts.

The most frightening argument is the argument of popularity. Just because a writer is popular does not mean they have a chance at the Nobel. Furthermore how is popularity measured? Does it come down to book sales? Critical reviews? Reader enjoyment? Does that mean Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, Nora Roberts—et cetera have a chance? I sincerely doubt it. There work would not be considered of high literary merit by many. They are popular, they are entertaining, but do they have long lasting artistic merit and integrity? No. The Nobel’s are not popularity contests. They are awards, which are presented to individuals in their respective fields for their contributions to those fields. What is deemed a worthy contribution to literature, is a subject of debate. Popularity—I presume—has little to do with the academy’s decision; and if popularity played a role, I doubt such writers like: Elfriede Jelinek, Doris Lessing, and Gao Xingjian would have won the awards, let alone many others.

Friends and acquaintances often inquire about how I compile my own speculative list. They often imagine some obscure set of statutes, guidelines, and merit based system, all codified in some old dusty leather book, which is used as a weight to judge the merit of authors, by fulfilling the necessary amount of qualifications. To their disappointment there is no statutes, no strict guidelines, no codified constitution which outlines the exact merits required to be inducted. It’s all quite the contrary, and underwhelming.  I inform them that I start with writers I like, or discover or want to read, from other languages. These range from writers I’ve read, and own their books, such as Magdalena Tulli or Gyrðir Elíasson; then there are writers who I have discovered through my readings online, such as the poets Sirkka Turkka and Tua Forsström, all the way to Doris Kareva. Then there are others speculative lists circulating throughout, and they often present unique writers such as Pepetela, and so you research and read them to decide whether or not you wish to include them. Of course, you cannot deny the elephants on the stage either: László Krasznahorkai, António Lobo Antunes, and Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o—despite having only lukewarm feelings towards them. Literary awards are also great places to discover new writers, such as the Cikada Prize, where you learn about Moon Chung-hee and Y Nhi. It is of course the most fun and delightful when readers and friends also offer up potential candidates, and writers to be included. There is no rule book though. As I tell inquiring friends and acquaintances, the list is personal, solipsistic, with a dash of narcissism. I champion the obscure, I do my best to present unknown writers, and show my appreciation to them by including them on the list—that’s it. Do I know their chances? No. Anyone’s chances at the Nobel Prize for Literature are infinitesimal, regardless of popularity, international renown, awards won, and readership.

The Swedish Academy’s Sinologist –

The Swedish Academy is an eight member institution, who houses members of different backgrounds, but shared interest: literature. Members are writers, historians, literary critics, professors, scholars, translators, and linguists. They generally wear more than just one hat. But the academy only has one Sinologist: Goran Malmqvist. This would mean, when it comes to literature of Asia (specifically China), Malmqvist’s opinion would be regarded with high respect. Being the only Sinologist has its perks and its drawbacks. For one you are relied upon to give expert advice and opinion on authors nominated—including the ones you nominate. With no one else with the same resume and knowledge of Chinese writers, your reasoning and opinions are left (I presume) unchallenged. The drawback is, with being the only Sinologist, and therefore the only expert in that field of study, is all criticism will be directed towards that position.

In two-thousand and twelve, Mo Yan became the year’s Nobel Laureate in Literature. The response was divided. Mo Yan was called: a propagating puppet of political propaganda; a patsy of the Communist regime; and a supporter and proponent of Communist rhetoric in China, as well as censorship. The criticism was not solely aimed at Mo Yan; Goran Malmqvist was also criticized for his involvement in the award. Some went so far as to call Malmqvist’s involvement a conflict of interest, considering his personal relationship with Mo Yan as well as his economic relationship with the author— Goran Malmqvist, was Mo Yan’s Swedish translator.

The Swedish Academy denounced the allegation that Goran Malmqvist was in a conflict of interest because he was Mo Yan’s translator, and had a personal relationship with the writer. This same criticism was not applied in the year two-thousand when Gao Xingjian won, and Malmqvist happened to be his translator as well. Yet the criticism continued to pour. Herta Müller, called the award a disaster, many criticized Mo Yan’s views—or lack of views, and political engagement—as well his writing style. But it is the exiled Chinese writer: Liao Yiwu; who was perhaps the most adamant critic of the award, Mo Yan, as well as Goran Malmqvist, and by extension the Swedish Academy.

Liao Yiwu (also known as: Lao Wei), demanded the Swedish Academy to formally apologize for Mo Yan’s Nobel, and specifically targeted Goran Malmqvist. Liao Yiwu, openly accused Goran Malmqvist of having a “cozy relationship with officially-sanctioned writers [like Mo Yan], and even become friends with them. Such relationships impede his judgment of current literary creation[s] in China.” Along with his criticism and formal letters sent to the Swedish Academy and Goran Malmqvist; Liao Yiwu, also sent a postcard depicting a naked protestor with the words: “stick away, Mo Yan!” (rough translation) written on it.

Goran Malmqvist as expected responded, to the criticism by Liao Yiwu; but also to the naked protests outside of the Nobel ceremony:

“Lao Wei, 

I'm very surprised to see you with all the burdensome commitments 

As your position as contemporary Confucian saint demands, has time to lead, 

Your bold companion in your crusade against all threatening windmills. 

I also find it surprising that you do not realize your behavior 

Only make you and your friends appear as complete idiots. 

But be alright, rush around naked and make yourself happy for the whole world!”

 [Rough translation]

Goran Malmqvist, also further made his position clear by stating his translation works have gone beyond Mo Yan, and have included ancient, medieval, modern and contemporary Chinese writers, including Gao Xingjian, Shen Congwen, Bei Dao, and Cao Naiqian.  Goran further pushed his position away from Chinese authority’s influence, by stating that for twenty seven years (1959 – 1979; 1989 – 1994) he was not allowed to enter into China; and in two-thousand and eleven would have no formal contact officials from China; and has thrown his full support behind dissidents such as: Liu Xiaobo, Ai Weiwei and Liu Binyan.

