I've been avoiding her books but being a Polish I tried to appreciate her writings when she got the Nobel. I found her style technically very good, but nothing special (compared to other Polish literary giants like Miłosz, Szulz or Lem). The bigger issue for me was the contents - it was over-intellectualized and lacking in meaning; a classical triumph of form over content.
The best Polish female writer I've read is Maria Dąbrowska and her amazing book "Nights and Days". Something like Polish "The Forsyte Saga".
To be honest her books are simply boring. Nobel prize in literature used to mean something, but recently it isn’t about literature anymore, it’s about “who furthers progressive-left agenda the most?”
I agree about the boring part. I'm Pole and hold all previous Polish Nobel winners in high regard, but, when it was announced that Tokarczuk got it, me and my friends were shocked. Her books are such shallow crap, compared to works of the greats who got the prize before, it's just baffling.
The same Nobel prize that was given to Peter Handke in 2019? I like Handke's work an awful lot, as I do Tokarczuk's, but he's certainly not someone who furthers any "progressive-left agenda".
It's useless to discuss the "boring" aspect as it's completely subjective, but right-left is very easy to explain. When you look at modern art (the last 50 years or more), it is extremely difficult to find right-wing artists. They definitely exist, but they are outnumbered by those who don't show any political affiliation or those who are openly left.
It's quite natural: the left in general is more about the freedom of expression, "progress" as in finding new ways, whereas the right is by nature conservative, so it's harder to make new breakthroughs in art.
it is extremely difficult to find right-wing artists
Perhaps that bias has something to do with it. Either way, back when Wisława Szymborska won the literature prize, there was a clear right-wing candidate, Zbigniew Herbert. They still chose the poet who wrote paeans to Stalin.
This is such conspiratorial nonsense. Everything you don't like is a 'progressive-left agenda'. I've read Drive Your Plow, it's good. The protagonist is an older woman and the story meanders a bit, but the ending ties it all together wonderfully. The character meanders, so the story does too.
This idea that art is right or left wing purely because the authors don't support the worst head banging of western right wing parties is such bollocks.
I've never understood how people can have much to say about a book they read in a translated version.
I read a lot of German writers translated in English, and even though I really enjoyed some of them, I don't think I can really judge anything but the plot and maybe the translator skills. Otherwise it'd be like watching a movie that has been dubbed and commenting on an actor's performance.
Are you saying that you can't have an opinion about a book unless you read it in its original language?
Let me put it this way - if you have someone who speaks two languages fluently, do you think it is possible for them to say the same thing(same meaning, same intention, same context) just in two different languages? If yes, why wouldn't it be possible just through a translator? A good translator will preserve the meaning, rhythm and intention of whatever is being said.
"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
I would not say that it was provocative, news is about lecture from author, so I provided my opinion and additional context on author. Is it provocative to mention dislike for author based on what she says and back it with evidence? In context of novel writing I find it highly relevant to understand who is author, so I can choose if I want to learn more.
not sure if this is lost in translation or this is difference in how we understand her words, but she doesn’t want to limit her books to some kind of “chosen” people, it’s more that she is against over simplifications - for the sake of popularity over quality.
So she is writing assuming that reader has some background, if not - to encourage they to gain some and then read her novels with full understanding and pleasure.
I love to read, fiction almost exclusively, and I strongly believe that the written word damn well is for everybody. Tastes will differ but why set out from the beginning by trying to exclude people? It just strikes me as snobbery and I don’t like it.
I have tried to say more on the subject but it just upsets me that this author is saying the average person is not good enough to enjoy their work.
I have more than enough material to consume already and while I was excited to find another author whose work to read, I simply won’t bother after reading the article you have linked.
For several years through some of the media and people and thoughts I have been exposed to, I had come to the belief that one should compartmentalize their feelings and respond to them individually as appropriate. X stimulus deserves X’ reaction, Y stimulus deserves Y’ reaction, don’t cross the streams etc. Recently I saw an interview with Ada Limón, the current poet laureate in the US, and she spoke about how that is simply not the way of human life and it fucking clicked for me (I believe this was nearly a throwaway statement for her, but it affected me deeply) we are feeling beings and the things interact; I am not going to waste my time on a snob at this point in my life. Might have been different if I’d read her work and found it beautiful but you got there first and I am grateful.
She’s a novelist that wants to write challenging novels to progress or push the medium. If they are read by every Tom, Dick and Harry then she’s failed. I don’t understand why this is obscene.
I might be in this case strict on being humble, but you won't hear that kind of comment from person that tries to share something good with world.
Why should we judge good novelist based on being too novel to understand for average person? Should I call myself better than others, because some don't know Kubernetes? That would be poor way to judge in general and for me, it's not ok to gatekeep knowledge in any way.
In general I agree, but details are important here. I don't disagree that progress is important, I don't disagree that everything requires some prerequisites, but I don't agree that being novel or hard to understand is positive on its own.
I also don't agree with her mentality "I don't write it for average people, because they won't understand it, so deal with it", because even most complex and advanced knowledge can be understand by average person, if that person puts effort and someone offers support, but instead she prefer to put herself in group of people that believe that their work is so great that only greatest minds can understand it and others should find something more ordinary.
You can either create "great" content and brag how great, hard and mystic it is or support others in understanding it, let them formulate their own opinions on your work and create positive community around it.
On one hand I do understand that not everyone will read her masterpieces 'correctly' (for me what she said in OP's link was boring)
and she's straight about it that entry level is not low and that's fine, it works the same way with e.g "Fermat's Last Theorem proof" - you cannot just wake up, start reading it and understand it (or even recognize symbols)
But on the other hand she's pretty snarky about it, but she's Polish after all, so it is in genes I guess :)
The best Polish female writer I've read is Maria Dąbrowska and her amazing book "Nights and Days". Something like Polish "The Forsyte Saga".