This NYTs article as well as many of the comments based on it fail to grasp the significance of the Nobel Prize for literature. Like a plant growing out of rich soil, Alexievich's writing grows out of the profound personal experiences of those who intimately lived for prolonged periods amide catastrophic events. But it's neither the events nor her accurate reporting on them that is significant. Rather, it is her ability to make readers see and feel these events as if they, themselves, were there. We learn more about war when we can feel on our skin the air pressure of an exploding hand grenade. Alexievich has created a new standard by which nonfiction will be judged, and that is why she won the Nobel Prize. May nonfiction writers everywhere, including those who write for the NYTs, take note.
3
A deep Change. The Nobel Prize start attaching its great importance to the world, setting great store by its award all over the world.
1
Svetlana Alexievich, the Bela-what? Voice of Survivors. It's been a quarter century since even this government asked us to stop calling them adjectivised Russians. Lets at least get in the game if we stand for freedom from Moscow domination in Europe.
Thank you for this beautiful article. I am very happy for Svetlana Alexievich. She follows very strong and noble post-WWII Belorussian literary tradition. I hope this Nobel Prize will bring more interest to translating best works of these brilliant writers.
1
Oh, good. Affirmative action has found its way into the Nobel Prize for Literature now too.
At least it wasn't given to Haruki Murakami though. That's one good thing about this result.
At least it wasn't given to Haruki Murakami though. That's one good thing about this result.
A pity Jackie Collins was not recognized.
Then she says, “You don’t read women authors, do you?”
Least that’s what I think I hear her say
“Well,” I say, “how would you know and what would it matter anyway?”
“Well,” she says, “you just don’t seem like you do!”
I said, “You’re way wrong”
She says, “Which ones have you read then?” I say, “I read Erica Jong!”
Least that’s what I think I hear her say
“Well,” I say, “how would you know and what would it matter anyway?”
“Well,” she says, “you just don’t seem like you do!”
I said, “You’re way wrong”
She says, “Which ones have you read then?” I say, “I read Erica Jong!”
1
Kudos. I think most missed your reference.
Your work and award inspire writers, journalists and storytellers across the globe to listen and give voice to us common folks who experience world events. Our lives and thoughts, things that matter too, the substance of history and human culture.
For that, I thank you Svetlana Alexievich.
For that, I thank you Svetlana Alexievich.
1
I just read excerpts from her Voices from Chernobyl, and it is written in a style that is obviously fashionable today. Alas, even the few pages I read contained numerous faults.
For instance, 31 people died at or soon after the accident - not thousands.
And a nuclear explosion that would have made a large part of Europe inhabitable, that was never a risk.
Now I won't believe anything she writes.
I don't much like this genre, where a journalist collects material, in this case from thousands of sources and then taking great liberties in composing a story. In the process being transformed from a mere journo into a poet and writer, apparently of Nobel prize stature.
So I don't think I will read her ouvres. But, I will gladly read more about Kursk and WW2 in Ukraine. And would love to visit Tjernobyl in Kiev Oblast again.
And I do enjoy good journalism.
For instance, 31 people died at or soon after the accident - not thousands.
And a nuclear explosion that would have made a large part of Europe inhabitable, that was never a risk.
Now I won't believe anything she writes.
I don't much like this genre, where a journalist collects material, in this case from thousands of sources and then taking great liberties in composing a story. In the process being transformed from a mere journo into a poet and writer, apparently of Nobel prize stature.
So I don't think I will read her ouvres. But, I will gladly read more about Kursk and WW2 in Ukraine. And would love to visit Tjernobyl in Kiev Oblast again.
And I do enjoy good journalism.
2
I just read Aaron Sorkin's response to criticism against his movie about Steve Jobs - "Art isn't about what happened". And then I thought about Alexievich. I wonder if we will see any good criticism against her writing, regarding both style and subject matter.
Or if readers and critics alike will just be content wallowing in misery.
Or if readers and critics alike will just be content wallowing in misery.
Amazon UK has three of Svetlana Alexievich's books for sale: Voices from Chernoble, Zinky Boys: Record of a Lost Generation and an anthology, Nine of Russia's Foremost Women Writers.
The UK Amazon is a good source for European writers and those from Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Like the BBC, it offers voices from outside the United States and Britain. Our media, on the other hand, pays attention to the rest of the world only as it relates to the USA. If it's not affecting us or our interests, their perspective seems to be, "Who cares?"
Thus there's a whole world out there of art, music, literature and fascinating people that Americans have never heard of. This is very sad, and why I listen to the BBC every day.
The UK Amazon is a good source for European writers and those from Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Like the BBC, it offers voices from outside the United States and Britain. Our media, on the other hand, pays attention to the rest of the world only as it relates to the USA. If it's not affecting us or our interests, their perspective seems to be, "Who cares?"
Thus there's a whole world out there of art, music, literature and fascinating people that Americans have never heard of. This is very sad, and why I listen to the BBC every day.
3
How distressing that Ms. Alexievich - a Belarussian choses to write in Russian and not her native language - although she states she needs to be in Belarus to be able to write.
I say this as someone whose family came from Eastern Poland - now Western Belarus - and who is aware how family members were forced to declare their Belarussian ethnicity in order to be able to attend college - where they studied in Russian. How demoralizing to deny oneself once and then again.
How demoralizing to record the destruction caused by the "master nation" while writing in their language.
And once again a disappointment - that Ms. Alexievich calls Ales Adamovich (Adamowicz in an earlier generation?) as her inspiration - since his work about Chatyn, where 110 people were killed was used by the Soviet Union to deny the existence of Russian guilt for Katyn and 24,000 dead.
I say this as someone whose family came from Eastern Poland - now Western Belarus - and who is aware how family members were forced to declare their Belarussian ethnicity in order to be able to attend college - where they studied in Russian. How demoralizing to deny oneself once and then again.
How demoralizing to record the destruction caused by the "master nation" while writing in their language.
And once again a disappointment - that Ms. Alexievich calls Ales Adamovich (Adamowicz in an earlier generation?) as her inspiration - since his work about Chatyn, where 110 people were killed was used by the Soviet Union to deny the existence of Russian guilt for Katyn and 24,000 dead.
1
I find your comments deeply intriguing. Do you pity those individuals who are required to study only in English and who are forced to cater to anglophone countries?
Or does your sympathy toward this confusion regarding identity only extend against anyone involved in learning and speaking Russian? Are your values universally applied or are they themselves deeply biased?
Or does your sympathy toward this confusion regarding identity only extend against anyone involved in learning and speaking Russian? Are your values universally applied or are they themselves deeply biased?
2
My views are based on the Belarusian and Ukrainian nations which had their ethnicity demolished by the Soviet Union to such an extent that they no longer (in many cases) use their own languages. Belarusia is a prime example of this.
Personally, as an individual educated in a multilingual universe, I cannot reflect on those who studied only in English.
But you, Ms. Libka - know well the demands of the USSR requiring that all who wanted to attend college only study in Russian language high schools, and certainly that they profess the 'correct' ethnicity.
And so, yes, I lament a purportedly Belarusian writer who does not write for her people in their own language. I lament an author who fails to see how the minorities in her own country are treated.
Personally, as an individual educated in a multilingual universe, I cannot reflect on those who studied only in English.
But you, Ms. Libka - know well the demands of the USSR requiring that all who wanted to attend college only study in Russian language high schools, and certainly that they profess the 'correct' ethnicity.
And so, yes, I lament a purportedly Belarusian writer who does not write for her people in their own language. I lament an author who fails to see how the minorities in her own country are treated.
Congratulation Mr Svetlana Alexijevich The Nobel Prize of literature and all the liberary world that are free copies of expression
Congratulations, Ms. Alexievich!
You have made an impact with your work! Your works tell stories to the current generation of what their grandparents suffered. Your stories will not stop there--they will continue to speak of the past to the coming generations.
There may be those who say, "What difference does it make?"
How can anyone hope to pit stories vs. heavy artillery? And it is true. There is no hope, there. What is the sense in pitting stories against weapons? It is obvious who will win.
If people change at all, they change very slowly. If they are searching for a different way to live, they are unlikely to find it, unless they are somehow exposed to divergent ways of life, First, they must fathom that such differences exist, and then they must have the courage to slowly move beyond the known world to the unimagined possibility of the new. .
Literature helps us move beyond the known to the what-could-be. Compared to a tank, it doesn't seem like much. However, compare it to a hand holding fast onto another's, as in the case of a person who is trying to save another from drowning.
Again, Good Work--take care!
You have made an impact with your work! Your works tell stories to the current generation of what their grandparents suffered. Your stories will not stop there--they will continue to speak of the past to the coming generations.
There may be those who say, "What difference does it make?"
How can anyone hope to pit stories vs. heavy artillery? And it is true. There is no hope, there. What is the sense in pitting stories against weapons? It is obvious who will win.
If people change at all, they change very slowly. If they are searching for a different way to live, they are unlikely to find it, unless they are somehow exposed to divergent ways of life, First, they must fathom that such differences exist, and then they must have the courage to slowly move beyond the known world to the unimagined possibility of the new. .
Literature helps us move beyond the known to the what-could-be. Compared to a tank, it doesn't seem like much. However, compare it to a hand holding fast onto another's, as in the case of a person who is trying to save another from drowning.
Again, Good Work--take care!
1
As I've learned to do from previous awards to so-called obscure writers, my first stop after reading the announcement this morning was the Queens Library website, where I requested two books by Aleksievich as they spell her name. "Voices..." and "Zinky..." will be delivered to my local branch, Richmond Hill, in a few days for pickup. All you need is a library card. Support our libraries! THX QPL.