Personally, I do hold Goran Malmqvist as the active advocate for Mo Yan’s Nobel accolade; one in which I felt, Mo Yan did not deserve, when there are and were more suitable Chinese writers past and present, including but not limited to: Eileen Chang, Mu Xin, Shen Congwen, Bei Dao, and Can Xue. Mo Yan’s Nobel, was a catastrophe. There are and were more worthy candidates to choose from. Mo Yan’s award felt as if it were appeasing the pan handling lobbying of the Chinese government.

Despite criticism aimed at Goran Malmqvist, for his advocacy and prepotency to promote Mo Yan for the Nobel Prize for Literature; I have respect for him. Being the only Sinologist on the Swedish Academy, is not an easy place to find oneself sitting. There’s a certain expectation that anyone with such credentials will have some understanding of contemporary fiction being produced, specifically in China; with a minor degree of knowledge in the rest of Asia. This understanding breeds responsibility, as well as an obligation to offer wisdom and counsel on either the merits of writers in question, or explain why they are dismissible. Such responsibilities and obligations, would require sober thought, and complete objective perspectives, deprived of any inherent biases. The problem with this is human beings are riddled with biases. Readers, especially, have a highly developed palette for the particulars of what they enjoy, what they wish to see, and more importantly: what they disapprove of. This palette becomes more refined and fastidious in its punctilious delights; meaning there is little room for foreign additions. Attempting to be completely objective is an impossible feat, and cannot be expected of anyone. Goran Malmqvist then must find himself in an at times awkward and overwhelming position, as he is to offer counsel and wise words, on the nature of eastern literature from Asia. How many great writers has he promoted, and how many great writers have been turned away because of him? No one can say, as the question is subjective; and the statues of the Nobel Prizes force the members of the Swedish Academy, too maintain a stony mantel of silence on the manner. Their gorgon silence is provocative as it is frustrating, at times. It’s a shame Mu Xin never received the Nobel Prize for Literature, and has not found greater success in the English language, as his work is startlingly fresh, a complete mixture of philosophical ruminations, poetic observations, and the slight bent of a storyteller, making him a worthy candidate for the prize.

At the moment, I can presume and even proclaim with certainty, Liao Yiwu, will not be finding his name on the shortlists anytime soon. First because Goran Malmqvist is obviously dissatisfied and offended by the writers criticism. It should also be noted, Per Wästberg (also on the Swedish Academy) is a close colleague and friend of Malmqvist, and will most certainly support Goran Malmqvist, in decrying Yiwu as a worthy candidate. It should also be pointed out, in times past, the Swedish Academy is not known for tolerating being mocked. The members of the institution are aware that everyone and their donkey (whose name is Jack and is quite an ass), has an opinion of what constitutes as literature, and worthy of the Nobel. This means they are fully aware of criticism and praise, when their decision has been announced; but blatant and blunt mocking (including naked protests) the academy would find neither amusing nor tolerable. Though Liao Yiwu is supported and admired by Herta Müller, I do not see this changing the minds of the academy at the moment. I do admire Liao Yiwu, for his continual push for a democratic China. I can never understand the pain of his torture he endured while he was imprisoned. Nor will I ever sense the paranoia and fear he must have felt when he was released, but banned from leaving the country. He is still a courageous author, though brazen in his protests—though going through it all, one can only suspect, you need to be brazen to make an impact. The louder, the more grotesque, and eye catching, the greater chance the point comes across. I do doubt, however, the Swedish Academy will be as tolerant and understanding as I am.

On Astrid Lindgren & Tove Jansson –

Astrid Lindgren and Tove Jansson, were two Swedish language writers (Jansson was from Finland) who were well known for their works for children; but presented thought provoking and mature themes in their work. Critics often state, the two writers should have won the Nobel Prize for Literature.

[ i ] – Astrid Lindgren –

Astrid Lindgren is one of the most successful and beloved writer in the world. Reports state, if you were to ask any member of the Swedish Academy about Astrid Lindgren, they would offer welcoming and warm praise of the writer. The former Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Horace Engdahl, once commented on how Astrid Lindgren would have been a worthy member of the Swedish Academy. Even more so, many thought, Astrid Lindgren would have been more worthy as a Nobel Laureate in Literature, but alas this was never accomplished.

Recent reports state, Astrid Lindgren was often nominated for the Nobel Prize, but was met by fierce opposition within the halls of the Swedish Academy, specifically from: Artur Lundkvist and Erik Lönnroth. Artur Lundkvist, it has been revealed, had a particular displeasure for children, and by extension did not appreciate children’s literature. Lundkvist, favoured difficult literature, and had no time for the whimsical tastes of children’s literature.

Artur Lundkvist is either credited or convicted, of blocking Astrid Lindgren from getting the Nobel Prize for Literature. Together with Erik Lönnroth, he was able to bring a majority of the academy to his perspective and stop Astrid Lindgren from ever receiving the Nobel Prize. I imagine the academy split into camps, with Artur Lundkvist and Erik Lönnroth opposing Astrid from getting the award, while Knut Ahnlund and Lars Gyllensten spearheaded the movement. Yet, as Knut Ahnlund stated, the notion never did pick up enough steam or energy, to topple Lundkvist’s roadblock.

Despite not being a Nobel Laureate or a member of the Swedish Academy, Astrid Lindgren is perhaps of the most influential people in Sweden and internationally. Her works have been translated into over ninety-five languages, and have sold over one-hundred and forty five million copies worldwide to date. Her influence goes beyond her books. Astrid Lindgren has been called the quiet and accidental revolutionary, as she acquired an influential voice on everyday matters. At the age of sixty-eight Astrid Lindgren submitted an opinion piece to the Swedish newspaper ‘Expressen,’ where she commented on a tax loophole, which required the writer (as a self-employed) individual to pay 102 percent of her income in taxes. The article gained recognition and notoriety, and soon after the tax law was changed, but the damage was done, as Astrid Lindgren was credited for toppling the forty-four year reign of the Social Democratic Party of Sweden; despite actually liking the party. Lindgren was also known to use her common sense and clear expression, to discuss other issues, such as violence against children. In her acceptance speech for the Peace Prize for the German Book Trade, Astrid Lindgren took the opportunity to tackle the subject head on, as she brought forward the situation, in which children, who are raised with violence or are victims of violence, will also perpetrate once they are older. The speech had long lasting implications, as Sweden became the first country ban ‘smacking,’ of children; and was taken note of in Germany, especially when two foster boys, ran away from their foster home, and turned up on her doorstep in Stockholm. Lindgren did help send them back, but ensured from there on out, they were well treated and taken care of. 

