Slashdot Mirror


'Voices From Chernobyl' Author Svetlana Alexievich Wins Lit Nobel (theguardian.com)

Lawrence Bottorff writes: The author of Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster, Svetlana Alexievich, has won the Nobel Prize in Literature. It's somewhat surprising, since she is an investigative journalist and not a fiction writer/novelist. And yet her "novels in voices" style, as the Nobel jurists believe, clearly has a literary impact. Here's what a review from the Journal of Nuclear Medicine says about Voices from Chernobyl:

"Alexievich was a journalist living in Minsk, the capital of Belarus, at the time of the Chernobyl accident. Instead of choosing the usual approach of trying to quantify a disaster in terms of losses and displacement, the author chose instead to interview more than 500 eyewitnesses over a span of 10 years. ... It tells us about the psychologic and personal tragedy of the modern-day nuclear disaster. It is about the experiences of individuals and how the disaster affected their lives."

Although the Nobel Prize in Literature is awarded based on "lifetime work" rather than an individual book, Voices... is her best-known and most celebrated work.

11 of 48 comments (clear)

  1. Just based on the impact of the subject... by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...I don't see it wrong to consider the duration of the research effort plus the historical record it leaves (ie, so future generations have a harder time making contrary claims in hindsight) s not being valid criteria for a lifetime body of work. Indeed, after the period of speculative hysteria in the news is over, immediate documentation is the best way to ensure that the legacy and history is realistically preserved. The era of photography began to help this (though is subject to manipulation) but getting the narrative of the participants recorded before they have an opportunity to retroactively change their opinions too much is helpful in honestly understanding what happened.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  2. Actually her" best known and celebrated work" is by alphazulu0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    > Although the Nobel Prize in Literature is awarded based on "lifetime work" rather than an individual book,
    > Voices... is her best-known and most celebrated work.

    According to most of the articles I've read (in the last 15 minutes), her most popular and acclaimed book is War’s Unwomanly Face which is an oral history of Russian woman who fought in WWII. It sold more than 2 million copies.

    az0

  3. Why, oh, why.... by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've actually read the "Voices of Chernobyl" long time ago. It's over-emotional crap with very little actual facts and some outright lies: Alexievich's husband was treated in the Moscow radiological military hospital by qualified staff (not by some fearful nurses), being a bone marrow donor does not lead to a disability and it's certainly not performed in the same operating room on a table next to the bone marrow recipient (yet her memoirs graphically describe it).

    Shame on the Nobel committee.

    1. Re:Why, oh, why.... by Escogido · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Little surprise here, since Nobel prize has long since turned into yet another political propaganda tool. So awards are granted based not on artistic merit, but rather on whether their story aligns well with political agenda of (political powers behind) the committee. Hence, the message they're sending out is like "Hey, want to be noted? Do something that we are going to like very much."

    2. Re:Why, oh, why.... by RDW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've actually read the "Voices of Chernobyl" long time ago. It's over-emotional crap with very little actual facts and some outright lies: Alexievich's husband was treated in the Moscow radiological military hospital by qualified staff (not by some fearful nurses), being a bone marrow donor does not lead to a disability and it's certainly not performed in the same operating room on a table next to the bone marrow recipient (yet her memoirs graphically describe it).

      Either you didn't read it very carefully, or you haven't remembered it very well. It's not 'her memoirs', but an oral history compiled from interviews. The bone marrow recipient was a fireman at Chernobyl, Vasily Ignatenko, the husband of one of the interviewees, Lyudmilla Ignatenko, and the story is told in her own words - see the prologue to a long extract from the book:

      http://www.alexievich.info/kni...

      Since Mrs Ignatenko's husband died after 2 weeks of horrible suffering, it seems bizarre (and incredibly callous) to label her experiences as 'over-emotional crap' unless you have some sort of agenda here. It is clear from the extract that Ignatenko was treated in a specialist radiological hospital (you seem to be implying it isn't) and we can hardly blame Mrs Ignatenko for perhaps attributing her sister-in-law's subsequent ill health to the transplant.

      I would suggest Slashdot readers form their own judgements about this book.

    3. Re:Why, oh, why.... by RDW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And I remembered it just fine - I just was too lazy to translate it into English and post it here.