Gotta love this day, when the Nobel for Literature is announced. Everybody gets to spout off -- the ones who feel that American authors have been slighted, the ones who feel superior to those "parochial" Americans, the ones who feel that Elena Ferrante or some other pet author should have won instead -- everyone's aggrieved, but almost no one has read the work of the winner.
It would probably be less fun if someone we all knew had won, anyway.
It would probably be less fun if someone we all knew had won, anyway.
The irony is that the winner has been chosen to further the political agenda of the American government. If an American author were chosen to spout anti-Soviet retoric, the author's credulity woud be dubious. However, Alexievich has presented herself a useful tool for American Imperialism idiologists who wish to stamp out the presence and integrity of the Soviets and Russian influence in our modern era.
Can't help thinking of the 1932 Pulitzer Prize that went to the New York Times Moscow bureau chief, Walter Duranty, a.k.a Stalin's publicist. Look him on the Wikipedia, or there is an entire book about him that is interesting. He declined to write about the Ukrainian Holocaust in which 6 million Ukrainians starved to death.
4
Reality Beats Fiction. Time to Learn This Again!
Any fiction is inspired by reality: after all, reality is where minds come from. However, confusing fiction with reality can be a trap. The authors of fiction who are known made their work marketable (otherwise they would not be known). But marketing is not enticing with thinking: it entices with seduction. Marketing perverts thinking, it’s sugar for canned minds.
In contrast, by evoking reality, one can dare to go where the market does not want to go, and where the market cannot go. Facts are facts, they are not made to be comfortable. Facts are, all too often, not something one wants to buy. Why? Because we have turned into a society which confuses market and civilization. We ask, we tolerate to have the "markets" of everything and guide us.
It was high time the Nobel literature committee recognize that being able to present reality, especially reality in all its harshness, is more important than presenting someone’s fiction as if it were reality (as novelists are won to do with wanton abandonment!) In one case, sticking to reality, one tries to stick to what is, and in the other, confusing reality and fiction, one admittedly do away with reality, at the outset, and replace reality with what can be sold to the little minds of the shoppers, avid and standardized.
Humanity has to be educated. Sugar drinks ought to be rejected. Similarly all too easy, all too comfortable fiction. Bring forth reality, the maker of worlds.
Any fiction is inspired by reality: after all, reality is where minds come from. However, confusing fiction with reality can be a trap. The authors of fiction who are known made their work marketable (otherwise they would not be known). But marketing is not enticing with thinking: it entices with seduction. Marketing perverts thinking, it’s sugar for canned minds.
In contrast, by evoking reality, one can dare to go where the market does not want to go, and where the market cannot go. Facts are facts, they are not made to be comfortable. Facts are, all too often, not something one wants to buy. Why? Because we have turned into a society which confuses market and civilization. We ask, we tolerate to have the "markets" of everything and guide us.
It was high time the Nobel literature committee recognize that being able to present reality, especially reality in all its harshness, is more important than presenting someone’s fiction as if it were reality (as novelists are won to do with wanton abandonment!) In one case, sticking to reality, one tries to stick to what is, and in the other, confusing reality and fiction, one admittedly do away with reality, at the outset, and replace reality with what can be sold to the little minds of the shoppers, avid and standardized.
Humanity has to be educated. Sugar drinks ought to be rejected. Similarly all too easy, all too comfortable fiction. Bring forth reality, the maker of worlds.
Svetlana Alexievich is the fifth Russian-speaking Nobel laureate in literature. She has broken the epic and prose writing traditions of her Russian peers. Ivan Bunin (1933) was awarded for his "strict artistry". Boris Pasternak (1958), author of "Doctor Shiwago" was lauded for his lyrical poetry. Mikhail Sholokhov (1965) was praised for his "artistic power" to depict the life of the Russian people. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1970) made international headlines by exposing Stalin's gulags. This year the Nobel Committee has chosen another Russian-speaking dissident, Svetlana Alexievich for her account on the sufferings of victims in post-Soviet era.
1
I do not mind the choice of "obscure" authors for the Nobel Price in literature. The emerging of new faces and names allows us to embellish our eyes and minds in their works which is a privilege reserved for those to whom reading is close to a devotion. But I can not avoid my skeptical feeling that more than once the Prize has been politically colored. Even the awards to Winston Churchill and more so to Boris Pasternak clearly had a political taint.-
1
Right on! Churchill was worthless as an historian; his stuff is rightly forgotten. And Pasternak was a glorified romance novelist.
1
Why cannot I avoid the skeptical feeling that Hugo has not read any of the "obscure" Svetlana Alexievich's books?
1
Most Americans who read Svetlana Alexievich's work will read English translations. The will admire the polyphonics and lyricism of the translator.
Congratulations to my compatriot on such a spectacular win!
Now, to author - please be informed that since gaining independence the country is officially called Belarus, so it's Belarusian, not Belarussian.
I had a chance to read Ms. Alexievich's books in original and what I can say is that her style is amazing. I read "Chernobyl prayer" which, I believe, was entitled "Voices from Chernobyl" when translated to English, and parts of "War's Unwomanly Face". These are basically interviews of people somehow connected to those events and after being processed and compiled by Ms. Alexievich they are of so much emotional strength. Difficult to read and even brutal to reader's and very true. I am not sure whether translation and adaptation in English will reveal all that properly, hopefully, so.
As to allegations that this prize is given for political reasons, namely to pinch Russia or something like that. Well, such a probability cannot be completely excluded; however, I would like to remind that Ms. Alexievich was on short list and had relatively high chances of winning for 3 years in a row starting from 2013, before Russia-Crimea story happened.
Now, to author - please be informed that since gaining independence the country is officially called Belarus, so it's Belarusian, not Belarussian.
I had a chance to read Ms. Alexievich's books in original and what I can say is that her style is amazing. I read "Chernobyl prayer" which, I believe, was entitled "Voices from Chernobyl" when translated to English, and parts of "War's Unwomanly Face". These are basically interviews of people somehow connected to those events and after being processed and compiled by Ms. Alexievich they are of so much emotional strength. Difficult to read and even brutal to reader's and very true. I am not sure whether translation and adaptation in English will reveal all that properly, hopefully, so.
As to allegations that this prize is given for political reasons, namely to pinch Russia or something like that. Well, such a probability cannot be completely excluded; however, I would like to remind that Ms. Alexievich was on short list and had relatively high chances of winning for 3 years in a row starting from 2013, before Russia-Crimea story happened.
6
I've been reading some of the Svetlana Alexievich's "Voices for Chernobyl" and it is amazing. The writing style has an immediacy, clarity and brutality which is not like Journalism or literature.
You can and should download a portion of this book form her website.
The selection committee made a good choice.
You can and should download a portion of this book form her website.
The selection committee made a good choice.
1
I am Belarussian but I've never read Svetlana Alexievich, which is apparently my big loss. Very happy for her and proud of her achievement.
Someone here mentioned that there's no coverage of this on Belarussian TV and in press, but the opposition websites cover this extensively http://www.charter97.org/ru/news/2015/10/8/172559/
I was hugely disappointed, though, that she is not talking in Belarussian language.. Makes me wonder if she also writes in Russian (probably). If our writers don't write using the native language, is it truly disappearing?.. This is sad.
Someone here mentioned that there's no coverage of this on Belarussian TV and in press, but the opposition websites cover this extensively http://www.charter97.org/ru/news/2015/10/8/172559/
I was hugely disappointed, though, that she is not talking in Belarussian language.. Makes me wonder if she also writes in Russian (probably). If our writers don't write using the native language, is it truly disappearing?.. This is sad.
3
The Swedish academy stated that Alexievich "had created a history of emotions — a history of the soul, if you wish.” Isn't one purpose of great literature to bring people into a deeper connection with life as it is lived not as we imagine it to be? To shock us - as it were - into a realization of the beauty, fragility and sometime brutality of life and thereby elevate our consciousness?
Some people see a political agenda here. I do not with the caveat that all human activity is in some sense political, especially the awarding of prizes. This is a highly praised and eloquent author from Belarus, well known in Europe who happens to be relatively unknown in the US. Big deal. The Nobel Literature award has an impressive record over the years.
So I will take the chance to expand my horizon a bit. I just ordered a copy of "Voices from Chernobyl" and look forward to reading it (if "looking forward" to reading about a horrible ecological and human disaster is the appropriate phrase).
Some people see a political agenda here. I do not with the caveat that all human activity is in some sense political, especially the awarding of prizes. This is a highly praised and eloquent author from Belarus, well known in Europe who happens to be relatively unknown in the US. Big deal. The Nobel Literature award has an impressive record over the years.
So I will take the chance to expand my horizon a bit. I just ordered a copy of "Voices from Chernobyl" and look forward to reading it (if "looking forward" to reading about a horrible ecological and human disaster is the appropriate phrase).
4
I have never heard of the person, but as usual with such announcements, I will look into the person's work.
"noted that the prize will amplify her criticism of post-Soviet authoritarianism and in particular the government of President Vladimir V. Putin."
This unfortunately is not a positive, if the politics of the award are part of the continuing assault from western governments and factota on the former CCCP and the current Russia, Russians and Mr. Putin.
Solzhenitsyn by the way is viewed by many native Russians as a Russian traitor. I have read In the First Circle and perhaps a few other of his works in English translation. An excellent writer, but I do not sufficiently know the political background for his writing, so I cannot judge.