Her patronage and desire to protect the powerless from the powerful extended beyond children, as Lindgren was a well-known champion of animals rights. She was not a vegetarian or vegan, or violent PETA protestor. Lindgren was acutely aware of those subject to the mercy of others, and animals were no different. She took particular aim at industrial scale farming, the mass slaughter and at times inhumane conditions the animals were placed in. Astrid Lindgren’s perspectives on animals and industrial scale farming, eventually attracted public attention, and for her eightieth birthday Lindgren saw legislation geared towards animal welfare in industrial farming.

Astrid Lindgren’s children’s books followed the same pattern as her public opinions and views. Her books did not patronize children nor did they cuddle them. Her works encouraged them, to stand up for justice against tyranny and authoritarian figures, like Pippi Longstocking had done, when she protected children against pompous and condescending adults, or animals being unjustly abused by their masters. “The Brothers Lionheart,” also is for children and deals with the concept of death. Astrid Lindgren proved that books for children, could deal with themes which many would see as being to mature for children. Astrid never patronized children, but talked to them as aspiring adults, who need to understand ideas of justice, and concepts of death which are pillars of society, and facts of life. There can be no denying Astrid Lindgren as being of those great writers of the twentieth century.

[ ii ] – Tove Jansson –

Tove Jansson considered herself a painter and artist, who just happened to write books. Jansson is most famous for her “Moomin,” books which has delighted children and adults for years. The Moomins are a charming family of hippopotamus trolls, who live a carefree and adventurous life in their home of Moominvalley; but before their permanent residence, they had lived in a lighthouse and the theatre.

The works were not solely dedicated to the charming and delightful lives of the Moomins, they also were host to profound, haunting, and mature themes, which forced the reader to ask questions around them. The first Moomin book “The Moomins of the Great Flood,” was born during the war years, and published once the Second World War had ended. The book sprouted from Tove Jansson’s isolation and depression during those formidable years of the war, when security and safety were continually at risk of collapsing.

One particular thought which stands out about Tove Janssons Moomins, are the Hattifattener. The Hattifattener are ghost like sock creatures, who are serious in nature. They cannot speak and they cannot feel. They are obsessed with the weather, specifically lightning. In the story “The Secret of the Hattifattener,” Moominpappa attempts to understand the Hattifattener; as Moominpappa suffers from a mid-life crisis. His attempt to understand the Hattifattener, is n attempt to understand or gain a deeper understanding of life. It is here Moominpappa, sees and understands why the Hattifattener are obsessed with lightning; as the Hattifattener can only feel emotion (or alive) when they are struck by lightning.

It was a startingly realization later on, to consider the Hattifattener as boring creatures, and slightly odd bent, being so deprived of life, that they need to be struck by lightning I order to enjoy it. In this Tove Jansson offered questions to both children and adults, about the meaning of life, depression, solitude, intimacy among many other subjects, while being entertaining.

Tove Jansson may be well-known for her novels and stories of the Moomins, she wrote many works for adults. Her adult work, is a mixture of stories and novels, where her mature themes, blended into the Moomins is now fully on display, and asking questions about life, death, the nature of relationships, solitude, and the desire for intimacy and safety.

Both Astrid Lindgren and Tove Jansson, blended their works for children with mature themes, generally reserved for adults. They presented themes of rebellion as a form of justice, even if it means standing up to authoritarian figures. They asked questions about life, and what is the deepest meaning of it. The two writers showed that children’s literature could go beyond simple entertainment; it can engage with readers of all ages, and present themes which are profound, which ask the reader, to question ideas of right and wrong in correlation with justice, and what is the meaning of life.

Honourable Mentions –

The following are some Honorable Mentions. These writers (to my recent knowledge) are still alive, and have the same infinitesimal chances as any other writer currently at work. The following writers did not make induction on to the following speculative list for a variety of reasons; but in consolation I would like to include these writers here.

Göran Sonnevi – Sweden – It is with welcoming thanks that a Dear Reader: Bror Axel Dehn; that I learned about Göran Sonnevi. Göran Sonnevi is one of Sweden’s most renowned contemporary poets. He was won both the Swedish Academy Nordic Prize (the ‘Little Nobel,’) in two-thousand and five; and in two-thousand and six, he won the Nordic Council Prize for Literature. Sonnevi, is a contemporary of Tomas Tranströmer; but the two poets are immensely different in subject and themes. Tomas Tranströmer’s poems are known for being inspired by nature, and tackle the mysteries of everyday life; such as the wonders of time, the awe of memory, and the fear and apprehension of death. Göran Sonnevi’s poetry is more topical and socially aware, where he tackles subjects like the Vietnam War, the Cold War, 9/11, globalization, as well as cultural/ethnic conflicts; but rather then close his poetry with his own opinion or perspective, Sonnevi, leaves his poems open and wondering. It is there in this wandering wonder; they depart from historical context, and seek greater meaning of the human experience in correlation with history but also separate from it. Göran Sonnevi’s poetry contains the feats of the epicist in scope, and the complex and complications of pondering and engagement; though diligence and patience are greatly rewarded. If Göran Sonnevi, never wins the Nobel Prize for Literature, he would be a wonderful addition to the Swedish Academy.

