Survey 3
Tom Reedy
published within the past 25 years?
TR
Poul Chowdley
Tom Reedy wrote in message
<5d776a67.02052...@posting.google.com>...
>In your opinion, what is the absolute best work of fiction first
>published within the past 25 years?
>TR
Nelson's biography of Oxford.
---Poul Chowdley
bookburn
"Tom Reedy" <tree...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5d776a67.02052...@posting.google.com...
The Nobel Prize for Literature Committee is the only
world-recognized authority covering all languages annually, so
logically the best work of fiction should be a work by one of the
following named NPL winners, unless you decide they didn't write
fiction or wrote the work earlier. (Anyone who can name a
published work by 5 of the 25 should get an invitation to play on
Jeopardy. Anyone who can name more than 8 works, and has
actually read them, should get a seat on the NPL Committee,
Swedish or not.;-) bookburn
2001
V. S. NAIPAUL for having united perceptive narrative and
incorruptible scrutiny in works that compel us to see the
presence of suppressed histories.
2000
GAO XINGJIAN for an oeuvre of universal validity, bitter insights
and linguistic ingenuity, which has opened new paths for the
Chinese novel and drama.
1999
GUNTER GRASS whose frolicsome black fables portray the forgotten
face of history.
1998
JOSE SARAMAGO who with parables sustained by imagination,
compassion and irony continually enables us once again to
apprehend an elusory reality.
1997
DARIO FO who emulates the jesters of the Middle Ages in scourging
authority and upholding the dignity of the downtrodden.
1996
WISLAWA SZYMBORSKA for poetry that with ironic precision allows
the historical and biological context to come to light in
fragments of human reality.
1995
SEAMUS HEANEY for works of lyrical beauty and ethical depth,
which exalt everyday miracles and the living past.
1994
KENZABURO OE who with poetic force creates an imagined world,
where life and myth condense to form a disconcerting picture of
the human predicament today.
1993
TONI MORRISON who in novels characterized by visionary force and
poetic import, gives life to an essential aspect of American
reality.
1992
DEREK WALCOTT for a poetic oeuvre of great luminosity, sustained
by a historical vision, the outcome of a multicultural
commitment.
1991
NADINE GORDIMER who through her magnificent epic writing has - in
the words of Alfred Nobel - been of very great benefit to
humanity.
1990
OCTAVIO PAZ for impassioned writing with wide horizons,
characterized by sensuous intelligence and humanistic integrity.
1989
CAMILO JOSÉ CELA for a rich and intensive prose, which with
restrained compassion forms a challenging vision of man's
vulnerability.
1988
NAGUIB MAHFOUZ who, through works rich in nuance-now
clearsightedly realistic, now evocatively ambigous-has formed an
Arabian narrative art that applies to all mankind.
1987
JOSEPH BRODSKY for an all-embracing authorship, imbued with
clarity of thought and poetic intensity
1986
WOLE SOYINKA who in a wide cultural perspective and with poetic
overtones fashions the drama of existence.
1985
CLAUDE SIMON who in his novel combines the poet's and the
painter's creativeness with a deepened awareness of time in the
depiction of the human condition.
1984
JAROSLAV SEIFERT for his poetry which endowed with freshness,
sensuality and rich inventiveness provides a liberating image of
the indomitable spirit and versatility of man.
1983
SIR WILLIAM GOLDING for his novels which, with the perspicuity of
realistic narrative art and the diversity and universality of
myth, illuminate the human condition in the world of today.
1982
GABRIEL GARCÍA MÁRQUEZ for his novels and short stories, in which
the fantastic and the realistic are combined in a richly composed
world of imagination, reflecting a continent's life and
conflicts.
1981
ELIAS CANETTI for writings marked by a broad outlook, a wealth of
ideas and artistic power.
1980
CZESLAW MILOSZ who with uncompromising clear-sightedness voices
man's exposed condition in a world of severe conflicts.