"challenging the official narrative of how events had an impact on ordinary citizens"
This phrase could apply to any country in the world, including notably to the USA where challenge to the "official narrative" receives scant attention relative to the endless propaganda issued by said government and many factota, including often regrettably the The New York Times.
"noted that the prize will amplify her criticism of post-Soviet authoritarianism and in particular the government of President Vladimir V. Putin."
This unfortunately is not a positive, if the politics of the award are part of the continuing assault from western governments and factota on the former CCCP and the current Russia, Russians and Mr. Putin.
Solzhenitsyn by the way is viewed by many native Russians as a Russian traitor. I have read In the First Circle and perhaps a few other of his works in English translation. An excellent writer, but I do not sufficiently know the political background for his writing, so I cannot judge.
"challenging the official narrative of how events had an impact on ordinary citizens"
This phrase could apply to any country in the world, including notably to the USA where challenge to the "official narrative" receives scant attention relative to the endless propaganda issued by said government and many factota, including often regrettably the The New York Times.
3
Long perceived as an advocate of Western-style democracy and human rights – similarly to Havel and the likes – in his late years Solzhenitsyn manifested an increasing disdain towards «gniloi Zapad» (rotten West) and sympathy for Great-Russian nationalism. He was a great admirer of President Putin, and apparently was admired by the latter, who conferred the State Prize of the Russian Federation on the writer in 2007. OK, on Solzhenitsyn's end it was believably not a cult of power for power's sake, but rather a dream of Moscow as the "Third Rome", quite deeply rooted in Russian conservatism. He might be seen by Soviet patriots as a traitor back in the 1970s, but eventually it was him who more often accused others of treachery, if not treason.
Nobel Literature Prize committee statement for the past decade or two: "The Nobel Prize for Literature goes to Person X, an admittedly obscure writer outside and even within their corner of the world, who has written in surreal/pointed/truthful poetry/prose about the human struggle against oppression. This lifetime achievement award introduces his/her writing to an ignorant world, but good luck finding their writing anywhere, or remembering who they even were next year when we introduce the next Nobel Prize winner to all you idiots."
2
I was very happy to wake up to the news that Ms. Alexievich was awarded the Nobel Prize. What a great choice. I have read excerpts from her book "War's Unwomanly Face", but don't have the heart yet to read the complete thing. It's a very very difficult read, but it's definitely a book that had to be written, and these stories had to be told. It took courage and perseverance for her to keep writing. Congratulations!
I also wish that some people commenting here would use the news of this prize as a chance to learn something new about the world. "I have never heard of her", or claiming that this prize was awarded for political reasons is to demonstrate your complete ignorance.
I also wish that some people commenting here would use the news of this prize as a chance to learn something new about the world. "I have never heard of her", or claiming that this prize was awarded for political reasons is to demonstrate your complete ignorance.
7
What an amazing display of ignorance, narrow-mindedness, parochialism and sheer boorishness in these comments! Svetlana Alexievich is a wonderful writer, far better than Stud Terkel with whom she is compared. She speaks of - and for - the history tha is more consequential for the rest of the world than the petty squabbles of the American political scene. Compared to her, Joyce Carol Oates is a has-been and Philip Roth an embarrassment. I was often disappointed by the Nobel Prize decisions but not today.
6
Philip Roth is an embarrassment without the comparison, but that is a part--admittedly a small part--of what makes him great. It's hard to quibble with the Academy's choices without having read the work, but I do think it's a pity they have never risen to the challenge of Roth's genius. Perhaps, like you, they were put off by embarrassment.
In my first comment I closed by asking readers to open their minds and read Alexeivich. Now I have had my mind opened. As a New York Review of Books subscriber I could search NYRB archives. Finding: Exactly one book review in a cluster of book reviews dealing with the Russians in Afghanistan: The Zinc Boys.
Then I visited my Swedish OnLine book seller and there was a full set of her books in Swedish, some immediately available others to be ordered. And then I discovered her "Voices From Chernobyl". Since I first came to Sweden in 1991-92 to do research on Chernobyl as experienced in Sweden I will order Voices immediately.
Voices consists of a set of interviews with her fellow Belarussians who suffred terribly from Chernobyl, interviews, not fiction. So now we all need to know more about the nature of her other highly praised books and even the Swedish Academy's guidelines concerning the nature of books that may qualify an author for consideration.
Stay tuned, will report at only-never if I learn enough.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Then I visited my Swedish OnLine book seller and there was a full set of her books in Swedish, some immediately available others to be ordered. And then I discovered her "Voices From Chernobyl". Since I first came to Sweden in 1991-92 to do research on Chernobyl as experienced in Sweden I will order Voices immediately.
Voices consists of a set of interviews with her fellow Belarussians who suffred terribly from Chernobyl, interviews, not fiction. So now we all need to know more about the nature of her other highly praised books and even the Swedish Academy's guidelines concerning the nature of books that may qualify an author for consideration.
Stay tuned, will report at only-never if I learn enough.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
2
Your commenters are right that the awarding of the Nobel Prize to writers otherwise seldom translated into English or largely unknown to American readers gives us all the opportunity to dive into their work and expand our horizons. This is why we've spent the recent years reading Patrick Modiano, Tomas Transtromer, Herta Muttler, Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clezio and Efriede Jelinek.
We have, haven't we?
We have, haven't we?
1
Yes, we have. Have not gotten to Gustave and Jelinek, yet, but soon.
Some commenters have complained that the Literature Prize is often given for "political" reasons. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. The line between politics and literature is not clear. But sometimes the results are a bit silly, like Winston Churchill winning the Literature Prize because they could not give the Peace Prize to such a ferocious warrior.
As for the Peace Prize being given for "political" reasons -- Of course! War and peace are political matters. Here, too, the results are sometimes silly -- like giving the prize to Barack Obama before he had done anything. And, as it turns out, he is as much a military adventurist as most presidents.
I consider the Nobel prizes in peace and literature to be part of the October sports scene, like the World Series. Interesting. Amusing.
As for the Peace Prize being given for "political" reasons -- Of course! War and peace are political matters. Here, too, the results are sometimes silly -- like giving the prize to Barack Obama before he had done anything. And, as it turns out, he is as much a military adventurist as most presidents.
I consider the Nobel prizes in peace and literature to be part of the October sports scene, like the World Series. Interesting. Amusing.
1
Here come the political awards. Every year, the same thing: three scientific achievements and three flavor-of-the-day awards. They really should move Field Medal into the Nobels so the award isn't half humanities.
1
When will the most deserved of writer's get the award is so justifiably deserves: the writers of the NYTimes comments sections!
Surely, there is enough absurdity in a score of posts for the making of a social realism worthy of a statue of Stockholm!
Surely, there is enough absurdity in a score of posts for the making of a social realism worthy of a statue of Stockholm!
1
Only matched by Obama getting the peace prize. What were they thinking?
The Nobel Prize for Literature is a wonderful international recognition for writers generally and especially for the winners. Yet, it has, in recent decades, become increasingly obscure. If there is someone banging away at the computer somewhere in the world you've never heard of (both individually and by nation), that person stands a chance of getting the Nobel. It is not an award for what once was considered "achievement", meaning vivid writing that deeply affects the lives of hundreds of thousands or millions of people and is understood, by a wide audience of readers, critics and other writers to be outstanding. Instead, it is used as a prod of recognition in the hope that voices in the wilderness will find a wider readership. I doubt this is successful.
None of this is intended to detract from this year's and other year's winners. Just as there is, really, no one "best actor" each year for the Oscars, there is no one best writer in the world or one deserving to stand out above and beyond all others. Some writers have taken daring chances with their lives and freedom to publish. Some have translated blinding insights into the human condition into poetry or prose of astounding beauty. Giving a measure of fame to a few helps all who labor in these fields.
The fact is, writers from the developed world have been largely crossed off from the list of those eligible for consideration in favor of boosting the obscure. Those who are well known are excluded.
None of this is intended to detract from this year's and other year's winners. Just as there is, really, no one "best actor" each year for the Oscars, there is no one best writer in the world or one deserving to stand out above and beyond all others. Some writers have taken daring chances with their lives and freedom to publish. Some have translated blinding insights into the human condition into poetry or prose of astounding beauty. Giving a measure of fame to a few helps all who labor in these fields.
The fact is, writers from the developed world have been largely crossed off from the list of those eligible for consideration in favor of boosting the obscure. Those who are well known are excluded.
Dear Mr. Roth,
Might I suggest that you change your name to something a bit more Euro-Afro-Asiatic and take residence in some far corner of the world where you might be discovered by Swedish nomads.
Sincerely,
Esteban and the NYT readership
Might I suggest that you change your name to something a bit more Euro-Afro-Asiatic and take residence in some far corner of the world where you might be discovered by Swedish nomads.
Sincerely,
Esteban and the NYT readership
1
Come on book lovers, chill out! There are thousands of really good writers in the world and only one can win the Nobel Prize for Literature every year, so of course the prize is "political." And why shouldn't nonfiction qualify, if it is well-done and enlightening. I would much rather read a well-crafted nonfiction book than some "literary" fiction that I have been subjected to in my life. Of course very few Times readers are going to agree with the selection of a person they have never heard of. And if at some point another American is chosen, then the rest of the world will have to live with that choice.
Now let's move on to a much more fun argument: Who should be elected to the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame?
Now let's move on to a much more fun argument: Who should be elected to the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame?
