It is my understanding Neruda's magnum opus, 'Canto General' which I have read about half-way through was the book that really secured his place as a Nobel prize winner and in my view, rightfully so. It is a sweeping, mythological epic that re-presents the history of the Americas from its founding, conquest and settlement drawing upon the well of surrealism, putting Pablo Neruda well within the magical realist tradition established by its grandfather so to speak, Miguel Cervantes. My favourite translation of Neruda's work is hands down, W.S. Merwin's without a doubt. He was able to bring out the colour, movement and playfulness of the Spanish where others could not. Prizes in general are a great way to asses the quality of a book, its literary merit if one is looking for judgment informed by aesthetic criteria. But prizes in and of themselves are not the final say as to what constitutes great literature. That question is part of an ancient ongoing dialogue that began with the Greek philosopher Plato and shows no sign of a final resolution.
The 100 Years of Solitude did not work for me. The first reading was a struggle, but I finished it. On the second attempt I gave up about half way through. I did not care what happened to any of the characters and I was not interested in the plot. The flat undetailed style did not attract me. Please can someone who likes it point out what I missed. It was not just that the story was boring. I could not see any point in this book. I liked what you said about Faulkner and Heaney, and the poem you read made me interested in Neruda. I think Shaw was important in his context and time, but has dated badly.
Neruda is so sublime. One of the things I disagree with Roberto Bolaño the most is his complete dismissal of Neruda. There are two reasons I want to learn Spanish and one of them is to read Neruda in the original.
@@brenboothjones Thanks for your compliments! Bolaño was one of the greats but as a critic he more often than not was a sensationalist rebel than an unbiased critical voice.
“I want to do with you what spring does with the cherry trees.” Neruda was sensual but not vulgar--🥰
That’s a wonderful line and an apt distinction! Vulgarity has no home in the Nerudan universe.
Did these authors deserve their Nobel Prize wins? Any alternative nominations?
It is my understanding Neruda's magnum opus, 'Canto General' which I have read about half-way through was the book that really secured his place as a Nobel prize winner and in my view, rightfully so. It is a sweeping, mythological epic that re-presents the history of the Americas from its founding, conquest and settlement drawing upon the well of surrealism, putting Pablo Neruda well within the magical realist tradition established by its grandfather so to speak, Miguel Cervantes. My favourite translation of Neruda's work is hands down, W.S. Merwin's without a doubt. He was able to bring out the colour, movement and playfulness of the Spanish where others could not.
Prizes in general are a great way to asses the quality of a book, its literary merit if one is looking for judgment informed by aesthetic criteria. But prizes in and of themselves are not the final say as to what constitutes great literature. That question is part of an ancient ongoing dialogue that began with the Greek philosopher Plato and shows no sign of a final resolution.
Well said, Joel!
@@brenboothjones No problem! Keep on doing what you're doing, fellow poet👍⭐️
@@joelharris4399 thank you, mate! I appreciate you sharing your insights here.
@@brenboothjones Heard loud and clear! 🫡
📚As always a wonderful video. I enjoy listening to your take on these wonderful reads. 💌
Thank you so much, Renee!
Please create some timestamps in the next videos of this series.
Thanks for the feedback. I’ll keep time stamps in mind going forward :)
🎉🎉🎉
✨
The 100 Years of Solitude did not work for me. The first reading was a struggle, but I finished it. On the second attempt I gave up about half way through. I did not care what happened to any of the characters and I was not interested in the plot. The flat undetailed style did not attract me. Please can someone who likes it point out what I missed.
It was not just that the story was boring. I could not see any point in this book.
I liked what you said about Faulkner and Heaney, and the poem you read made me interested in Neruda.
I think Shaw was important in his context and time, but has dated badly.
Neruda is so sublime. One of the things I disagree with Roberto Bolaño the most is his complete dismissal of Neruda. There are two reasons I want to learn Spanish and one of them is to read Neruda in the original.
Had no idea about Bolaño’s take! Will look into it! Thanks for sharing, as always. You’re tremendous!
@@brenboothjones Thanks for your compliments! Bolaño was one of the greats but as a critic he more often than not was a sensationalist rebel than an unbiased critical voice.