Peter Handke – Austria – When Elfriede Jelinek was announced as a Nobel Laureate in Literature, the award was divisive, with one member of the academy resigning protest. Western media sat dumfounded, and hooted: “who?” Elfriede Jelinek herself said the real writer who should have won the award was: Peter Handke. Peter Handke himself is a well-known playwright, essayist and prose writer. But like his fellow countrymen, Elfriede Jelinek, is a controversial writer. Peter Handke, in recent years has often been found himself at the centre of numerous controversial arguments and criticisms, for his political viewpoints and support, for the nationalistic fervor of the Serbs during the Balkan wars. Handke has often been called a: far-right apologist. Despite his political controversies, Peter Handke is an internationally renowned writer. His plays are top notched, avant-garde and noted for pushing the boundaries and limitations of the theatre as an artistic medium. His prose follow a similar route, riddled with noir atmospheres, rambling philosophical thoughts and digressions, and the existential crisis of life itself, on full autopsy display, beneath the surgical scalpel of Handke’s eye. Despite these literary successes, Handke has become somewhat of a literary leper. Recent awards offered to Peter Handke were met with protest. When Peter Handke was announced to have won the International Ibsen Award, the outcry and the criticism was huge. Protestors showed up when Handke arrived to receive the award, and the PEN Norway was also vocal in its disagreement of the decision, the jury of the award was even pressured to resign because of their decision. Heinrich Heine Prize was revoked from Handke due to his political views as well. Despite the controversy and the criticism, Handke has found support. Jon Fosse has defended the writer as a true literary genius, and even stated Handke deserved the Nobel Prize for Literature. Whether or not the Swedish Academy agrees, is impossible to tell. Though considering past controversies, Handke will most likely be left untouched.

Lygia Fagundes Telles – Brazil – Last year the Brazilian Writers Union, announced its nomination of Lygia Fagundes for the Nobel Prize for Literature, and she immediately piqued interest in commentators and readers throughout the world. Telle’s is one of the most renowned contemporary writers in Brazil, and in two-thousand and five she was awarded the Camões Prize, the most prestigious Portuguese language prize. Lygia Fagundes Telles is well known for her novel “The Girl in the Photograph,” which recounts the story of three young women during the backdrop of the nineteen-seventies, during the dictatorship which gripped Brazil. Beyond her most famous novel being translated into English, there is very little of her work being translated into English; but her presence within Brazil is well known and well received, as she is often referred to as the contemporary Grand Dame of Brazilian letters.

Sjon – Iceland – Bjork is often called Iceland’s musical export to the world, than Sjon is currently, Iceland’s literary export. Comparisons between Bjork and Sjon, go beyond a shared national heritage, as the two have also had a working relationship. Sjon is noted to have written numerous lyrics to Bjork’s songs. Despite his creative and business relationship with Bjork, Sjon has not been eclipsed by the singer’s fame and success. Sjon has found himself welcomingly received in other languages with his novels. Recently, Sjon was selected to add a manuscript to the Future Library Project, where he joins Margaret Atwood and David Mitchell, as writers who have contributed to the project. The writer claims his prose and novels are his bedrock as a writer, but he first began his literary endeavours writing poetry, publishing his first collection when he was fifteen years old. His greatest success as a writer came with his novel “The Blue Fox,” when it would go on to receive The Nordic Council Prize for Literature in two-thousand and five, cementing Sjon’s unique presence on the international literary stage.

Nicanor Parra – Chile – Nicanor Parra is an influential Latin American and Spanish language poet, at the centennial age of one-hundred and two, going on one-hundred and three. Despite being a poet, Nicanor Parra did not studying literature or linguistics or creative writing at university. Instead Parra studied mathematics, physics, and cosmology instead. The poetic ambitions of Nicanor Parra were then more of artistic and personal passion, rather than method of study. Parra is not a typical poet though, as he renounced the pomp and stylistic formalities of poetry, in favour of a more down to earth and colloquial form of expression. Parra dubbed his form of poetry: “antipoetry,” where he deconstructs preconceived notions of poetry, and instead binds the element of his poetry to the everyday and the expression of social realities, in a plan language format. With his revolutionary style and language, in which he discusses everyday issues, while removing and deconstructing ingrained prejudices and perspectives of formal school of poetry. Nicanor Parra is one of the greatest Spanish language poets, heralding from South America, where he is revered and respected. Being over one-hundred years old, often casts doubts on Nicanor Parra’s chances to win the Nobel Prize for Literature. Yet, the former Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Peter Englund, had once commented in an interview a writers age, nationality, and gender plays no parts in the objective adjudicating process of the Swedish Academy. 

F. Sionil José – Philippines – The Filipino literary Sage is ninety-two pushing ninety-three. F. Sionil José is the Philippines most renowned writer currently at work, and is the most translated Filipino writer of contemporary Filipino literature; including a bestselling writer in Russia. For years now, Sionil José has shoulder the Philippines nationalistic desire to win the Nobel Prize for Literature.  F. Sionil José’s work is known for grappling with numerous and weighty themes, such as: colonialism, revolution, abject poverty, cronyism in politics, as well as social and class struggles. His “Rosales Saga,” is a five novel series, which dive into the depths of Filipino society. This epic saga took the author twenty-two years to write.  F. Sionil José’s works are noted for their sense of ‘political obligation,’ as they recount the Philippines continual change in political master from colonial rule to war time occupation. F. Sionil José may not receive the Nobel Prize for Literature, but his service to Filipino literature cannot be mistaken. He offers acerbic wisdom on the current state of the Philippines much like any literary grandfather would, as he best, deploring the citizens leaving the country to find work, and the lack of engagement of the Philippines literature. But the author states the best way to find a solution or present a solution is a story.

Keki N. Daruwalla – India (English Language) – Daruwalla is a poet, prose writer and former police officer and special assistant to the Prime Minister on International affairs, before his retirement. Throughout his illustrious and interesting career, Keki N. Daruwalla wrote poetry and prose, and gathered critical acclaim for his writings. When discussing Indian literature, especially English Indian literature, Keki N. Daruwalla is bound to appear. Daruwalla’s poetry has been anthologized; and both his poetry and prose have gone on to win numerous awards, including: the Sahitya Akademi Award and the Commonwealth Poetry Prize. His prose is known for its bitter, skeptical and often satirical notes of tone, where he traces the dark sides of human existence and experience. On these grounds Keki N. Daruwalla, believes literature (be it poetry or prose) must be socially aware, committed and engaged. Daruwalla’s poetic themes range from an infatuated preoccupation with love, to death, destruction and domination/colonialism. Critics often point out the poet’s particular interest in depicting landscapes in his poetry, especially those which reach beyond the borders of India, often reflecting the foreign landscapes he has visited as a government official.

