Thoughts on Svetlana Alexievich?

what's her best book? what's good about it?

The picture appears to to show a female. The name also suggets a vagina-user. Checking the wikipedia, I can indeed confirm, it is a female. Trashed and discarded.
>reading womyn writers

I'm about halfway through Voices from Chernobyl and I'm hoping to read both Zinky Boys and Secondhand Time this summer.

She's good. Hard to qualify her as a writer, per se. She's an oral historian which really means her strength lies in arranging interviews into an engaging narrative more than writing anything herself. But that's not to diminish her abilities as an oral historian.

I've read some truly appalling oral histories and hers is not one of them.

If "journalism" qualifies as non-fiction for you then yes
And yes the books are "more interesting" than explicit fiction

>And yes the books are "more interesting" than explicit fiction

Attached: 429D2B36-EA03-4362-8FB1-EB03EE56546A.png (300x250, 40K)

this has to have been some kind of political award to stick it to Putler.

I think zinky boys is good for the start.

the Nobel Prize for Literature has always had terrible taste, they consistently award B tier writers because they don’t have the balls to award the A list writers who are actually shaking things up and contributing significantly to the canon, both because they’re milquetoast brainlets and also because they’re tryhards who don’t want to give in to the “popular” choice. they’re bourgeois suits who want to toast champagne with an AUTHEURE who wears vests and writes with a Montblanc.
Naturally they’ve awarded a few worthwhile writers, that’s inevitable. but for the most part this random nonfiction basic bitch is perfectly in character for the Nobel.

She’s a good writer. Lit is contrarian illiterate mongoloids who are incapable of thinking for themselves. Ignore all the pseud tryhards in this thread that are condemning her without having read her. Fuck all of you retarded faggots.

Nobody is saying she isn’t good, she’s just not great, and certainly not “one of the greatest in history”, which is flat laughable. it’s not either GOAT or bad.

imagine getting this mad about *squints* Svetlana Alexievich lmao wtf

>they don’t have the balls to award the A list writers who are actually shaking things up and contributing significantly to the canon

Who is a contemporary writer who is doing this?

I don't know what I should talk about—about death or about
love? Or are they the same? Which one should I talk about?
We were newlyweds. We still walked around holding hands,
even if we were just going to the store. I would say to him, "I
love you." But I didn't know then how much. I had no idea . . .
We lived in the dormitory of the fire station where he worked.
On the second floor. There were three other young couples,
we all shared a kitchen. On the first floor they kept the trucks.
The red fire trucks. That was his job. I always knew what was
happening—where he was, how he was.

Attached: vol.jpg (236x227, 13K)

Ferrante and Knausgaard, but mainly Ferrante. She should’ve been awarded years ago, now probably never will be, per the usual with the Nobel. McCarthy preceded her in that regard. There’s a long list of writers that clearly should have won but never did.

>Ferrante and Knausgaard
>shaking things up
>the canon
top kek
their entire oeuvres put together are insignificant compared to voices of chernobyl and it's just a small collage

Пишy книгy o вoйнe...
Я, кoтopaя нe любилa читaть вoeнныe книги, хoтя в мoeм дeтcтвe и юнocти
y вceх этo былo любимoe чтeниe. У вceх мoих cвepcтникoв. И этo нeyдивитeльнo
- мы были дeти Пoбeды. Дeти пoбeдитeлeй. Пepвoe, чтo я пoмню o вoйнe? Cвoю
дeтcкyю тocкy cpeди нeпoнятных и пyгaющих cлoв. O вoйнe вcпoминaли вceгдa: в
шкoлe и дoмa, нa cвaдьбaх и кpecтинaх, в пpaздники и нa пoминкaх. Дaжe в
дeтcких paзгoвopaх. Coceдcкий мaльчик oднaжды cпpocил мeня: "A чтo дeлaют
пoд зeмлeй эти люди? Пocлe вoйны их тaм бoльшe, чeм нa зeмлe". Haм тoжe
хoтeлocь paзгaдaть тaйнy вoйны.
Toгдa и зaдyмaлacь o cмepти... И yжe никoгдa нe пepecтaвaлa o нeй
дyмaть, для мeня oнa cтaлa глaвнoй тaйнoй жизни.