1979
ODYSSEUS ELYTIS (pen-name of ODYSSEUS ALEPOUDHELIS ), for his
poetry, which, against the background of Greek tradition, depicts
with sensuous strength and intellectual clear-sightedness modern
man's struggle for freedom and creativeness.
1978
ISAAC BASHEVIS SINGER for his impassioned narrative art which,
with roots in a Polish-Jewish cultural tradition, brings
universal human conditions to life.
1977
VICENTE ALEIXANDRE for a creative poetic writing which
illuminates man's condition in the cosmos and in present-day
society, at the same time representing the great renewal of the
traditions of Spanish poetry beween the wars.
DerColin
I suppose if I were to pick the "best", I might opt for Derek Walcott's
"Omeros."
If I were to pick my favorite, today I might pick Joanna Trollope's "The Men
And The Girls," which nicely updates the 19th century English potboiler (if I
may call it that) style. (Her novel, "The Choir", very consciously updates her
ancestor Anthony's first novel, "The Warden" -- marking a continuity of
concerns and institutions, and seeing the change from within those realities,
rather than imagining this a fresh new world, as many choose to do -- and so
lose an appreciation for the power of the past.) She is an intelligent writer,
though her books vary in quality. And there is not the poetry one often looks
for in a novel. Still, the characters are sharp and the world convincing, and
the meanings worth looking at.
That's today. But tomorrow, who knows what I might pick.
Christian Lanciai
Sorry, Bookburn, but this is totally out, since it is proved
statistically and historically that all the best authors never receive
nobel prizes, for instance Joseph Conrad, James Joyce, Leo Tolstoy,
Anton Tchekhov, Maxim Gorky, Stefan Zweig, Bertolt Brecht, Eric Maria
Remarque, Karen Blixen, Lion Feuchtwanger, Jack London, Robert Graves,
Graham Greene, James Hilton, James Joyce, Franz Kafka, Henrik Ibsen,
Tennessee Williams, Eugene O'Neill, Jules Verne, Émile Zola, and so
on and on, practically all the best and most lasting authors were
never honoured by any Nobel acknowledgement from the Swedish Academy
(called ironically 'Académie Nobel' in France,) so that criterion is
not very reliable.
My vote for the best fiction of the last 25 years would be Ken
Follett's "The Pillars of the Earth" - only, I am slightly unsure
whether it was written in time?
Chris
Bob Grumman
> published within the past 25 years?
> TR
I'll admit to not being on top of contemporary fiction I'm not sure
that I've read a single Important Work of Fiction published within
the past 25 years. But maybe Jake's Women (Kingsley Amis, but I may
have the title wrong) is the best novel from that time I remember
having read (if it wasn't published earlier). I've read Updike and
not thought much of his work, and all the English-speaking nobelists;
and Pynchon (sp?), who bores me extremely. I can't think of a
culturally ambitious novel of the past 25 years that I read and thought
anything of, but I may not have read more than a few. I haven't read
anything by Reedy.
--Bob G.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Geralyn Horton
>
> The Nobel Prize for Literature Committee is the only
> world-recognized authority covering all languages annually, so
> logically the best work of fiction should be a work by one of the
> following named NPL winners, unless you decide they didn't write
> fiction or wrote the work earlier. (Anyone who can name a
> published work by 5 of the 25 should get an invitation to play on
> Jeopardy. Anyone who can name more than 8 works, and has
> actually read them, should get a seat on the NPL Committee,
> Swedish or not.
Surely you exaggerate? Or do you only count a fiction as
"read" if it is read in the original language? Because I
have read 26 works by the listed authors, and I am not
aparticulary avid reader of contemporary fiction and poetry.
More relevantly, I have seen the plays of the 3 playwrights
on the list: 7 productions of Fo, 6 of Walcott (only because
he teaches in Boston and is produced here) and one of Soyinka.