Ulrich Holbein – Germany – Two-thousand and ten, was called the year of Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o. Ladbrokes and NicerOdds, shot up the chances of Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o winning the Nobel Prize in the last days of speculation, and the internet went mad with the possibility that it was the authors year to win. Thiong'o’s resume was displayed and the merits brought forward, such as his left leaning politics and the fact he wrote in a African tribal language. Alas, it was not the year for Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, as Mario Vargas Llosa became the Nobel Laureate in Literature. During the final days open of last minute speculation new names became increasing contenders. One of those names was the German writer, Ulrich Holbein. There is relatively little to no biographical or bibliographic information about Ulrich Holbein, in English. What can be discerned is he is a prolific writer, often called avant-garde; meaning he works in literary genres of his own creation. He was born in the former East Germany, before his family defected and moved to West Germany. His work is known for being satirical, subjective, and difficult and riddled with a unique and playful structure mimicking and emulating postmodern theories and philosophies, to reflect a post-capitalist world.

Margaret Atwood – Canada – Sometimes there is no avoiding the elephant in the room or on the stage. Margaret Atwood is currently revitalized with many younger readers and people, do the adaption of her famous dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale,” to a television series. The novel has found itself poignantly representative of the current state of American political affairs; and women young and old are picking up the novel as a weapon of protest. Women dressed in red cloaks and white blinders have graced Capitol Hill as well as the Texan legislature, to protest women’s rights and legislative restrictions. In these regards Atwood is considered something of an oracle and prophet. Her three decade novel has found itself on the frightening scale of possible. For this Margaret Atwood is interviewed invited on speaking ventures, to offer her consolidation and support to those who are enraged and worried about the administrations chaotic agenda. With all this attention, many have speculated that Margaret Atwood and her work are more relevant now than ever. Her work deals with numerous themes from identity, to women’s issues, and more recently the environment, and the concerning future of the human race. Though Margaret Atwood has been graced with a renewed sense of urgency; the Nobel are always awarded as a life time of achievement and recognition. Atwood does have years of engagements with the literary scene as well as socio-political issues, ranging from women’s rights to environmentalism and environmental protection. But, her work is rather uneven. When Margaret Atwood is at her highest peak, she is a master; but when she’s not top of her game, the response is lukewarm and understated at best. Can Margaret Atwood win a Nobel; the possibility exists just as much for her as it does other writers like Philip Roth and Joyce Carol Oats and Thomas Pynchon.

Two Nonagenarian Poets –

Philippe Jaccottet – Switzerland (French language) – Philippe Jaccottet is a Swiss born, French language poet and translator. Jaccottet is one of those renowned but quiet giants of Swiss and French language literature. His poetry is known to tackle the dual theme of perception of reality and the feelings of reality. In other words, Philippe Jaccottet endeavors to find a relation between the natural worlds via the subjectivity, but tackles the matter in two different ways. The first way is the way in which the world is observed and subjectively perceived by the individual; while the second way, is grasping the emotional responses of the observed world. This is why his poetry is often called paradoxically simplistic and profound (other state mysterious). After the Belgian poet Henri Michaux; Philippe Jaccottet is considered one of the most important French language poets of the twentieth century. Due to Jaccottet’s contribution and devotion to French literature and poetry, he has been inducted in to the: ““Bibliothèque de la Pléiade,” (Pleiades Library), in two-thousand and fourteen. This marks Philippe Jaccottet as the fourth Swiss writer to be included in the Pleiades Library; and in a rare, one of the few writers to be inducted while still living.

Friederike Mayröcker – Austria – Poetry is a difficult product to bring to market. Translated poetry experiences greater hurdles because of its reliance on the linguistics of its mother tongue, to show complete effect. Avant-garde and experimental poetry is often deemed to be left untouched. Poetry is considered a niche market; or rather, an extremely small flea market. It’s deemed an obscure and obsolete form of communication. High school poetry segments and lectures, have since taken the sand paper to any budding poetic pallet, and rubbed it clean of any airy thoughts or desire to ever read or consume poetry. Poetry is the sick man of the literary world. Its old, it’s crippled, it’s sickly, and has since been moved to attic to suffer in silence. It’s ignored and ostracized; it’s not welcome at the party, its conversations are either self-absorbed in nature, or there to prove how clever it is; or it sits there grasping at the air searching for the most perfect words to express that particular moment, which no one has time for because the beat has dropped. Yet, there are still those who practice the form, keeping the dying flame above a shallow smolder.  Friederike Mayröcker is one of those poets, who doesn’t care if poetry has fallen to the way side. Her poetry is experimental and avant-garde, and yet she is still considered one of the greatest and refined Austrian poets and of the greatest contemporary poets at work in the German language. Her poetry is known for its free style writing, where liberty is taken with association, and private obsessions, all wrapped up in her linguistic gymnastics.  Friederike Mayröcker eschews national and political association in favour of the individual and experience. It’s through this personal language and experience, often employing a collage like language to display her unique poetic perspective.

Lest We Forget –                  

Time is an enemy of every mortal, and writers are mortal. Not every write is capable of receiving the golden call and the Nobel accolade, for numerous reasons. The most common reason though is time caught up with them, and they died. Since its inception, the Swedish Academy and the rotating Nobel Committee have missed opportunities to recognize great writers with the Nobel, over the years. Now the Swedish Academy is at times unjustly blamed for the oversight of some writers. For example: Virginia Woolf, Marcel Proust, Franz Kafka, and Anton Chekhov, died at early ages. But some authors were declined, due to a gross display in poor judgement. Leo Tolstoy for example was praised on one hand by the Swedish Academy, for his immortal works: “War & Peace,” and “Anna Karenina,” but, was dismissed due to his social and political theories, as well as his new translation of the new testament, which was riddled with ‘half mystical, half rationalistic spirit.’ The Tolstoy snub, has been a difficult shadow to get out from behind. The American poet Robert Frost was also refused the Nobel, on the grounds of his advanced age, and the complications it would present. Jorge Luis Borges was tied in knots over his neglected nod. It is theorized Borges, was often turned down do to his vocal support of dictators like Augusto Pinochet of Chile and Jorge Rafael Videla of Argentina; as well as being an adamant critic of Communism. Henrik Ibsen is perhaps one of the most unfortunate writers who were overlooked. Ibsen is the most important playwrights since Shakespeare. Ibsen did die while the Nobel’s were still in their infancy; but he was discussed by the Swedish Academy, was ultimately turned down because he was too realistic, and not idealistic enough. It should be noted, in these early years, the Swedish Academy ‘literally,’ interpreted the contents of the Alfred Nobel’s will, and in doing so sought to award writers who wrote with an ideal bent; before abandoning this approach in favour of a contextual interpretation, which varies in its grounds of interpretation year by year or decade by decade.