Attached: bop.jpg (658x662, 71K)

>There, at the cemetery, it doesn’t say Natasha Ignatenko. There’s only his name. She didn’t have a name yet, she didn’t have anything. Just a soul. That’s what I buried there. I always go there with two bouquets: one for him, and the other I put in the corner for her. I crawl around the grave on my knees. Always on my knees. [She becomes incomprehensible.] I killed her. I. She. Saved. My little girl saved me, she took the whole radioactive shock into herself, she was like the lightning rod for it. She was so small. She was a little tiny thing. [She has trouble breathing.] She saved...But I loved them both. Because—because you can’t kill something with love, right? With such love! Why are these things together—love and death. Together. Who’s going to explain this to me? I crawl around the grave on my knees.

>[She is silent for a long time.]

>inevitable contrarian brainlet post
Do you think I didn’t expect you? How does it feel to be a trope?

yeah you read a single serious book once and now you’re overexcited. this is a mindbogglingly bad take. Ferrante is top 3 greatest living writers, the random Russian cow wasn’t even on anyone’s radar until she was idiotically awarded the Nobel.

you tell me

>I know u r but wat am i
Good one. You consistently meet my expectations.

great comeback great wit
truly my superior
truly our superior

>listen to some war stories
>record it
>put these stories into books
BEST WRITER IN HISTORY!!!!!!

Secondhand time is comfy

Fuck Gorby selling out his homeland for fucking salami and blue jeans

Long live the mighty sovok ideal!

But srs it is a good case study about how market capitalism destroys value structures, undermines intellectualism, and makes people feel atomized, while nevertheless driving tremendous material prosperity

lmao

lmao

>Ferrante
A mindbogglingly bad author, that one novel of hers on those neapolitan 'from-rugs-to-riches' prodigy girls is mexican herzschmerz telenovela tier. The only reason she is famous is the self-generated pretentious air of mystery around the pseudonym.

Attached: 1555445367466.jpg (700x700, 209K)

I retouch and recolour photographs, so I'm going to recolour every photograph of every author and philosopher just so you can never read anything again, user.

Damn dude you’ve got it all figured out, guess it’s settled then. If it weren’t for your invaluable, indisputable takes where would we be? Only a high IQ such as yours could see through all the bullshit and discern that one of the most critically lauded, widely read writers of our age is nothing more than the product of a pseudonym’s mystique. Because we all know if you wrote a book under a pseudonym it would produce the same response... right?

You seem to be quite hurt by this, mind giving me one (1) argument Ferrante's books might hold more literary merit for the average reader than the next train station serial romance they write for lonely 70 year old grannies?

ferrante pls

who what why

>Only a high IQ such as yours could see through all the bullshit and discern that one of the most critically lauded, widely read writers of our age is nothing more than the product of a pseudonym’s mystique. Because we all know if you wrote a book under a pseudonym it would produce the same response... right?
Let me know when you’re not deflecting and have an answer.

>mfw he thinks being widely read is an indicator of literary quality and not the exact opposite
>mfw he thinks
Wow user, I suggest you give them old train station romance paperbacks a try. Or 50 shades of gray. Many people read that drivel after all, so it must be good right?;^D kys

Attached: 1555832833837.jpg (471x388, 94K)

>>mfw he thinks being widely read is an indicator of literary quality
Wow almost like you spliced what I said to make this case. I specified critically lauded. You’re either disingenuous or retarded.

>Ferrante
Is this bait? She literally writes upscaled airport novels. Murakami with Italian flair.