1
Well, as a Nobel prize she won't be able anymore to be an inconspicuous antenna picking up voices from the streets and cafes. Ordinary talk and voices will become "performances" for the Nobel's publications once her presence is noted.
Reporting or journalism as an "art form" or literary genre may be a problematic notion drawing more attention to the form (and rhetorics) than to substance (or content). The problem of aestheticizing pain or suffering or history is not an easy one. Interesting risk anyway. I hope this was not just a politicized choice along old Cold War politics to hit on Putin.
Reporting or journalism as an "art form" or literary genre may be a problematic notion drawing more attention to the form (and rhetorics) than to substance (or content). The problem of aestheticizing pain or suffering or history is not an easy one. Interesting risk anyway. I hope this was not just a politicized choice along old Cold War politics to hit on Putin.
The more they ignore Philip Roth, the less legitimate they look.
1
Good for the Swedish Academy for (finally) recognizing that journalism,too, is a form of literature that can rise to greatness.
2
I think many of you who are criticizing the critics here do not understand their major complaint. It is not that Ms Alexievich is not a wonderful writer, it is that the committee stretched its own definition of literature to award the prize to someone who writes non-fiction and does not have that large an opus.
Will they go back and give "awards" to others such as Primo Levi who should have won based upon the expanded criteria? What about authors such as Robert Caro or David McCullough whose non-fiction is as thrilling as any novel?
I love reading literature in translation probably more than modern works in English, and I plan to read Ms. Alexievich's books. However, I do think that the award should be given to someone who has a significantly large body of work and who has had an influence in his/her own culture if not beyond. Otherwise you might as well have the prize for the best book of the year.
Will they go back and give "awards" to others such as Primo Levi who should have won based upon the expanded criteria? What about authors such as Robert Caro or David McCullough whose non-fiction is as thrilling as any novel?
I love reading literature in translation probably more than modern works in English, and I plan to read Ms. Alexievich's books. However, I do think that the award should be given to someone who has a significantly large body of work and who has had an influence in his/her own culture if not beyond. Otherwise you might as well have the prize for the best book of the year.
6
The Nobel Committee has been inconsistent over the years (well, the century plus span makes that inevitable). Back when Thomas Mann won, the committee singled out Buddenbrooks as the primary basis for the award. Those arguing for Ferrante would essentially be arguing for a multi-volumed "novel" (not unlike Proust's In Search of Lost Time). I have no problem with that--a Proust comes along rarely and should be eligible and honored. Galsworthy was cited especially for The Forsyte Saga, also a multi-volumed series of linked novels.
To all those who will say that she doesn't deserve it - "Voices from Chernobyl" is one of the most most moving, eloquent, and memorable books I have ever read.
2
I don't know Ms. Alexievich's work but will make it my business to find out. That's what the Nobel does, it gets me to find out.
Many years ago, they awarded the Lit Prize to Elias Canetti, whose name and oeuvre were unknown to me at the time. I picked up "Torch in my Ear" and soon had a complete library of Canetti, who, apropos of the new winner, was also not a fiction writer but a social theorist ("Crowds and Power") and an explorer of memory, a guide of the highest order. Likewise, I have a book of Transtromer's poems on my nightstand, also courtesy of the Nobel.
Roth? Updike when he was among us? I have near-complete collections of their work. Good people can argue until the end of time about the function of the Nobel Prize in Lit, its biases and politics, but for myself, I'm grateful to the academy for introducing me to world-class writers and thinkers who, were it not for the award, I'd not have encountered.
Many years ago, they awarded the Lit Prize to Elias Canetti, whose name and oeuvre were unknown to me at the time. I picked up "Torch in my Ear" and soon had a complete library of Canetti, who, apropos of the new winner, was also not a fiction writer but a social theorist ("Crowds and Power") and an explorer of memory, a guide of the highest order. Likewise, I have a book of Transtromer's poems on my nightstand, also courtesy of the Nobel.
Roth? Updike when he was among us? I have near-complete collections of their work. Good people can argue until the end of time about the function of the Nobel Prize in Lit, its biases and politics, but for myself, I'm grateful to the academy for introducing me to world-class writers and thinkers who, were it not for the award, I'd not have encountered.
3
Congratulations to the journalist! Hopefully, her writings will be now be read by a broader audience.
So this is not the year where the Nobel committee deigns to take a token look at the larger mass of humanity reading and writing in non-European languages. Not 100% sure, but I believe only 4 awards in the last 30 years have gone to folks writing in non-European languages (Chinese and Japanese). This is probably because the judges are at best too lazy to acquire and read translations, or at worst excessively parochial.
Ignoring lifetime literary achievements in non-European languages is another form of intellectual imperialism -- whose practitioners include self-proclaimed multiculturalists. There needs to be something like the Sahitya Akademi awards (the second most prestigious literary award in India) which is awarded annually to the outstanding work in each of the 24 official Indian languages. That's comparable in number to languages (not dialects) existent in Europe, if not more.
So this is not the year where the Nobel committee deigns to take a token look at the larger mass of humanity reading and writing in non-European languages. Not 100% sure, but I believe only 4 awards in the last 30 years have gone to folks writing in non-European languages (Chinese and Japanese). This is probably because the judges are at best too lazy to acquire and read translations, or at worst excessively parochial.
Ignoring lifetime literary achievements in non-European languages is another form of intellectual imperialism -- whose practitioners include self-proclaimed multiculturalists. There needs to be something like the Sahitya Akademi awards (the second most prestigious literary award in India) which is awarded annually to the outstanding work in each of the 24 official Indian languages. That's comparable in number to languages (not dialects) existent in Europe, if not more.
5
Agreed. Perhaps there is, say, a (non-Western) philanthropist who will establish a foundation like Alfred Nobel's, one that can work toward the recognition as well as promotion of other globally relevant voices. After all, there's no universal law saying the Nobel Committee must serve in perpetuity as the sole arbiter for honoring literary (or other) achievements. Until then ...
Unfortunately you seem to have missed the obvious political undertones surrounding the choice of Alexievich. This is no utilitarian move from imperialism but rather an extension on US-based imperialism determined to demonise Russian and Soviet culture and eager to promote and publicize those individuals who align nicely with the US-imperialistic agenda.
The Nobel NPP has become nothing more than a political joke ever since Obama received one for nothing.
4
It seems to me that he was recognized for his position in History and some insight into how that had affected him.
By contrast, your note seems like "sour grapes."
By contrast, your note seems like "sour grapes."
9
This piece was about Svetlana Alexievich, and her award for literature not the Nobel Peace Prize.
11
@Kate De Braose
Place in history are for history to decide, not any living person.
If China elected a woman president should she be given a Nobel? If Saudi Arabia have an Atheist king, should he get a Nobel? Did Armstrong get a Nobel for setting foot on the moon?
Place in history are for history to decide, not any living person.
If China elected a woman president should she be given a Nobel? If Saudi Arabia have an Atheist king, should he get a Nobel? Did Armstrong get a Nobel for setting foot on the moon?
1
...because she's a relatively well-known figure from the former Soviet Union who's been a slash-and-burn critic of Vladimir Putin...
It does not matter how well known she is. Putin will have her tossed down the center of a stairwell, or off a roof, like has happened to many other journalists that dare criticism him or others in his circle.
It does not matter how well known she is. Putin will have her tossed down the center of a stairwell, or off a roof, like has happened to many other journalists that dare criticism him or others in his circle.
6
Be sure to let the world knows when that happens.
So funny how everyone is opining about whether or not she "deserves" it. Fact is, the committee can give the prize to anyone with no justification. If you don't like it you are free to start your own prize committee and award prizes to the people you think are "deserving".
55
That's like saying if you don't like the dictator feel free to start your own country. People dislike the three humanities prizes because often the awards are unworthy of the Nobel name.
Every year the literature and peace prize winner got their name printed everywhere because they are a marketing machine. You can invite them to congress, fund raising, etc because they can endorse your agenda. No one cares about the three scientific prizes because most people have no idea what they are about and the achievements are completely non-political.
Every year the literature and peace prize winner got their name printed everywhere because they are a marketing machine. You can invite them to congress, fund raising, etc because they can endorse your agenda. No one cares about the three scientific prizes because most people have no idea what they are about and the achievements are completely non-political.
I don't know if the Literature award has become as blatently, and stupidly political as the Peace Prize (which really should be renamed). The last time the Nobel committee picked an author whose name I recognized was Harold Pinter, and he was selected not for his literature but for his incessant anti-Americanism. All of my attempts to read Russian literature has floundered because I can't keep the names of the characters straight. Is Belarussian any easier?
4
If I were you, I would keep this information to myself. But even if you are proud of your dyslexia, why is it relevant to the Nobel Committe's decisions?
1
What's your point, Cleo? Are you saying that you can't keep the names in your head? Too bad. Who cares?
1
Good for her, but this sentence "She’s devised a new kind of literary genre,” made me think that she's been doing nothing much different from Studs Terkel.
Where is that novelty? Maybe just in the Soviet Union?
Where is that novelty? Maybe just in the Soviet Union?
9
Once again, too many disappointing comments from my fellow American New York Times commenters. Why once again? Every single day I am severely disappointed by the comments about all those "people" fleeing to Europe from their war-torn lands.
By this time I am pretty sure that Joyce Carol Oates and Philip Roth are never going to get the Nobel Prize they surely deserve - as do countless others who will never get the prize, but now is the time to make the most of this introduction to someone whose work I have not yet even sampled.