The following writers are writers who never received the Nobel Prize for Literature; for whatever reason, on whatever grounds. I include them here, to honour them as worthy, powerful, and timeless. Their work in their respective genre or field or their cultural influence be it national or international are difficult to dismiss. But I also choose to honour them on personal grounds as well.

Antonio Tabucchi – Italy – Antonio Tabucchi is a giant of world literature, a refreshing voice, with a unique perspective of the world. Tabucchi was often called the ‘heir of Italo Calvino,’ as Italy’s greatest writer—and in becoming Italy’s greatest writer, Tabucchi would be forced to shoulder the mantel of the nationalistic hopes and dreams of the government, for a Nobel. This is slightly ironic, as Antonio Tabucchi, could not be bothered by nationalistic desires, hopes or dreams; his predilections took greater importance and priority, then anything nation interested. One such interest would become Antonio Tabucchi’s greatest influence: the esoteric poet, and medium of writer(s): Fernando Pessoa, and his numerous literary identities or alter egos, the Heteronyms. Fernando Pessoa, was a unique and obscure character, who only found his recognition after his early death; it was there his masterpiece “The Book of Disquiet,” was discovered, as well as his poems republished, among other miscellaneous writings. What truly separate Fernando Pessoa, from anyone prior, was his unique use of literary alter egos (Heteronyms), who wrote under their own names, as well as in their own writing style. Fernando Pessoa was a writer in plural, a conjurer of the occult in the literary; a creator of writers, held in his own body. Through Pessoa, Antonio Tabucchi was introduced to the Portuguese language, and from there a love affair bloomed between Antonio Tabucchi and Portugal. Fernando Pessoa makes appearances in Tabucchi’s work, such as “Requiem: A Hallucination,” as well as “Dreams of Dreams.” Despite being a Pessoa scholar, Antonio Tabucchi’s work goes beyond Pessoa. Antonio Tabucchi wrote numerous novels and short stories—and even professed the short story was his natural format. His work deals with identity, chance and fate; enteral themes such as love, death, and memory; as well as the accuracy of history and the individual entrapped in historical contexts. Like any good writer though, Tabucchi had a lightness of touch and never displayed these themes with a lead hand. Unlike Italo Calvino; Antonio Tabucchi, was noted for being both socially committed and politically engaged; he was an adamant critic of the former prime minister of Italy Silvio Berlusconi; and his novels are also known for displaying political themes and discussions, where they criticize and revolt against dictatorships, the corruption of power, and the abuse of authority. Antonio Tabucchi was a great writer, timeless, important, entertaining, and thought provoking. He was the best kind of literary writer, one who had the touch of a literary magician, who could be read with enjoyment, and still offer questions to ponder.

Mu Xin – China – The twentieth century was one of those miserable centuries, plagued by grand wars, political change, upheaval and revolutions, dictators rose and fell, empires dissolved, weapons of mass destruction were developed and released; and through it all, people sat in front of their radios or later on their television, and listened and viewed these events as curiosities, of tragedy and success, but always as far flung events which are of no importance—or more accurately: of no real effect or concern to them. These events were simply parochial skirmishes, far beyond suburbia, and therefore were not a threat. These events and tragedies did have victims. Thousands and millions of people died or were displaced. Families were torn apart or killed. Hope became terror. Mu Xin is one such victim. Mu Xin, before the Chinese civil war and subsequent Cultural Revolution, was an individual of prospects. His family was filled with intellectuals, with no surprise; Mu Xin would receive classical education. Then political reform and revolution took place, and Xin, like all intellectuals and children of intellectually prosperous families, was deemed an enemy of the state. Mu Xin would be taken as a political prisoner due to his enemy status; his writings and paintings destroyed. This would begin the author’s prosecution under the Communist regime, and Xin would become political victim of circumstance, fate and family. Yet, persisted and as he survived the Cultural Revolution, Mu Xin would enter exile, to only live an isolated and alienated life. During his exiled years, Mu Xin wrote and painted; but his writing had no published, and it was banned from his home country; while his paintings were shown in his exile, they did not receive much in attention or acclaim. Consolation though was at hand, at least in exile, he was capable of writing and painting without fear of repercussion, prosecution, or having them confiscated or destroyed. Despite being underappreciated and relatively unknown, Mu Xin would eventually find success in his twilight years. All that suffering would eventually come to their end, when he was welcomed back to his homeland of China, where his work was published and devoured; his paintings were on display and appreciated. Mu Xin died in two-thousand and eleven, without a Nobel; but he would have been a perfect candidate.  His masterly of Chinese, is classical and culturally pure, beyond political revolutions. His work is uniquely Chinese, often dealing with themes of Chinese culture, but it has a unique twist as being reminiscent of the modernist masters of the western canon. Mu Xin was a true bridge, he blended China’s illustrious literary heritage and history, with modern western thought, to create a unique perspective and genre all his own. His work (often called ‘sanwen,’) is a unique blend of essay, short story and poetry. Despite not receiving a Nobel, Mu Xin, found peace with his soul and his native land, and was able to leave the final five years of his life in China. Mu Xin is perhaps one of the greatest discoveries and writers I have ever had the pleasure of reading.