Attached: C44121D5-B312-4F19-A5DE-0383D27BFED6.jpg (400x323, 51K)

I bet.

She’s widely regarded as the Dickens of Naples, but it’s easier to be contrarian and feel smart than read her in the first place.

>he thinks what is critically lauded is inherently good
Pic related is a masterpiece of intrigue and mystery you need to watch at least two times to fully understand.

It was panned by critics

Same with Boondock Saints to a lesser degree.

Attached: 9FB68997-8A4A-46C1-A6C4-BED00CA6AC4A.jpg (1280x1896, 488K)

Not even that guy but Boondock Saints is fucking abysmal.

Yeah I knew you’d do this. Conveniently the only metric that matters is your own opinion. And the fact that it’s contrary doesn’t make you wrong, it makes you enlightened. All so convenient!

>She’s widely regarded as the Dickens of Naples
Again, is this bait? Why are you talking in marketing blurbs? I‘ve read her Neapolitan cycle and liked it, but it‘s fairly insane to suggest she‘s par with Knausgaard, let alone some modern beacon of literary genius.

Attached: 80BA54D1-F666-4FC2-918F-A92754B08A0F.jpg (460x486, 79K)

No, the opinion I expressed that is the most commonly expressed opinion amongst writers and critics is not bait.
Knausgaard is a very good writer but he suffers from being an unoriginal Proust wannabe. Neither his prose nor his storytelling are on Ferrante’s level, and I think we both know the reason you’re so down on her but so high on him.

Widely regarded and critically lauded by whom? That's right, Central European and Italo-Ameritard-descended boomer Italaboos and their generation, who like to dive into masturbatory reminiscences about the cliché impressions of that one time they were in Italy 50 years ago; what a beautiful paysage! and what a friendly people! great food! etc, like bathing in bubbly-sweet fake memories. And the critics know this of course, as well as they know about the immense purchasing power of that demographic. And thus this inane, boring, insubstantial porridge is pushed down the heads and throats of the literary world.
If you think literary critics are remotely qualified to judge or even interested in artful literature besides of what has been already safely canonized by a recognised coryphea, you're an idiot my friend.

Attached: 1553520473570.png (409x535, 408K)

Take your pills.

Visit Italy, and have sex.

Based catposter btw

Well, I already told you my reason - I‘m nowhere near as impressed with her as your committee approved marketing manual suggests I should be. It‘s also quite odd to juxtapose her with Alexievich, who in spite of being less skilled with prose does write about much more serious and exigent topics than 21st century rehash of Figaro‘s Wedding, which your initial tirade would suggest is something that should be valued above all. But I already sense the words „misogynistic incel“ dancing on the tip of your tongue, so it would probably end our conversation here before you run out of platitudes for your newfound idol.

Attached: 8BFE43EC-8303-4CCA-8219-C065D7C4E784.jpg (371x369, 55K)

I don’t have a problem with you, you’re wellspoken and have incisive arguments. I do think Ferrante is far superior to Knausgaard and that only one of them will still be read in a hundred years, and that you either consciously or subconsciously prefer Knausgaard for the same reason you referred to Ferrante as airport fodder (belongs with the ditzy romance novels... for some reason) but we can agree to disagree rather than get messy.
(fixed typo)

>I‘m nowhere near as impressed with her as your committee approved marketing manual suggests I should be
this sort of conspiratard BS is so trite and convenient, critics aren’t huddled together in a room malevolently plotting ways to shove ferante down your throat. it’s very simply their specialization to assess literature, and theyve assessed ferante to be a modern great with lasting power. you can disagree but you don’t have the high ground in doing so, you just sound philistine.

This wasn‘t a hint at some conspiracy, but rather a jab at the other poster‘s choice of verbiage. It‘s also patently absurd to appeal to critics in the context of deriding other critics, ie those on Nobel Prize board, not to mention doing so on a board where Rupi Kaur is a household meme.