I can't nominate a single "best" work. My personal favorite
body of novels is Iris Murdoch's, particularly "The Sea, the
Sea", "The Black Prince" "the Book and the Brotherhood" and
"The Good Apprentice", but "Best"? I can't even name a Best
Shakes Play. My favorites change as my life changes: what
work could be equally relevant to all the people all the
time?
Geralyn Horton
http://www.stagepage.org
g.l.h...@mindspring.com
Geralyn Horton
But maybe Jake's Women (Kingsley Amis, but I may
> have the title wrong)
That title is a play by Neil Simon.
--
Bob Grumman
> But maybe Jake's Women (Kingsley Amis, but I may
> > have the title wrong)
> That title is a play by Neil Simon.
Yes, I remember that I thought Simon's play might be some kind of
adaptation of Amis. But it turns out that I was thinking of
Stanley and the Women and Jake's Thing, both of which I enjoyed but
no longer can remember well enough to say which was the one I
preferred, although I think it was Stanley and the Women.
Thanks, Geralyn, for making me go look at my bookshelves, a task
I'm too often too lazy to do.
--Bob G.
bookburn
> bookburn wrote:
> >
> > The Nobel Prize for Literature Committee is the only
> > world-recognized authority covering all languages annually, so
> > logically the best work of fiction should be a work by one of the
> > following named NPL winners, unless you decide they didn't write
> > fiction or wrote the work earlier. (Anyone who can name a
> > published work by 5 of the 25 should get an invitation to play on
> > Jeopardy. Anyone who can name more than 8 works, and has
> > actually read them, should get a seat on the NPL Committee,
> > Swedish or not.
>
> Surely you exaggerate? Or do you only count a fiction as
> "read" if it is read in the original language?
Surely you are putting me on; aren't you? I doubt if ANY of the NPLC
read all the works in the original language or ALL could read even one
of the more exotic ones. I'm sure they deligate the reading to staff
members and decide on their reports. Personally, I am awed by anyone
who can even read these authors' names plus spell and pronounce them
correctly, although I hear this is done by those expressly prepping to
take SATs, CETs, GREs, etc.
> Because I
> have read 26 works by the listed authors, and I am not
> aparticulary avid reader of contemporary fiction and poetry.
I think I have read several works by a few of the authors, but not
amounting to more than a dozen in all. Half the time, I have to start
reading a book before I remember I already read it, because I don't
keep track.
I think there is room to argue that these books don't represent
"contemporary fiction and poetry" at all. Are you sure you meant
that?
> More relevantly, I have seen the plays of the 3 playwrights
> on the list: 7 productions of Fo, 6 of Walcott (only because
> he teaches in Boston and is produced here) and one of Soyinka.
This is awesome, and I would take a lesson from you on how relevant
their works are. I keep looking at C-SPAN2, "Booknotes," to get up to
speed with literaria. Somehow, Nobel Prize Winners don't seem to have
much currency with bookmen.
> I can't nominate a single "best" work. My personal favorite
> body of novels is Iris Murdoch's, particularly "The Sea, the
> Sea", "The Black Prince" "the Book and the Brotherhood" and
> "The Good Apprentice", but "Best"? I can't even name a Best
> Shakes Play. My favorites change as my life changes: what
> work could be equally relevant to all the people all the
> time?
Yes, time and literature; I remember a book by that title; by Hans
Zinser, I think--a mystical German who supposed literature involved in
the reader a sort of specious moment, outside of time, in which
identity is renewed.
bookburn
Sabyha
I really can't decide on a nomination for best fiction written in the past 25
years. I have always enjoyed reading non-fiction and it is only in the past
five years I have started gaining joy from reading fiction.
Cheers
Jodie
Jodie - Australia
http://members.aol.com/powtied/power1.html
Power of Will
bookburn
> > body of novels is Iris Murdoch's, particularly "The Sea, the
> > Sea", "The Black Prince" "the Book and the Brotherhood" and
> > "The Good Apprentice", but "Best"? I can't even name a Best
> > Shakes Play. My favorites change as my life changes: what
> > work could be equally relevant to all the people all the
> > time?