I appreciate reading these samples from Sara Danius especially the phrase "polyphonic writings" and want to note that Sara is herself a multilingual true scholar who holds a Ph.D. from Uppsala University and another Ph.D. from Duke University. Sara, herself a brave woman, is precisely the right person to have announced the award to Alexievich.
So why not open your mind a bit and read Alexeivich.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA - SE
By this time I am pretty sure that Joyce Carol Oates and Philip Roth are never going to get the Nobel Prize they surely deserve - as do countless others who will never get the prize, but now is the time to make the most of this introduction to someone whose work I have not yet even sampled.
I appreciate reading these samples from Sara Danius especially the phrase "polyphonic writings" and want to note that Sara is herself a multilingual true scholar who holds a Ph.D. from Uppsala University and another Ph.D. from Duke University. Sara, herself a brave woman, is precisely the right person to have announced the award to Alexievich.
So why not open your mind a bit and read Alexeivich.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA - SE
29
http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/ghistory/alexievs.htm
Is a fascinating New Yorker article re-published by the New Yorker today so that author Philip Gourevitch can let us see these words from this 2014 note: "Can you believe it? Alexievich? Don’t they know that she’s a reporter? Is it possible that the Nobel committee might finally reverse the ignoble treatment of what we call “nonfiction writing” and admit that it is literature?"
The line between fiction and non-fiction has become so difficult to draw that Gourevitch is undoubtedly delighted that what counts is the ability of the author to transform the raw material into literature. So maybe the Swedish Academy with Sara Danius at the head has become revolutionary.
Is a fascinating New Yorker article re-published by the New Yorker today so that author Philip Gourevitch can let us see these words from this 2014 note: "Can you believe it? Alexievich? Don’t they know that she’s a reporter? Is it possible that the Nobel committee might finally reverse the ignoble treatment of what we call “nonfiction writing” and admit that it is literature?"
The line between fiction and non-fiction has become so difficult to draw that Gourevitch is undoubtedly delighted that what counts is the ability of the author to transform the raw material into literature. So maybe the Swedish Academy with Sara Danius at the head has become revolutionary.
Can't say if she is worthy, but this seems completely political. And I am of the mind that "literature" means fiction or poetry, and not non-fiction. Clearly, the world has run out of worthy novelists and poets.
4
So you think the award should be rescinded for Russell and Churchill?
10
Simon DelMonte
The world certainly has not run out of political awards though... look back to the award given to obama by this committee.
The world certainly has not run out of political awards though... look back to the award given to obama by this committee.
1
@ Simon DelMonte: You wrote: "And I am of the mind that "literature" means fiction or poetry, and not non-fiction."
A quick review of an online dictionary indicates you would be wrong.
A quick review of an online dictionary indicates you would be wrong.
5
The Swedish Nobel Academy has the incredible ability to pick individual that nobody has ever heard of before. That makes this prize totally political. This author is just putting a nail in the eye of Mr. Putin. Which is very good because he is a terrible danger to world peace.
4
Nonsense. Plenty of her readers have 'heard' of her; the fact YOU haven't is irrelevant.
Take the opportunity to broaden your literary horizons and explore what the Committee feels is work worth reading.
Take the opportunity to broaden your literary horizons and explore what the Committee feels is work worth reading.
26
It's very plain that the prize was awarded to this political journalist not for her work itself, but because she's a relatively well-known figure from the former Soviet Union who's been a slash-and-burn critic of Vladimir Putin ("Putin is a KGB agent... everything he does is a provocation") and an enthusiastic supporter of the US-engineered coup in Ukraine and the puppet government subsequently installed there ("when I was on Maidan and saw the photos of the Heavenly Hundred, I stood and cried"). Apparently no suitable novelists, poets or dramatists who matched that desired profile could be found. Indeed, what notable literary figure, as opposed to a reporter and interviewer who's never published a creative work, would have fit the bill? The choice says more about the direction the Swedish government has taken in recent times, in cooperating with US/UK intelligence forces' efforts to disrupt the activities of Julian Assange, and in the warmongering push for Sweden to join the expanding ranks of NATO, than it does about the fine literary judgment of members of the politically pressured Swedish Academy.
3
Like the so-called peace prize, the prize for literature is heavily politicized. It serves an agenda.
16
The agenda: read more books.
39
Read her book(s) and then decide how political is the decision. I read one of her first books about women participating in WWII. It was an eye opener! I could not sleep - my dreams were about those women. Is it a fiction or documentary?
It is much stronger than recent fake / alternative history books because it is impossible to mistrust her and people who talked to her. I would say that it is modern folklore. And her documentary prose is much more impressive than documentary movies based on her prose.
Read it before judging!
It is much stronger than recent fake / alternative history books because it is impossible to mistrust her and people who talked to her. I would say that it is modern folklore. And her documentary prose is much more impressive than documentary movies based on her prose.
Read it before judging!
Wonder why NYT would invite comments when no one seems to
have read her books. Her message as glimpsed through this
report is great. Hope the English translations of her books will
be read widely. I will certainly buy her books. It is wonderful she
received the recognition.
have read her books. Her message as glimpsed through this
report is great. Hope the English translations of her books will
be read widely. I will certainly buy her books. It is wonderful she
received the recognition.
26
"Wonder why NYT would invite comments when no one seems to
have read her books."
I suppose so I can inform you that I just bought "Zinky Boys" on the strength of the NYT publishing this news. Thank you.
have read her books."
I suppose so I can inform you that I just bought "Zinky Boys" on the strength of the NYT publishing this news. Thank you.
15
Anything with a title like "Zinky Boys" deserves a look!
Compliments to Alter for this column that is informative about Ms. Alexievich and a newer genre of literature and journalism.
Ms. Alexievich seems to be woman of courage writing about the deep scars of these wars. To undertake a work about "a history of human emotions, a history of the soul' is venturing into uncharted waters.
"The true voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new destinations but having new eyes." I look forward to seeing though the eyes of
Svetlana Alexievich as I read her work.
Ms. Alexievich seems to be woman of courage writing about the deep scars of these wars. To undertake a work about "a history of human emotions, a history of the soul' is venturing into uncharted waters.
"The true voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new destinations but having new eyes." I look forward to seeing though the eyes of
Svetlana Alexievich as I read her work.
12
The regular laments about Americans only speaking one language is mere sophistry 99% of the time. One of the great benefits of the American nation is that it has a unifying language as opposed to the Tower of Babel of Europe. If you were forced to learn French or German in school how did that work out for you? Any suggestion that a foreign language would be useful in reading foreign texts in the original is of course laughable; tell me how many folks in the US enjoy a good book in Danish or Croatian? Everything is valuable for someone but there are plenty of English translations for books when the demand is present (I know that shocks you because it sounds like the "free market" or some other political heresy to most NYT readers).
6
You don't have to learn a second language, nor do your children. But learning a second language promotes cross-cultural communication, makes American workers more competitive, and makes America a better place for business. Many studies have shown that the bilingual, in the aggregate, have better attention and task-switching capacities than the monolingual, thanks to their ability to inhibit one language while using another. In addition, bilingualism has positive effects at both ends of the age spectrum: Bilingual children as young as seven months can better adjust to environmental changes, while bilingual seniors can experience less cognitive decline.
You seem awfully defensive about the suggestion that it's a laudable goal for an American to master a second language. No one "must" learn mathematics, since we have calculators. But those who show the dedication and determination to master mathematics benefit cognitively from it. The same is true for those who train themselves master second languages.
Es bueno para aprender otro idioma!
Il est bon d'apprendre une autre langue!
Es ist gut, eine andere Sprache zu lernen!
Dobrze jest nauczyć się innego języka!
Nó là tốt để học một ngôn ngữ khác!
You seem awfully defensive about the suggestion that it's a laudable goal for an American to master a second language. No one "must" learn mathematics, since we have calculators. But those who show the dedication and determination to master mathematics benefit cognitively from it. The same is true for those who train themselves master second languages.
Es bueno para aprender otro idioma!
Il est bon d'apprendre une autre langue!
Es ist gut, eine andere Sprache zu lernen!
Dobrze jest nauczyć się innego języka!
Nó là tốt để học một ngôn ngữ khác!
16
As someone that can read Russian and Chinese, I can tell you you have no idea what you are missing. Language are incredibly complex and unless you learn the language and have access to native speaker to explain the subtleties, you are just reading the translator's work and not the author's.
Taking the word "friend". In Chinese it is 朋友 and друг in Russian. Sounds easy right. Check any dictionary and that's the first translation. What you won't get is due to historical differences, friend in Russian is more akin to confidant in English and English friend is akin to acquaintance in Chinese. And with their different meaning in different language, the expection of a friend also changes. Other differences are even more jarring so you'd understand why I don't bother with translated work.
A footnote. If you start reading foreign work and media, don't expect the US to be portrayed the same in American work.
Taking the word "friend". In Chinese it is 朋友 and друг in Russian. Sounds easy right. Check any dictionary and that's the first translation. What you won't get is due to historical differences, friend in Russian is more akin to confidant in English and English friend is akin to acquaintance in Chinese. And with their different meaning in different language, the expection of a friend also changes. Other differences are even more jarring so you'd understand why I don't bother with translated work.
A footnote. If you start reading foreign work and media, don't expect the US to be portrayed the same in American work.
Your Google translator is on the blink.
This is wonderful news. My family is from Belarus, and my grandmother maintained contact with a sister. We found the letters years after her death. In the last one, the sister wrote, "Everyone is gone." The Nazis and then the Soviets had wiped everything out. I wrote to that address, and miraculously found the sister's granddaughter. When I think of all that was lost! Ms. Alexievich has done a beautiful thing by giving voices to this. As for it not being literature, consider how Tom Wolfe blends reporting and storytelling. Every great writer starts with real material.