Attached: 70F24060-9703-4600-8B15-F7CF271767D9.jpg (383x393, 80K)

>critics aren’t huddled together in a room malevolently plotting ways to shove ferante down your throat.
This is what critics literally do.

Attached: Best-Video-Games-Ever.jpg (1087x600, 566K)

>It‘s also patently absurd to appeal to critics in the context of deriding other critics, ie those on Nobel Prize board
see the way you word this is very strange, it’s not an “appeal” to critics to value their input, it’s literally what they devote their education and life to doing. i personally find them bourgeois and prime for slaughter but there’s no denying that they know what they’re talking about. and the nobel prize literature committee isn’t comparable, they’re not even critics for the most part, they’re a loose collection of suits vaguely involved in the field, one might be a translator, one might be a lackluster writer. some ARE critics, I’m sure, but the opinions of a few are no match for the entire field of criticism + reader response.

kek, thanks for the laugh user.

She's great tho.

lit fucking sucks ass, goddamn. it always does but it's unbelievable how much sometimes

Yeah. I’ve discussed this before on this board (in a previous lecture, you might say). Either you have a high literary IQ or you don’t (inb4 Rick and Morty memes, I know, but there’s no other way to put it). Either you can see why Ferrante is one of the very greatest writers of all time you can’t. People with high literary IQs can see it. If you disagree with them it’s because your literary IQ is low, not because it’s abnormally high.
Take fan fiction and compare it to Ferrante. It doesn’t take a high literary IQ to see that Ferrante is superior. Move up the scale and take Dan Brown. It’s a little fuzzier if you’re flat dumb, and many people are, but it’s still indisputably Ferrante. Move up the scale and take Joyce Carol Oates. Now you need an above average literary IQ to see why Ferrante is superior—nothing wild, just above average. Ok, let’s take Knausgaard. You see? Posters here with low literary IQs will swear Ferrante isn’t even on his level. Meanwhile Zadie Smith and other writers and critics who are actually highly successful in the field will say she’s uncommonly great. Who’s right? Who the fuck do you think?
Art isn’t subjective. It’s not debatable. Ferrante is better than Knausgaard and it’s not close.

neither of those posts are controversial by sensible standards. it’s well known that the Nobel Prize has a history of catastrophic misses, and that two modern examples are McCarthy and Ferrante. literally what are you crying about?

>it’s not an “appeal” to critics
But it is. Your entire line of reasoning is nothing but an appeal to popularity among some ostensibly qualified minority. Moreover you determine its necessary qualification through some vague definition of „devoting their life to doing it“, as if regularly expressing one‘s personal opinions in matters of taste somehow elevates them above those of others all on its own (yet apparently doesn‘t for some Swedish literature professors). What‘s more is you assume the opinions of critics are homogenous and uniform and the averaged out approximation of theirs is some valuable indicator, as if opinions of Wyoming Weekly and New Yorker columnists hold the same weight or could possibly compare in the level of aforementioned aptitude to judge in an informed worldly fashion. Criticism is a fickle game and everyone is truly a critic, so appealing to their opinions en masse is borderline pointless.
Very poor bait even by modern standards, but have a pity kot.

Attached: 3ED7616C-B204-4A7A-9C4E-68137760DC0B.jpg (995x1041, 616K)

>poor Ferrante getting marketed even on Yea Forums

Attached: cow.png (656x949, 23K)

both posts are retarded. the notion that the committee for the prize consists of "milquetoast brainlets" is laughable in a way that is waste of time to explain as the notion would be remedied by familiarizing yourself even a little with its members. it's especially funny when this guy's idea of exciting, groundbreaking writers are Ferrante and Knausgård. the latter you could make a case for, but it's telling that when asked for important contemporary writers user went with two of the most successful, mainstream breakthrough names of the past two decades. if this guy is the same it's even more hilarious because Knausgård's influence on and significance for contemporary lit. is already far beyond Ferrante's.