Has anyone read Svetlana Alexievich? Is she good? What should I start with?
>>8080170
she is not really a writer, she is a journalist
she didnt even write the book she won the prize for... its an oral history
its like me interviewing faulkner and winning the nobel prize for it
Let's get this shit rolling
>womemes
her winning the nobel prize is like if a heckler yelled something at a stand up comic, and the comic made a brilliant retort, and then everybody after the show congratulated the heckler on the amazing joke
her winning the nobel prize is like if i threw a basketball up in the air and lebron james dunked it and then i was on the cover of nba 2k
>>8080256
So you're sayign... /lit/ is smart like Peter to question the reverence people have for stupid crap, while the NObel Prize in Literature committee is dumb like Mummy?
>>8080256
I've asked this before, is the painting in this picture real, and what's it called? I like it a lot.
>>8080439
Im pretty sure all paintings from that book are real
>>8080446
Her books are collections of interviews with people. They're not actually written by her. She is more like an editor than an actual writer. This isn't a bad thing in itself, but winning a literature prize for it is kind if silly.
>>8080458
Aha, I see, doesn't this stuff happen all the time, though?
>>8080464
IDK, maybe.
Literally who?
Name one nobel winner who isn't shit
>>8080543
If you pay attention to the gd nobel przie in literature, like I would assume most people on the LITERATURE board do, then you fucking know...
>>8080548
like 75% of them at least. the best is probably Beckett
>>8080548
They used to give it to real authors. Hemingway, Eliot, Faulkner, Yeats, Mann.
>>8080170
>Svetlana Alexievich?
What she said bad about Russia? She criticize Putin? I believe the only way for Russian writer win this contest
>>8080603
You only recognize them as real authors because they're so thoroughly established members of the canon. What "real authors" who deserve the prize would you say are living today?
>>8080627
pynchmeister
>>8080614
Ya, but you already knew that, but you already knew that, but you already knew that...
>>8080631
I agree, but they'd probably refuse to give him the prize because of the content of his books.
>>8080614
She's Belarusian apparently
>>8080637
definitely why, has he even been nominated?
>>8080640
I don't konw, but I'm pretty sure they've given the prize to peopel with just as bad or worse content in their books. Someone said that about Elfriede Jelinek I think
>>8080627
gene wolfe :^)
>>8080429
no, I'm saying Peter is a little shit that might have been diddled by his uncle and thinks he is imaginative and has a sliver of originality and foresight.
>>8080548
Heaney
>Tell Putin he's a stupid doo doo head
>Win the Nobel
>>8080170
Chernobyl was excellent, and there is clear literary style involved.
Also, the nobel isnt for "best literature" its for moving literature in an ideal direction, and taking an oral history of a population that is dying quickly of cancer and putting it in really beautiful prose and editng it well is certainly viable.
>>8080603
They also gave it to Churchill, who basically wrote old fashioned general narrative histories, biographies, and memoirs.
I havent seen many people who have said they actually read the book on this board disagree that it wasnt a nobel worthy effort in social history.
>>8080548
Patrick Modiano won it last year, he's not total shit.
>>8082622
>in an ideology direction
fixed
>>8082707
Fucking christ at least use the correct fucking adjective form of the word. Even though you're right
>>8082707
But the book wasnt ideological unless it contains criticism of USSR policy, which is an old subject.
Chernobyl is all about human suffering.
>>8082838
What are you talking about, criticism of USSR policy (at the time) is inherent to the subject, it's far from being the focal point but officials and scientists are interviewed