>
> Yes, time and literature; I remember a book by that title; by
Hans
> Zinser, I think--a mystical German who supposed literature
involved in
> the reader a sort of specious moment, outside of time, in which
> identity is renewed.
Correction: I remember now that Hans Zinsser is another man who
wrote *Rats, Lice and Hisstory,* so Time and Literature was by
someone else, now out of print. So it goes.
bookburn
>
> bookburn
> >
> > Geralyn Horton
> > http://www.stagepage.org
> > g.l.h...@mindspring.com
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 5/24/02
Christian Lanciai
> Who said, in one of their posts, "The Pillars of the Earth"? I love that book.
>
I did. Here's another one: "The Far Pavilions" by M.M.Kaye. I thought
it was older than 25 years, but I just discovered it was actually
first published in 1978, so it's just within the verge.
Another one that I would have liked to suggest would have been John
Fowles' "The French Lieutenant's Woman", that wonderful and successful
effort to revive the classical novel, but unfortunately it falls out -
it was published in 1969.
Cheers!
Chris
Sabyha
I will try and give those two a read. Of course, when I hear, "The French
Lieutenant's Woman", I automatically think of Meryl Streep.
>Christian Lanciai)
>Date: 31/05/02 7:31 am E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <7e67b43b.02053...@posting.google.com>
>
>sab...@aol.com (Sabyha) wrote in message
>news:<20020530091534...@mb-fq.aol.com>...
>> Who said, in one of their posts, "The Pillars of the Earth"? I love that
>book.
>
>I did. Here's another one: "The Far Pavilions" by M.M.Kaye. I thought
>it was older than 25 years, but I just discovered it was actually
>first published in 1978, so it's just within the verge.
>
>Another one that I would have liked to suggest would have been John
>Fowles' "The French Lieutenant's Woman", that wonderful and successful
>effort to revive the classical novel, but unfortunately it falls out -
>it was published in 1969.
>
>Cheers!
>
>Chris
>
>
>>
>> I really can't decide on a nomination for best fiction written in the past
>25
>> years. I have always enjoyed reading non-fiction and it is only in the
>past
>> five years I have started gaining joy from reading fiction.
Jodie - Australia
Bob Grumman
> their works are. I keep looking at C-SPAN2, "Booknotes," to get up to
> speed with literaria. Somehow, Nobel Prize Winners don't seem to have
> much currency with bookmen.
I've stopped for a few minutes at Booknotes ten or twenty times
and never saw anyone I'd consider a "bookman" on it. I tend to
group together the Booknoters, mass-media book reviewers, the
Nobel Prize people, etc., as middle-brow. I prefer the lower-brow
books to what they discuss--Larry Block's, for instance. The serious
books I admire rarely get mentioned anywhere except in letters between
their authors. But every once in a while the Nobel committee gets
it right--if the author has been around long enough. Or for the
wrong reason--Yeats probably getting the prize as a way of slapping
England, and/or for his politics rather than his writing. And a
writer can appeal to all the brows, like Dickens, Frost and
Shakespeare--or to none and still be terrific like ME.
bookburn
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
news:9123364872dcc749bbb...@mygate.mailgate.org..
.
It's not easy to argue about "bookmen" with someone who
classifies Nobel Prize people as "middle-brow," then admits to a
low-brow preference that somehow includes the serious and
admirable. What the high-brow fiction group represents I'm
afraid to ask: is it science-fiction? laughter of the gods on
Olympus?
bookburn
> --Bob G.
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Christian Lanciai
> Thanks, Christian.
>
> I will try and give those two a read. Of course, when I hear, "The French
> Lieutenant's Woman", I automatically think of Meryl Streep.
