Nobel Lectures: From the Literature Laureates, 1986 to 2006 Book

I originally picked this book up for the Coetzee essay only, but I have this annoying personality trait where I have to finish things even if I don't like them, so I read the whole thing (only skipping the Jelinek essay, but eventually I read that one too.) There is a decent amount of good thinking in here, though I personally find it trite to hear writers profess such unbound love for 'storytelling.' In fact, there seems to be a divide between writers who swoon over the act of storytelling, and those, like me, who are drawn to writing and language because we were surprised to find honesty reflected in it, and created by it. Language and writing as the creation of an object, not a narrative - a real object in the world, with some truth, some humor and some unknown quantity.

We find out in the intro that the nobel prize goes to people producing the "most outstanding work in an ideal direction" - what the fuck is an "ideal" direction for literature? Seems like a strange word choice - how does a work of art go in an "ideal" direction? In any case, Coetzee's contribution is fascinating - duckoys ya'll.

Pinter does a great job calling the US out: "I put to you that the united states is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self-love." Totally accurate.

Gao Xingjian makes an important point: "When writing is not a livelihood or when one is so engrossed in writing that one forgets why one is writing and for whom one is writing it becomes a necessity and one will write compulsively and give birth to literature. It is this non-utilitarian aspect of literature that is fundamental to literature. That the writing of literature has become a profession is an ugly outcome of the division of labor in modern society and a very bitter fruit for the writer."

Gunter Grass shoots for the heart (and there is something striking about the fact that so many of these celebrated writers express the same kind of pessimism and disgust,) saying: "Of course the powers that be, no matter what period costumes they are wearing, have nothing against literature as such. They enjoy it as an ornament and even promote it. At present its role is to entertain, to serve the fun culture, to de-emphasize the negative side of things and give people hope, a light in the darkness."

It's true - people now have forgotten or are actively promoting literature as something fun, non-dangerous, soft, unchallenging. safran foer - sounds like nice soft saffron fur. Expensive for sure, and with one overpowering cloying taste that is richly applauded by zagat critics aka folks who think the new yorker is the pinnacle of modern fiction and poetry when really that is the lowest common denominator of thought. the only question to ask about a new yorker short story is: "how many sex acts were narrated" and secondarily "was anyone underage?"

The prevailing sentiment of modern book culture is that literature is not dangerous, that it can't trouble you, that it shouldn't trouble you to create it or experience it. Grass continues: "What is basically called for, though not quite so explicitly as during the communist years, is a 'positive hero'. In the jungle of the free market economy he is likely to pave his way to success Rambo-like with corpses and a smile; he is an adventurer who is always up for a quick fuck between battles, a winner who leaves a trail of losers behind him, in short, the perfect role model for our globalized world. And the demand for the hard-boiled he-man who always lands on his feet is unfailingly met by the media:James Bond has spawned any number of Dolly-like children. Good will continue to prevail over evil as long as it assumes his cool guy pose."

Dario Fo regurgitates the same garbage taught in creative writing programs the world over: "a theater, a literature, an artistic expression that does not speak for its own time has no relevance."

This is absolute BS. I'm so sick of this refrain. It's like "write about what you know" or "make your art a product of your time". Seriously? You want us to do that consciously? Guess what - it happens no matter what. Focussing on it is the task of shallow creators attempting to cash in on whatever bogus zeitgeist the big-budget culture warriors are inculcating during their 50 hour/ week jobs to do so. Art shouldn't speak FOR anything or anyone - it should speak for itself. No. It should just BE. Be comfortable in EXISTING. That's what it is here for - TO EXIST. Not to speak for people or times or places, but to EXIST next to people, in time, in places. And those places and those times and those people have to live next to it, should feel the challenge, the provocation, the uncomfortable insistence that this thing that has been created has been created to live next to you.

does anyone really want my thoughts on the other essays in here? probably not