Has anyone read Svetlana Alexievich? Is she good? What should I start with?

Has anyone read Svetlana Alexievich? Is she good? What should I start with?

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

ITT:

So you're sayign... Veeky Forums is smart like Peter to question the reverence people have for stupid crap, while the NObel Prize in Literature committee is dumb like Mummy?

I've asked this before, is the painting in this picture real, and what's it called? I like it a lot.

someone fill me in on these jokes

Im pretty sure all paintings from that book are real

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.

Aha, I see, doesn't this stuff happen all the time, though?

IDK, maybe.

Literally who?

Name one nobel winner who isn't shit

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...

like 75% of them at least. the best is probably Beckett

They used to give it to real authors. Hemingway, Eliot, Faulkner, Yeats, Mann.

>Svetlana Alexievich?
What she said bad about Russia? She criticize Putin? I believe the only way for Russian writer win this contest

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?

pynchmeister

Ya, but you already knew that, but you already knew that, but you already knew that...

I agree, but they'd probably refuse to give him the prize because of the content of his books.

She's Belarusian apparently

definitely why, has he even been nominated?

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

gene wolfe :^)

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.

Heaney

>Tell Putin he's a stupid doo doo head
>Win the Nobel

see

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.

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.

Patrick Modiano won it last year, he's not total shit.

>in an ideology direction
fixed

Fucking christ at least use the correct fucking adjective form of the word. Even though you're right

But the book wasnt ideological unless it contains criticism of USSR policy, which is an old subject.

Chernobyl is all about human suffering.

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