      So why did you attribute the incident to Alexievich herself ('Alexievich's husband was treated...') and not to one of her interviewees? That's such a fundamental misreading of the text that I can't take your judgement of it seriously. This is not a godlike Authorial Voice, it's what the interviewee remembers, whether accuately or not, about the most horrific experience of her life, yet you dismiss it as 'BS'. I have no idea what the exact medical procedures were in an emergency situation in a Soviet hospital in 1986, but I don't find it incredible that the donor would be given a general anaesthetic and might not react well to it. Her later poor health may be nothing to do with the procedure - the interviewee does not state this as fact (though it's implied), and she's presumably not a medical expert. Whether the other details of the procedure are completely accurate is hardly the issue - extreme trauma is not exactly conducive to precise recall. Or do you for some reason doubt that Ignatenko died of his exposure to radiation, or that an unsuccessful bone marrow transplant did not save his life, or that this was an extremely distressing emotional experience for his wife?

    4. Re:Why, oh, why.... by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Interesting
      And that makes her books nothing more than an over-emotional bullcrap. They are not documentaries since no fact-checking was done and they are not pure fiction ("oral stoties"). They are just... crap for over-excitable individuals. All her artistic input was to choose the most emotional stories (and damn their accuracy).

      Do you notice how her books lack stories like this:

      My family lived 25 kilometers from Chernobyl in a small village, my husband worked on a small furniture factory and I worked as a teacher. Several days after the explosion, soldiers came to us and told that we'll have to relocate soon. We were allowed to take only small personal items and all of them were inspected.

      We were offered a new apartment in Ryazan' and received several thousand rubles, enough to buy new furniture. We also got cards to buy imported Bulgarian child food for our 6-months old son. Even after the USSR collapse we received free medical checkups every year and our son got free admission into a top Russian university. He's working as a nuclear engineer in Bryanks now.

      A true story, I worked with their son. But of course, this story is not sufficiently full of bullcrap to win a Nobel.

  4. Nobel Prize is a tool to stir up by Trachman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nobel Prize is sometimes given to stir up some local politics. While, I am sure, the writer is a talented intellectual, many times Noble Prize committee is choosing candidates to rattle the cages for the authoritarians and totalitarians in the recipients' original countries. Do not seek absolute and indisputable merits when researching the contributions of Nobel Prize winners.

    It is a political tool.

    It is also an investment to the weak and unorganized opposition to the moderate European dictator of Republic of Belaruss Mr. Lukashenko.

    Writer Alexievich is know for the critics of the current regime in Belarus. Wise gentlemen decided to invest into visibility of the future leaders and intelectuals early...

  5. total bullshit by slashdice · · Score: 2

    When will Steven King get his nobel prize in literature? The guy has been producing some of the best fiction ever and wasn't found dead in his Main home this morning. I'm sure everybody in the slashdot community misses his Nobel prize. Maybe it's because he was truly an American icon?

    --
    Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
  6. Re:Actually her" best known and celebrated work" i by pseudofrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh for fuck's sake.

    Can a woman not write a book about women without the "anti-SJW" crowd whining at length? You haven't even read the damn thing, yet here you are crying about it. What the fuck is so "feminist" (boo! hiss!) about a work documenting women who fought in a war? It's history, and the type of history anyone interested in the subject likely appreciates. She's a 67-year-old Ukrainian, not one of the 14-year-old Tumblr users who you lot think are ruining the world.

    You're becoming the assholes who leave comments on non-political articles whining about "Obummer." Christ.

  7. Re:Actually her" best known and celebrated work" i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    She has won the Nobel price because she risked her freedom to write journalist investigation with a high quality in literature. She didn't only make yet another propaganda documentary about Chernobyl, but she actually tried to describe the life of regular people in late USSR/Comobol countries and there after.

    She writes about how it was to life in those Communist countries, and about the failure to reform to an open democratic society. She is from the last remaining dictatorship in Europe, Minsk, and her books are banned. And you probably know what happens with these kind of independent journalist in Russia who dare to say something else than state propaganda.

    Her work is the only work that has an alternative view on the USSR before and after and is of high quality. Enough to win prices. She tries to be neutral, but of course, nobody is neutral because she already does something illegal in her country: using free speech and writing books that are not allowed by the government. That doesn't mean her work is worthless or anti USSR, or anti capitalism, or anti socialism or feminist or anti capitalistic. She is a documenter and does a great job at describing how life was in those countries.

    The reason why Chernobyl was so important was the time when it happened. It was during Gorbachev reform policies that promised more openess and freedom of press. Normally such an event would not be publicized and news would be boycotted. Because of the change of policies 'journalists' who were still used to being propaganda writers could all of the sudden describe what happened, the heroes but also the horrors, the errors, those responsible, etc...
     
    They could even start asking critical questions. Although it was all uneasy at that time, both for the journalists and the politicians, it was the start of a critical public opinion that would lead to the fall of the USSR. A pretty surprising fall without revolution, without competing warlords, without war, especially for such a super power with such an extensive system to control an entire society (KGB, Army, propaganda...).

    There books are really interesting to read and are well written if you like to read about how life is in some other regime.