92
Belarus was part of the Soviet Union and before that, Russian Empire and before that Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, so your statement cannot be historically accurate. It would be akin to a Frenchman saying the German and then Free France wiped everything out in France.
And here we are sitting in the good ol' states of 'Murica not having read a word of or even having an idea of a great author such as Alexievich or Tagore or Naipaul. It is because we are arrogant and I do not know why it is so or how we became such a society. If the whole world says kilometers we will go the other way and use 'miles' if the other nations do not want to participate in war we destabilize nations so badly that they are sucked in, if someone else raises a voice and tries to be different we blame them for inciting a cold-war era instability and then go on to sign the Trans Pacific Trade agreement acting like a big bully playing popularity games in a class full of teenagers trying to make our enemies bleed in some other passive aggressive fashion. We have no idea about the outside world, heck we haven't traveled outside our county ever. Our idea of international travel is going to Miami and any mention of a foreign artist or author or film is quickly discarded because there is odd sense of superiority in us that convinces us that international entities are not worth our time.
9
Can you please speak for yourself?
11
Then if you find it so unpalatable here why not leave for someplace more to your liking? It's said that people who complain without providing solutions are part of the problem.
Atlas shrugged...and so did I.
2
If Atlas Shrugged is your bar for your consideration of of literary work, your comment is apt, Carlos.
1
What a splendid, simple quote: "We never wanted to be what has become of us today"...
12
Some of the most interesting writing I've read has been that of Nobel prize winners; interesting because of the quality of the writing and the storytelling but also, often, for the look at another world or culture. (The books of Naguib Mahfouz are probably my favorite.) Most of it has been by writers I didn't know about until the prize was awarded. I look forward to reading Ms. Alexievich's work and to continuing to learn from the choices made in awarding the Nobel prize in literature.
20
Surely, Truman Capote deserves recognition for bringing more reporting direct into literature with his non-fictional novel "In Cold Blood"?
6
Capote's book deserves to be known as non-fictionalish..
Capote’s Co-conspirators
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/capotes-co-conspirators
Capote’s Co-conspirators
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/capotes-co-conspirators
3
Yes. "Non-fictional-ish" is more accurate.
For literature, it's never "Just the facts, Ma'm!" At its best, it aims for more. And some imagined facts can help. Are imagined facts untrue?
For literature, it's never "Just the facts, Ma'm!" At its best, it aims for more. And some imagined facts can help. Are imagined facts untrue?
1
I appreciate and respect this choice. And because I was not aware of her work, I take this opportunity to read it.
I regret many of the comments I am reading below that have disparaged the choice. That attitude only reflects the parochialism of the U.S. literary and cultural mindset. And in some case, quite possibly, a bias against women.
Next year would the Nobel Committee please recognize Elena Ferrante?
I regret many of the comments I am reading below that have disparaged the choice. That attitude only reflects the parochialism of the U.S. literary and cultural mindset. And in some case, quite possibly, a bias against women.
Next year would the Nobel Committee please recognize Elena Ferrante?
65
I believe it was George Bernard Shaw who said that it wasn't bad enough that Alfred Nobel had given the world dynamite, he also had to give it the Nobel Prizes.
7
The author of this comment is, I'm sure, personally familiar with the risks and arduous work Ms. Alexeivich took to produce her books.
11
How strikingly shallow and parochial almost all of the comments on Alexievich's win are. Most Americans, alas, can only read one language, so are always shocked and dismayed whenever a non-anglophone writer wins, boldly maintaining that such a person could not possibly be as good as, for example, local favorite Philip Roth (who has certainly written some excellent novels, but also some godawful tripe). The laments that a non-fiction writer won also betray a spectacular ignorance of the history of the prize. (Do the names Winston Churchill, Henri Bergson and Bertrand Russell ring a bell? They all won for Literature.) I haven't read Ms. Alexievich's work yet myself, but her name is well-known among all those interested in Russian belle-lettres, and I've now ordered several of her books from my favorite online Russian retailer.
35
Thank you, Nobel Committee, for choosing to introduce me to voices have not had the privilege to hear before rather than merely choosing to amplify those of the brilliant but familiar friends already inhabiting my bookshelves.
27
Ms. Alexievich should thank Vladimir Putin for her Nobel. This award is a political statement by the committee in opposition to Putin's invasion of Crimea, attacks on Ukraine, etc. By highlighting a journalist who records and transcribes accounts of past Soviet/Russia misdeeds the Nobel committee is seeking to demonstrate a continuity between the USSR and Putin's Russia. Whatever the validity of their political statement, the criteria for this year's award do not center on literary merit. Ms. Alexievich is an unknown in Europe as well as the US, not to mention Asia which has seen hardly any of its authors recognized by a Nobel.
6
Have you actually read her work?
16
And have you read the work of every literary writer nominated who was passed over in favor of this politically-approved journalist?
4
yes
2
It certainly sounds like she has done and is doing important work. I do wish the prize leaned more toward recognizing the artistic than the political, but we all have these grumblings every year someone we consider obscure wins. We should remember that Alice Munro, a very well known writer in the English language. won only a couple years ago. And that was not a political choice at all from what I can recall.
Congrats to Ms. Alexievich. I hope this prize brings more attention to her work and the subjects of her work.
Congrats to Ms. Alexievich. I hope this prize brings more attention to her work and the subjects of her work.
9
Who? Thus continues the Nobel Prize committee's agenda of promoting obscure liberal writers most people have never read, or even heard of. It has been many years since I realized that the Nobel prize for literature means almost nothing to the vast majority of Americans. Sure, it is our world-class egotism and provincialism at work in my dismissal, but, I mean, come on, Chernobyl and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? A few old Russian scholars might be interested in what Ms. Alexievich wrote, but even for them, this stuff is old news. I'm happy for her that her life's work has been validated, and that she now has a great retirement ahead of her, but am otherwise uninterested and unimpressed with this prize.
9
If you are calling her a liberal writer, you certainly have not read her work. Her remaining obscure and untranslated might have something to do with living in Belarus. But on the whole, the point is that while these issues are "old news" and of little interest to many, the social after effects of the events she covers are going on to this day.
10
Mr. Robin P Little,
Chernobyl was a nuclear disaster, of potential interest to those near such power plants. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has so much to do with American history - it is possible to gain valuable insight from viewing events from another perspective, no?
Chernobyl was a nuclear disaster, of potential interest to those near such power plants. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has so much to do with American history - it is possible to gain valuable insight from viewing events from another perspective, no?
5
" ... I mean, come on, Chernobyl and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? A few old Russian scholars might be interested in what Ms. Alexievich wrote, but even for them this stuff is old news ..."
This is massively ridiculous. Imagine someone writing: I mean, come on, some Greek guy 3000 years ago pouting in his tent? And another one lost at sea trying to get back to his minor little island? A few old Greek scholars might be interested ... Or: What? Some Danish prince depressed over his father's murder by his uncle? 500 years ago? Old news, who cares? Or: Whaling? Dead and gone industry! Albino whale? A few animal-rights hippies or musty old biologists might be interested. But I'm unimpressed. Three Russian aristocrats and one accused of patricide? Snooze button for me!!! And some guy thinks he's a giant bug? Well, good for him and his retirement, but I'm not interested.
Another quote from the writer fits: " ... our world-class egotism and provincialism."
This is massively ridiculous. Imagine someone writing: I mean, come on, some Greek guy 3000 years ago pouting in his tent? And another one lost at sea trying to get back to his minor little island? A few old Greek scholars might be interested ... Or: What? Some Danish prince depressed over his father's murder by his uncle? 500 years ago? Old news, who cares? Or: Whaling? Dead and gone industry! Albino whale? A few animal-rights hippies or musty old biologists might be interested. But I'm unimpressed. Three Russian aristocrats and one accused of patricide? Snooze button for me!!! And some guy thinks he's a giant bug? Well, good for him and his retirement, but I'm not interested.
Another quote from the writer fits: " ... our world-class egotism and provincialism."
8
Couldn't they have found someone more obscure?
8
Don't you mean formerly obscure?
4
Why is obscurity a reason to exclude someone? A gem is still a gem whether it is on display in a glass case or hidden in the soil. I'm glad the committee searches out the lesser known.
8
Obscure to whom?
6
Ms. Alexievich has captured the most profound and poignant thoughts, emotions and insights possible in her work. The abject horror of the proverbial inhumanity to man by man theme has been captured in her work with an adroitness that few writers in the past hundred years have been able to convey.
A great and deserving choice by the Nobel Prize Selection Group--It is hoped that future choices will be writers with the same depth of conscience and gravitas as Ms. Alexievich.
A great and deserving choice by the Nobel Prize Selection Group--It is hoped that future choices will be writers with the same depth of conscience and gravitas as Ms. Alexievich.
59
I appreciate recognition being given to writers not widely available in English and will look for her books. I wish the Times made a point of annually spotlighting a few such authors in a separate piece in the Book Review, rather than just including them among the many books it reviews.
I am mystified by the claim that her work's heavy reliance on oral history "devised a new kind of literary genre,” Ms. Danius said, adding, “It’s a true achievement not only in material but also in form.”--I look forward to finding out just how different it from Michael Herr's Dispatches, Studs Terkel's Working and the many other oral history based works of the past 40+ years.