Anna Akhmatova – Russia – Just over fifty years ago, Anna Akhmatova found herself at the potential threshold of becoming a Nobel Laureate. The only condition is, should have shared the award with Mikhail Sholokhov. This all took place back in nineteen-sixty five, when there was serious discussion about the award being split, either between: Jorge Luis Borges and Miguel Ángel Asturias (on the grounds they wrote in the same language), Nelly Sachs and Shmuel Yosef Agnon (for their preoccupation with the Jewish people and spirit), or finally: Anna Akhmatova and Mikhail Sholokhov (on the grounds they wrote in the same language). These propositions were shot down; mainly because if the award went out like this, it would mean the Academy was split and a compromise was the only agreeable route. In the end, Mikhail Sholokhov, took the prize. Nineteen-sixty five was the first year Anna Akhmatova was nominated for the prize, and sadly would never receive the Nobel nod. Yet, Anna Akhmatova lives on as a somewhat resilient and stoic figure of the early Soviet period. The poet was known as the Soul of the Silver Age, before the Stalinist Terror took hold. Her poetry is often divided into two categories, here early output, and her later output. Akhmatova, gathered success early in her career, as she was refreshing, daring and above all else new and exciting. Her women readers would compose poems for her, emulating her style; and for the briefest of moments she would experience the lighthearted joys of life. It would all change, after the Russian Revolution during the First World War. After which the terrors and purges would take place, the Russian intelligentsia were in shambles. It was during this time, Anna Akhmatova’s poetry was censored, her first husband killed, and her son would be sent to the gulags. Her friends would either be exiled, sent to a gulag or commit suicide. Anna Akhmatova, continued to live, despite the misery the reigning Soviet regime poured down, and she never left Russia, she remained despite the limitations, the lack of prosperity, and the censorship. Anna Akhmatova remained, and in her later years of poetry output would document the horrors of Stalin’s reign and terror in her poetry, especially the tragic masterpiece: “Requiem,” a poetic cycle detailing the times, the fears, and the horror. Despite her being the muse and observer watching the wretched horror of revolution and authoritarian government take control, Anna Akhmatova would once again relieve he joys of the Silver Age, in her longest poetry cycle: “Poem Without Hero,” it is here she recounts the joys and kindness she once enjoyed; a complete contrast to what had come. Anna Akhmatova is a unique figure of Russian literature. On one hand she was this successful poet, acclaimed by readers, as lovers were once said to have quoted her poetry; and on the other, she is this poetic chronicler and engaged observer, who opened her mouth and a thousand mouths screamed forth. Now, Anna Akhmatova is considered is beloved, and considered one of the greatest poets of Twentieth Century Russian Literature. Nobel or no Nobel, Anna Akhmatova gave voice and hope to the people during the purges, the terrors, and the uncertainties of the time; but she also gave them hope, warmth, and injected iron into their soul, to resist and endure. 

Vijaydan Detha – India – Detha was a modern short story master. He had left over eight hundred short stories behind upon his death in two-thousand and thirteen, at the age of eighty-seven. Vijaydan Detha, would not be called or considered a cosmopolitan writer. His work is not globetrotting. His work was often considered parochial, and limited to his home state of Rajasthan, which provided countless gems and rays of inspiration for the author, as he would record, document, codify, and then reshape the folktales of the land into his short stories. He was often referred to as the Rajasthani Shakespeare. His short stories were known as simplistic and often exposed power. Vijaydan Detha was a writer who inhabited the people’s hearts, and had a deep affection for his home state. He was offered numerous enticements to leave and lecture, but he always declined, preferring the desert area of his home, to anywhere else. His writing was at once allegorical and realistic, asking questions about the personal reflecting the grander historical. Vijaydan Detha was one of those spectacular writers of Indian literature; he had the power to entice with simplicity and folktale enjoyment, but offered deep and underlying questions about the nature of power, the arbitration of history, and how the personal is a reflection of ones place in both history and the world. Detha was a colossus of literature, but was humble nonetheless. He offered sage like wisdom, and counsel on the state of the human races destiny. Vijaydan Detha, was a writer who wrote in an ideal direction; he entreated the reader with simplistic language and empathetic themes, but his eyes were always cast upon the human races fate and destiny, and the independent person or the weak exploited by more powerful players or people. 

Ricardo Piglia – Argentina – Ricardo Piglia was one of the most renowned and respected writers to come from South America; and is considered the successor of Jorge Luis Borges. Piglia was noted for his novels, short stories, as well as his essays and criticism. His essays and criticism, has often titled him as a pop culture historian, as he wrote extensively on numerous authors, especially Jorge Luis Borges, Julio Cortazar, and Manuel Puig. His critcimism and essays on these writers, often gathered Piglia the title of a pop culture historian.  Ricardo Piglia’s fiction, especially his novels, were known for displaying his interest in genre fiction; but like many of his postmodernist contemporaries, it was a facade, in which Piglia was able to exploit in order to apply his literary and philosophical interests and knowledge. Ricardo Piglia, was a giant of contemporary Argentina literature; his works could straddle entertaining and thought provoking; his criticism and essays, were thorough and philosophically curious. He was a postmodern master of South American and Argentinian literature.

Yves Bonnefoy – France – People always say nice things about someone when they die. Its honouring both the life lived and the individual who had lived it. Most obituaries are riddled with factual information, a brief vignette of the individual’s life, and then surviving family; if the circumstances are tragic or extremely unfortunate, such as young, murder or accident, they mask for a donation to a charity in lieu of flowers. Writers—or rather, individuals who have obtained a certain prestigious position, meaning politicians, artists, dancers, musicians—generally get a little bit more to their celebration of life. Yves Bonnefoy was no different, and certainly anything else would never do him justice. After all was considered the pre-eminent French language poet before his death, not after; but he was herald as one of the greatest French post-war poets of the twentieth century.  Yves Bonnefoy showcased his poetic genius upon his debut with: “On the Motion and Immobility of Douve,” a poetic sequence which tackled the obscure womanly figure, but also recounted the death and rebirth of the poetic format; beyond its poetic themes and narrative, the debut was considered a technical feat of mastery; and from this point on, Bonnefoy would become one of the most renowned and respected poets of his generation. Beyond poetry, Yves Bonnefoy was a renowned translator (Shakespeare) as well as art critic; he was also noted for his essays and literary criticism. His poetry reflects the world in which was born into, a world on the brink of collapse, devastated by war, civilized culture in ashes, and man vs man the only doctrine that mattered. In this, Yves Bonnefoy’s poems sought to find meaning in another meaningless world, in an age and era devoid of meaning. Perception and language are the main tools for which, the poet attempts to find meaning or give meaning or apply meaning; such as observing the individuals place in the natural world; while language is the key in which the individual understand and comprehend the world, offering it meaning by naming it, and giving it a sense of identity. Yet, Bonnefoy’s poetry is noted for being obscure and highly difficult to read; and the poet made no apologies for the difficulty of his poems. Yves Bonnefoy’s contribution to French language poetry cannot be overlooked or dismissed; his work went from attempting to create or find spiritual or philosophical meaning, in a world gone mad; to his later poetry where he found at least enough spiritual tranquility to be at peace with it. His poetry is high and difficult, but admired nonetheless. His criticism of literature and art, are equally well respected. Yves Bonnefoy, was an intellectual through and through, with the right amount of luck, grit, and intelligence to make his mark on the world. Calling him, France’s pre-eminent poet, does not begin to do the poet justice; but it’s a start.