>
Meryl Streep made an excellent interpretation of the main protagonist,
but unfortunately that film was ruined by the addition of a "modern
story", which had nothing to do with anything in the book. Critics
also agreed, that the "old story" of the film was excellent while the
modern story was a failure.
The book, of course, tells only the "old story".
yours,
Chris
Bob Grumman
> classifies Nobel Prize people as "middle-brow," then admits to a
> low-brow preference that somehow includes the serious and
> admirable.
No. I believe that the serious and admirable can sometimes include
a level that appeals to low-brow tastes. I like some purely
low-brow stuff--well-made genre fiction without the axes to grind
that the middle-brow require fiction to have before they can claim
to admire it. Here's sort of the way I look at it: low-brow =
aesthetically-simple stories and little else; middle-brow = stories
with Important Meanings; high-brow = aesthetically-complex stories
and little else.
> What the high-brow fiction group represents I'm
> afraid to ask: is it science-fiction? laughter of the gods on
> Olympus?
> bookburn
I think I gave a rough definition when I spoke of "the
serious books I admire (that) rarely get mentioned anywhere
except in letters between their authors." This would include lots
of bad books, too. I'm behind in high-brow fiction but would
assume it to be the equivalent of what I call "burst-norm poetry,"
which--to sum it up very roughly--consists of "language poetry"
and poetry that makes significant use of other expressive modes
besides words. I did just get two new books of what I'd call
high-brow fiction, one short stories by Stephen-Paul Martin, and one
a short novel that includes complete short stories as part of its
"plot" by Greg Boyd. Jump-cut and surrealism. Greg published both.
Booknoters won't mention either for at least four decades, I'm sure,
though they don't seem alarmingly different to me.
bookburn
Your critical emphasis seems to be on how the individual reader is
affected, which leaves open the possibility that some books in low,
middle, and high brow might appeal for certain reasons outside these
categories. This seems basically in the same ballpark as Horton's
caveat that her tastes are changing/evolving.
I notice the Nobel Prize Committee comments on winners tend to
recognize what is universal, culturally elevating, and/or successful
experiments in genre. Shakespeare seems to meet those standards, and
at the same time appealed to popular taste for spectacle, wit,
tear-the-cat violence, and bawdy, although high-brows in the reserved
seats complain of low-brow stuff. Must be the low-brow groundlings'
critical "stink" was a more immediate concern to the actor-players
evolution of a production, and they could have moveable scenes,
depending on how it played at the time. (I just looked at a DVD of
"Stigmata," which has alternative endings, one by the director.)
bookburn
Bob Grumman
> affected, which leaves open the possibility that some books in low,
> middle, and high brow might appeal for certain reasons outside these
> categories. This seems basically in the same ballpark as Horton's
> caveat that her tastes are changing/evolving.
Yes, more or less.
> I notice the Nobel Prize Committee comments on winners tend to
> recognize what is universal, culturally elevating, and/or successful
> experiments in genre.
I'm not sure they know what they're doing rather than just
issuing platitudes to go with the money they give away.
> Shakespeare seems to meet those standards,
Not so sure about "experiments in genre"--by which I mean I don't
think he tried anything truly innovative. But what seem small
innovations now may have been huge then, and we still don't know
who really did what back then in the way of introducing techniques.
> and at the same time appealed to popular taste for spectacle, wit,
> tear-the-cat violence, and bawdy, although high-brows in the reserved
> seats complain of low-brow stuff. Must be the low-brow groundlings'
> critical "stink" was a more immediate concern to the actor-players
> evolution of a production, and they could have moveable scenes,
> depending on how it played at the time. (I just looked at a DVD of
> "Stigmata," which has alternative endings, one by the director.)
> bookburn
I pretty much agree--except that here what you call "high-brows," I
would call booknoters.
Caveat: I am, as I hope's obvious, treating this thread as a bs
session, so won't promise to stand by anything I say.