I understand the disappointment of fans of Roth, etc. Unfortunately, Nobel literary officials frequently justify their ignoring Updike, Roth, etc, with condescending and sanctimonious comments about American writers and readers not being part of "the conversation", as if the US was similar in location and size to Denmark, rather than an ocean away and the size and more diverse than the entire EU.
How many non Scandanavians are on the committee?
I am mystified by the claim that her work's heavy reliance on oral history "devised a new kind of literary genre,” Ms. Danius said, adding, “It’s a true achievement not only in material but also in form.”--I look forward to finding out just how different it from Michael Herr's Dispatches, Studs Terkel's Working and the many other oral history based works of the past 40+ years.
I understand the disappointment of fans of Roth, etc. Unfortunately, Nobel literary officials frequently justify their ignoring Updike, Roth, etc, with condescending and sanctimonious comments about American writers and readers not being part of "the conversation", as if the US was similar in location and size to Denmark, rather than an ocean away and the size and more diverse than the entire EU.
How many non Scandanavians are on the committee?
4
Suppose Thomas Mann had simply recorded interviews with patients in a mountaintop TB sanitarium...
5
If he had, it would probably have been titled "The Medic Mountain."
And that could be a very interesting book. Why insist on one style, one model, one way for all?
Hearing the "voices" less mediated by the author has its great merits. It can be a very trying and heroic endeavor for the writer to not to impose too much, to not try to be the one consciousness above the rest, to not carry the burden of meaning up the hill all by herself for everyone else.
Hearing the "voices" less mediated by the author has its great merits. It can be a very trying and heroic endeavor for the writer to not to impose too much, to not try to be the one consciousness above the rest, to not carry the burden of meaning up the hill all by herself for everyone else.
1
Then he would have been Doris Lessing, also a Literature Nobelist
I am a bit surprised that this article fails to clearly state which language is Ms. Alexievich writing in. I understand that "her technique of blending journalism and literature was inspired by the Russian tradition of oral storytelling", but is she writing in Belorussian or Russian? Managing Ed, anybody there :))?
1
She writes in Russian, but in high school we used to read her books in Belarusian translation.
2
Belorussian or Russian?
They're like Scottish and English. Sound a little different but mutually understandable.
They're like Scottish and English. Sound a little different but mutually understandable.
Some of the comments criticizing the Nobel committee require ignorance of the fact that Alice Munro won two years ago.
3
You can find some of her works, in English, on her website. http://www.alexievich.info/booksEN.html
11
really, humans - your negative commentary is BEWILDERING!!! GOD forbid we ever talk about any other culture then US of A or privat club of Europe!!!! noone knows how to write anywhere else but the above mentioned two western civilization locations, and history is irrelevant! and what happened during world war and chernobyl is irrelevant!. congratulation you all win the prize for cynicism and narrow mindedness. I am damn proud today that Sveltana got the prize and that YES it will help her to out time aside write more books and be involved in a more international conversation, what is wrong with THAT??
27
It is supposed to be a prize for literature. Even the Times has an article discussing a non-fiction writer winning this - not within the category. that's my issue
Some "commenters" are crying, "politicization".
How could it not be ?
The Nobel Committee is comprised of people.
Politics is comprised of people.
According to my Webster's dictionary, people is derived from the Latin - populus.
Some say, "We've never heard of her".
Well, she hasn't been translated.
Most of us U.S. citizens are mono-lingual.
Need I say more; I think we're missing something.
How could it not be ?
The Nobel Committee is comprised of people.
Politics is comprised of people.
According to my Webster's dictionary, people is derived from the Latin - populus.
Some say, "We've never heard of her".
Well, she hasn't been translated.
Most of us U.S. citizens are mono-lingual.
Need I say more; I think we're missing something.
9
This prize is so political. Awards that single out one writer are ridiculous.
1
Better one than none.
Political: of the polis, the community. Nothing wrong with that.
Political: of the polis, the community. Nothing wrong with that.
She bled for her subjects...
She felt what they felt...
This is the answer...
And Ben Carson has done the same...
She felt what they felt...
This is the answer...
And Ben Carson has done the same...
SB Lewis,
Ben Carson has not "bled" for anyone. He is a shallow, venal, know nothing who would inflict his vapid thought process on the entire Country.
Ben Carson has not "bled" for anyone. He is a shallow, venal, know nothing who would inflict his vapid thought process on the entire Country.
The Lit prize has always been political. Go back to its beginnings; those winners have been out fo print for a hundred years.
2
Have you read work by this or previous winners? Alice Munro, Doris Lessing, Nadine Gorfimer?
2
If you know the history, though, it's contrary to your claim. It started as political, and then switched to aesthetic concerns. Thusly, Faulkner, et. al.
I think this is proof positive that this particular prize has devolved to a mere political tool. It is a sad day. Maybe the next award will be to a Syrian immigrant, eh?
7
I assume your comment is based upon having read her material?
Or not?
Or not?
12
No indictions at all that you have read her work. It sounds to me that she may be a very important writer, one we ought to get to know.
I wouldn't be surprised, by the way, that some Syrian 'immigrant' might write nobel-worthy prose.
I wouldn't be surprised, by the way, that some Syrian 'immigrant' might write nobel-worthy prose.
16
Tools are good. Consideration for the polis, the community, is good. Immigrant writers can also be very fine. Weren't Homer and Aristotle and Thomas Mann and Saul Bellow immigrants?
3
I think this is an example of what makes the Nobel Prize in literature so valuable. People who otherwise would be unknown to a broad public outside of their native countries gain greater recognition and we all learn something. It is always very interesting to see who the wins the award.
108
I doubt that any of us commenters have read a word of Ms. Alexievich's work. I, for one, would like to do so before I pass judgment on it or the Nobel Committee that awarded her the prize. As for not wanting to read about war and suffering, that is a luxury that Americans have that should be voluntarily discarded, considering that so many other places on earth have no choice but to experience war and suffering--often because of the actions of the United States. I'm looking forward to more of Ms. Alexievich's work being translated into English, as I am very interested to read it.
101
I agree that really America hasn't a clue about war and suffering as only two major ones have occurred here (not country the wars against the Native Americans and Mexico), and we have never been invaded. In the early, mid 1800s de Tocqueville came to America and what he had witnessed he reported, I think objectively. One observation of his has stuck with me for decades as I am in total agreement with him. He wrote, and I am paraphrasing: The only tragedy America has suffered is that it has suffered no tragedy. And even though over 150 years has passed, I still think that this is true compared to the rest of the world.
5
"I doubt that any of us commenters have read a word of Ms. Alexievich's work."
I am betting that the Academy members haven't either.
I am betting that the Academy members haven't either.
The Nobel committee couldn't find a novelist? What about Elena Ferrante?
15
Would you have suggested her if she hadn't been subjected to massive media coverage over the last year or so? Just curious.
10
Good question Chris. And the publisher's publicity campaign often drives the media coverage.
Although, Ms. Ferrante is also a deserving, very worthwhile writer.
Although, Ms. Ferrante is also a deserving, very worthwhile writer.
1
Why does it need to have a novelist this year? I love the novel, but it seems amply, perhaps over-represented among the literature laureates. If anything, the scarcity of those working in literary nonfiction is the most notable omission over the years. I suspect Churchill and Russell did receive the Nobel because there was nowhere else to put them, less than for their aesthetic merits. Well, literature is about many things--aesthetics among them, but not the only purpose of literature or art.
Every year the Nobel Prize in Literature seems to slide a little bit further into obscurity. It seems as though this year's winner was more deserving of a Pulitzer for reportage. And while I am on my soapbox, it seems a crime that Norman Mailer did not receive it for his brilliant works of non-fiction (Armies of the Night, Executioners Song as well as his fiction. Or Roth. As a friend said this prize has become a Political prize. Not a serious prize for literature.
7
Oh, please, the Nobel has gone to Eugene O'Neill, William Faulkner, Pearl Buck . . . You don't seriously believe Mailer and Roth are in their league, do you?
17
So you're saying she's too obscure to be good. And I take it you're completely up on the work done by the medicine and physics honorees?
14
I'd rank almost anyone above Pearl Buck. And, yes, I think Philip Roth would be a worthy Nobel winner.
2
Is this to save her from assassination?
9
Nobel Prize in Literature is in its degree of politicization is next only to the Peace Prize. As important as literature in general is, some of the prizes in the 20th and this century have been awarded to authors chosen on the basis of national and ethnic lines. These are not necessarily the ones who write great books.
9
Such as ... ?
1
And you write this having read her body of work, yes?
7
To Al,
The fact that Pearl Buck, a writer who is largely unread these days, won the award, while James Joyce, who is widely considered to have written the greatest novel in the 20th century, didn't says enough.
All the prizes, not just the ones for peace, literature, and, now, economics, have often made very little sense. Of course, no one can beat Henry Kissinger receiving one for the marvelous work he did on the Vietnam War. He supported extending for years a war that a new biography says he knew was already unwinnable in the mid 60's.
The fact that Pearl Buck, a writer who is largely unread these days, won the award, while James Joyce, who is widely considered to have written the greatest novel in the 20th century, didn't says enough.
All the prizes, not just the ones for peace, literature, and, now, economics, have often made very little sense. Of course, no one can beat Henry Kissinger receiving one for the marvelous work he did on the Vietnam War. He supported extending for years a war that a new biography says he knew was already unwinnable in the mid 60's.
1
The news being what it is right now, I just don't have it in me at the moment to pick up a book about war and suffering. Maybe if they had given the prize to Woody Allen I'd feel different.