Simin Behbahani – Iran – Being referred to as the “Lioness of Persian Poetry,” is an invigorating honour, which reflects both grandeur and fiery spirit. Roar claws and all. Simin Behbahani was a lioness, with a poetic career and oeuvre reflecting the echoes and reverberations of her nuanced and beautiful observations of Iran. Her work is known for encompassing a wide variety of themes including: revolution, war, peace, abject class disparities, martial life, domestic violence, gender discrimination, patriotism, aging, love, death, and global violence. Her poetry is noted for its warmth and welcoming nature, but also for being armed with arsenal of experiences and perspectives documenting the difficulties and trivialities of the modern Iranian experience,  while also promoting freedom of expression, gender hegemony, and egalitarianism; making Simin Behbahani an engaged socially aware and politically vocal writer, seeking to better Iran and the human race beyond its petty squabbles. Behbahani often employed mundane daily events to provide narratives for her poetry, such as her: “From the Street,” cycle, where she recounts, depicts, and observers the contradictions and paradoxes of the modern Iranian experience; such as woman who gives birth while waiting for food rations, or another women who is stoned to death. In this Iran is a mere shadow of itself; with its historical achievements and cultural accomplishments. Now Iran is a place ruled by archaic doctrines, while surrounded by the superficialities of modern furnishings. Simin Behbahani is not without suffering for these causes. She was censored and harassed. She was interrogated by the police for celebrating International Women’s Day in the streets of Tehran; and was banned from leaving the country to celebrate International Women’s Day in Paris. On these grounds Behbahani, is often strictly called a feminist, meaning someone who is only concerned with the rights and lives of women, and the social progression of women through society. This is an inadequate description. Simin Behbahani was humanistic, more than she was myopically concerned with the female side of the human spectrum. Behbahani was concerned with basic principles and ideals of the human experience; the same principles, ideals and freedoms denied to Iranians by the government and its theocratic blindness. Simin Behbahani proclaimed, fought, wrote, and roared about these ideals, and did her best fight for them. She sought egalitarianism, freedom of expression and speech, social progression et cetera; while staying free of the trap falls of partisan politics. Man, woman, Islamic faith or not; it did not matter to Simin Behbahani, as she believed every human being belonged to the same race, deprived of these notions which separate and isolate each other. Her poetic perspectives are tinted with the feminine experience and emotional responses, because that is who she was. Yet, she fiercely protected and fought for her ideals, her perspectives, and voiced them without hesitation. She suffered the consequences of them as well, politically and socially. Resilient as always Simin Behbahani became an admirable figure of resistance, and conviction in her ideals. Beyond her socio-political engagements, Simin Behbahani, is also known for writing some of the most important verse of Persian literature in the twentieth century. She revolutionized poetry, by including theatrical subjects, as well as daily life events, and mundane conversations. It is somewhat of a public record that  Simin Behbahani was nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature twice; and it also somewhat public record that in order to be considered, you need to be nominated [I think] three times. If only Simin Behbahani had been nominated more, she perhaps would have had a greater chance. Regardless, she was a striking revolutionary poet whose merit, ideas, ideals, and fighting spirit live on in her verse.

FIN –

There it is Gentle Reader, the pre-emptive beginning for this Nobel Prize Speculative List. To read the full list, please come back August 14^th, to see the seventy-six writers, placed on the list. Your comments, thoughts, opinions, and recommendations are always warmly welcomed. The above, is simply ruminations, thoughts, and opinions. I do not envy the Swedish Academy. Their decisions can be polarizing, and often criticized. Despite this, there can be no denying the Nobel’s golden charm, in which winners are translated into different languages, invited to speaking ventures, and their opinions often solicited. As always, those eighteen Swedes have their work cut out for them, and sometimes they get it right, and sometimes they get wrong. As the former Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Peter Englund, once said: there is never shortage of worthy candidates, its always difficult to pick the one. Regardless Gentle Reader, it is always fun to speculate; despite knowing full well, its groundless and aimless, as there is no real way to speculate about the prize with affirmation that any specific writer will win, some are just seen as more possible with greater chances then others. Yet, its enjoyable to learn about new writers, and that is solely the goal with the Nobel Speculation, its the discovery of new horizon and unexplored territory; which always broaden ones reading tastes and capabilities. 

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

And again: I do hope to see you back on August 14^th,  as well as hearing from you.

For Further Reading about the subjects above, please feel free to follow the links below:

About Goran Malmqvist, Mo Yan, and Liao Yiwu –

http://goranmalmqvist.blogspot.ca/2013/01/reply-to-liao-yiwu.html

http://www.dn.se/dnbok/mo-yan-ar-en-skitstovel/

https://www.svt.se/kultur/akademiledamoten-vill-stoppa-kinesisk-demostration

About Astrid Lindgren –

http://www.expressen.se/noje/han-kampade-for-stoppa-astrid-lindgren-fran-att-fa-nobelpriset/

https://sweden.se/culture-traditions/astrid-lindgren-spoke-people-listened/