Comments on: A list of unknown, undistinguished, leftist fanatics

By: Goddess of Swank

Goddess of Swank — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:28:14 +0000

Someone should tell Mr. Schwartz that hate is not clever, no matter how cute he tries to get with phrasing and pop culture references.

By: Harry

Harry — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:14:39 +0000

Has anybody else noticed the part of the article where Schwartz implicitly gigs her on being less attractive than Britney Spears? That suggests a likely candidate for Schwartz’s fantasy Nobel Prize. Which leggy blond essayist hates Islam even more than V. S. Naipaul?

By: clew

clew — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:03:59 +0000

This is a special case of the Achilles/Che/heroism argument. Writers may be remembered for their daimonic brilliance, however they applied it.

By: Peter Murphy

Peter Murphy — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:01:07 +0000

C’mon: Hemingway might have shared a few drinks with Castro from time to time, but his “socialism” was pretty bland by historical standards. Boxing fights were his thing – not proletariat rights. If you’re looking for revisionist denunciations, file him instead under “Cruelty to Animals”.

By: Robin

Robin — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 05:34:56 +0000

Vance, I stand corrected. But I do think that the larger points stand: (i) TWS has no interest in applying the standard symmetrically to supporters of brutal right wing regimes, and more importantly (ii) it’s doubtful that the politics of the author (as opposed to that of the work, with all the problems that phrasing entails) is a useful standard with which to judge literature. Kiplings imperialism doesn’t take away from his beauty of his poetry. Is Virgil a bad writer/poet because of his praise of Roman Imperialism? Certainly, if people who are moved by Cancer Ward suddenly judge the work to be bad upon learning of his defense of tsarism and apologies for pogroms, we would think that their faculty for judgement itself was off. This is problem with Blah’s list. I doubt that either Milosz or Brodsky, both good humanist, anti-communist liberals, with social democratic sympathies, would think that politics made their works or even those of the people they politically hated. (And by the way Blah, when did atheism become a political crime??) Frankly, I actually do find in these reductions of literary talents to the politics of their authors echoes of both fascist and Stalinist aesthetic policy, which did excatly that, judge art by political standards.

By: drapeto

drapeto — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:21:23 +0000

Oh, he also left out former Franco toadie, Camilo José Cela. You gotta love a selective memory. damn, i was going to say that one. i guess i’ll say naipaul instead.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:20:44 +0000

Nick, Churchill did that more with WW2 than with The World Crisis or Marlborough, was my impression. Besides, I think the reality is that he got the award more for his radio broadcasts. The only Nobel laureate whose merit was in public speaking.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:13:13 +0000

And don’t forget Churchill (1953), who relied on a vast army of ‘researchers’ to write his books. Personally, I’d love to see Kurt Vonnegut win the prize, just to hear heads explode with indignation.

By: blah

blah — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:24:23 +0000

The Swedish Academy is indeed a poor judge of literary talent: Kipling (1907) – apologist for imperialism Rolland (1915) – communist Hamsun (1920) – member of Nazi party France (1921) – communist and outspoken atheist Yeats (1923) – fascist sympathizer and member of eugenics society Shaw (1925) – Soviet and Nazi sympathizer Lewis (1930) – socialist, mocker of religion Pirandello (1934) – fascist, supporter of Abyssinian genocide O’Neil (1936) – socialist Gide (1947) – communist Eliot (1948) – fascist sympathizer, supporter of eugenics, anti-semite Faulkner (1949) – slavery apologist Russell (1950) – socialist, atheist Hemingway (1954) – socialist Camus (1957) – socialist, supporter of colonialism Andric (1961) – communist Steinbeck (1962) – socialist Sartre (1964) – communist, Stalin apologist Beckett (1969) – nihilist Boll (1972) – Baader-Meinhof sympathizer White (1973) – socialist

By: Vance Maverick

Vance Maverick — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:59:28 +0000

Pound never won the Nobel. There was some controversy when he won the Bollingen prize.

By: Randy Paul

Randy Paul — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:10:45 +0000

Christ, I’ve known a number of Pinochet defenders who love Neruda’s poetry. Chile recently honored the Centenary of Neruda’s birth. Schwartz apparently is unaware of Saramago’s public break with Castro’s Cuba last year. Perhaps he needs to unwedge his head from somewhere. Oh, he also left out former Franco toadie, Camilo José Cela. You gotta love a selective memory.

By: Robin

Robin — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:12:03 +0000

Notice that the prize to Ezra Pound, fascist collabortor and propagandist, isn’t denounced. I’m not saying it should be; I don’t think that literature should be by politics. The whole thing does remind me of a stanza from the first version of Auden’s “In Memory of W.B. Yeats”, later excised. “Time that is intolerant Of the brave and innocent, And indifferent in a week To a beautiful physique, Worships language and forgives Everyone by whom it lives; Pardons cowardice, conceit, Lays its honours at their feet. Time that with this strange excuse Pardoned Kipling and his views, And will pardon Paul Claudel, Pardons him for writing well.” But then it’s the Weekly (No)Standard(s).

By: fyreflye

fyreflye — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:06:26 +0000

The right’s still seething over the fact that Ayn Rand never got it.

By: g. svenson

g. svenson — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:30:57 +0000

I think a lot of the Nobel lit. prize winners in fact classify as unknown knowns…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:27:25 +0000

And I’m the unknown unknown.