6
I agree. I'm already reading more than enough about about violence, war and sundry related articles in this paper with which I start my day.
Yes, we are war fatigued in this country, aren't we? We have it rough indeed.
9
I'm not understanding how reporting, no matter how much of a "new literary genre" they call it, can pass for literature. Talk about politically correct? That's why Philip Roth will never win. And how could there be a more complex, beautiful and ultimately human body of work that can compare to him?
16
Try reading her work, and maybe you'll understand how it can pass for literature?
29
But Philip Roth is a reporter, too, only he writes reports on his own body--with emphasis on his penis--and again and again and again.
55
Every year there are numerous comments deriding the committee for not choosing Philip Roth. As long as this armchair quarterbacking is allowed, I'd like to say that I dislike his writing, which seems to be as valid of a comment as the complaints that he did not win.
9
Irrelevant.
3
Its too bad that Mr. Putin didn't read some of these works to get a real sense of the costs of his illusions of Russian greatness. Such are the ironies of life.
19
I fear another symptom of American exceptionalism is an inane belief that we have nothing to learn, or even enjoy, from other nations or cultures. We have no interest in making even their newspapers available, much less their literature. Our ignorance of our world and its history is accordingly abysmal.
131
I don't find that to be a prevalent symptom, personally. There are exceptional things about a lot of nations, including America, but "American exceptionalism" has become a code word for embarrassed Americans trying to make apologies -- it is tossed out as an obviously wrongheaded notion, and ironically as a way of being wrongheaded that Americans are exceptional at, lol! I don't think Americans are that much more ignorant than your average human being, but erudition has rarely been trumpeted as an area of American exceptionalism, anyway.
But this is an article about literature, so I'm going to go read some Walt Whitman, one of the least ignorant, open-minded and big-hearted American exceptionalists of all time. :-)
But this is an article about literature, so I'm going to go read some Walt Whitman, one of the least ignorant, open-minded and big-hearted American exceptionalists of all time. :-)
5
What disappoints me is that Alexievich has been chosen on the basis that she verbalizes exactly the dogma which American imperialists which to be spread: anti-Soviet, and anti-Russian propaganda. It is for this reason I am disappointed to hear the choice of Alexievich lauded as a move from US-centered exceptionalism.
Clearly, the Nobel Prize in Literature sees itself, and is repositioning itself, as a sort of second Nobel Peace Prize, a Nobel for socio-cultural critique. But in its misguided attempt to be relevant, it is becoming irrelevant, both in the literary world and in the wider cultural context. Great literature and great cultural criticism rarely, if ever, intersect. And if the socio-cultural criticism were so good to begin with, it would have won the Peace Prize already.
42
I think it's entirely possible the Nobel committee has political considerations in mind when they select the year's winner. That said, I don't think it's fair to criticize the work of an author you haven't read. I direct this towards some of the comments here that complain this author isn't well-known, etc. Every time I read the author selected for the Nobel prize Im always very impressed by their work.
36
Wallace says: "Great literature and great cultural criticism rarely, if ever, intersect."
That's incredibly wrong. For Russian literature think Doctor Zhivago. For English literature, think most of Charles Dickens, or J.G. Farrell. For American literature, think Joyce Carol Oates, or Upton Sinclair, or John Steinbeck. For German literature, think Christa Wolf. Think Primo Levi, or Solzhenitsyn, or Alan Paton. You could make an argument that most great literature is also great cultural criticism, and it would be at least as true as your opposite assertion.
That's incredibly wrong. For Russian literature think Doctor Zhivago. For English literature, think most of Charles Dickens, or J.G. Farrell. For American literature, think Joyce Carol Oates, or Upton Sinclair, or John Steinbeck. For German literature, think Christa Wolf. Think Primo Levi, or Solzhenitsyn, or Alan Paton. You could make an argument that most great literature is also great cultural criticism, and it would be at least as true as your opposite assertion.
20
almost as crazy as giving Obama (who I support, for the most part) the Peace Prize. I think even he was mystified by that.
3
It will be interesting to see how the regime of her country treats this high honor to a citizen.
Will they stonewall it? Or welcome it?
Will they stonewall it? Or welcome it?
6
I just checked a couple of websites in Minsk. Zvyazda devoted a total of five brief paragraphs to the story. No photograph. The Byelorussian Telegraph Agency, BTA, covered the story in its Russian service, but on the home page of its Byelorussian service, where you would expect this story to appear, not a word. Just the mandatory stories about Lukashenka.
26
Okay, so it looks like the Nobel is on the warpath to atone for its dearth of female laureates. How about next time we give it to an artist who actually creates worlds from her head-- as the Nobel has been doing since its inception-- instead of opening the door to every journalist who pursues the equivalent of literary Oscar-bait? By changing the metric by which these awards are given to accommodate women, which appears to be what they've done here, they're really insulting all the genius female artists who toil to invite us into other worlds. Next year, try again with Marilynne Robinson, Louise Glück, Margaret Atwood, Erica Jong, and Mary Gaitskill in mind. And those are just the English language contenders...
14
Why does awarding this to a non-fiction writer mean they're accommodating women?
35
Margaret Atwood, for sure....
3
They have given it to non-creative writers before. Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russell, etc. Check your facts.
6
Nobody cares about the Nobel Prize anymore, because of its politics that award the rich and powerful nations, and at the same time, undermine contributions from non-Judeo-Christian countries. And especially when the fact is that Kissinger got a Nobel Prize and Gandhi didn't.
There are many such egregious inclusions and exclusions.
Yet, Nobel in literature is one award that some people still take seriously. But there also, we see a pattern: literature and poetry and the voices of the non-Western countries and their struggles are constantly bypassed -- year after year, and decade after decade. As if they do not exist.
As if we should not give them any importance at all. On purpose!
Lack of good English translation? That's a lie. I can send you major books: translations done from renowned scholars. Example? Prof. Gayatri Chakraborty Spivak's translation of Bengali woman writer Mahashweta Devi. There are many others.
What a real travesty the Nobel Prize has become!
There are many such egregious inclusions and exclusions.
Yet, Nobel in literature is one award that some people still take seriously. But there also, we see a pattern: literature and poetry and the voices of the non-Western countries and their struggles are constantly bypassed -- year after year, and decade after decade. As if they do not exist.
As if we should not give them any importance at all. On purpose!
Lack of good English translation? That's a lie. I can send you major books: translations done from renowned scholars. Example? Prof. Gayatri Chakraborty Spivak's translation of Bengali woman writer Mahashweta Devi. There are many others.
What a real travesty the Nobel Prize has become!
1
Gandhi getting a Nobel would have been a honor. For the Nobel Prize. Gandhi did not need, or ever cared for, such laurels.
Anyways, the Nobel Committee tried to atone for its omission in a roundabout way by not awarding the Peace Nobel to anyone the year Gandhiji died.
Anyways, the Nobel Committee tried to atone for its omission in a roundabout way by not awarding the Peace Nobel to anyone the year Gandhiji died.
7
Mo Yan, Gao Xingjian, Orhan Pamuk...
9
Wait a minute...do you really mean that Belarus is a Western country? Also, you seem to have forgotten Mo Yan, Mario Vargas Llosa, Orhan Pamuk, V.S. Naipul, Gao Xingjian, Kenzaburo Oe, Octavio Paz, Derek Walcott...
12
I can't believe Philip Roth was passed over-- again. What a crime.
20
unfortunately, I think he is too controversial. It is a travesty.
5
Far too controversial and demanding an imaginative effort on the part of the reader.
4
Roth's a fine candidate, but I think you'll find that the sort of carnivalesque viewpoint offered in his work is typically given short shrift by the committee.
hopefully this will expand greatly the universe of people that read her work. Congrats.
47
Sadly, her work is not well represented at Amazon, which at the moment seems to have a single used copy of "War's Unwomanly Face" for $2,264 (you read that right).
Americans always express surprise at these "European writers who were not widely read in English," but that's because most publishers (Graywolf and a few others excepted) are just profit-generating machines. In a media-driven era, you'd think we'd have more ways to learn about international writers.
I also wonder whether copyright laws discourage the proliferation of translations. I produce a weekly radio program for reading writers with literary aims who are exemplars of free expression, and although we're volunteers on a community station (but with a university audience) and nobody makes money from our program, we have a terrible time trying to get permission to read copyrighted works—though our intention is to help build an audience for lesser known and neglected writers who have important things to say. Would love to have multi-voiced readings from Alexievich's "Voices" books.
Americans always express surprise at these "European writers who were not widely read in English," but that's because most publishers (Graywolf and a few others excepted) are just profit-generating machines. In a media-driven era, you'd think we'd have more ways to learn about international writers.
I also wonder whether copyright laws discourage the proliferation of translations. I produce a weekly radio program for reading writers with literary aims who are exemplars of free expression, and although we're volunteers on a community station (but with a university audience) and nobody makes money from our program, we have a terrible time trying to get permission to read copyrighted works—though our intention is to help build an audience for lesser known and neglected writers who have important things to say. Would love to have multi-voiced readings from Alexievich's "Voices" books.
132
Check the used books offered on the Amazon pages for Alexievich. For under $10 you can find copies of Voices from Chernobyl and Zinky Boys for starters. I have generally found the used books offered to be a good deal and in decent condition if you are just interesting in reading, not collecting, them.
5
Um... the author is question has a book currently in print that was published by Macmillan. http://www.amazon.com/Voices-Chernobyl-History-Nuclear-Disaster/dp/03124...
1
Since when does copyright law prevent something from being read on the radio?