Nobel Prize for poet

The Swedish Academy said that 80-year-old poet Tomas Tranströmer received the prize "because, through his condensed, translucent images, he gives us fresh access to reality."

A stroke some 20 years ago left the poet aphasic, so he relies on his wife to help him write. But his writing from decades ago remains modern and accessible to even non-poetry lovers, says a Swedish literature expert.

Deutsche Welle spoke with Ingrid Elam, Senior Lecturer in Comparative Literature at Malmö University, a journalist and prominent Swedish literary critic, about the Swedish Academy's choice this year for the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Why do you think the Swedish Academy decided to award the Nobel Prize to poet Tomas Tranströmer?

The real question is, why didn't they do it before? He's been at the top of the list for many, many years. He's a well-known poet, not only in Sweden, but also abroad. He's been translated into many, many languages and he is held in great esteem all over the world - at least, in the world of poetry.

This is the first time in more than three decades the Nobel Prize in Literature has been given to a native of Sweden. What does it mean to the Swedish people? And what does it mean for literature?

I think there is one reason [the award committee] hestitated for a long time - because the prize was awarded to Swedish authors 40 years ago and there was a major discussion for some time after that and a lot of criticism. The Swedish Academy was criticized back then for awarding minor Swedish authors the award.

It's a peculiar debate, really, because I can't think of any other prize in a country that doesn't go very often to compatriots of that country. Tranströmer has been talked about for a long time and it's good that he's finally received it.

Swedes have never really had the prize very often. It's usually awarded to international authors. But of course, it's usually been awarded to white, male authors from the Western world - very few Africans and very few Asians.

But if there's someone who was due to get the prize now, it was definitely Tranströmer. There's no discussion about that.

Why do you say that? What is Tranströmer's defining characteristic as a lyricist? - his poetic signature?

He's been writing poetry for 50 years and he's proven one can survive as a poet. New generations discover him and he's a poet who writes in a way that on the surface is very simple and accessible for anybody. Even those who normally don't read poetry can read Tranströmer. At the same time, he's very complex and very precise in his imagery. He tries to find one image for a feeling or a situation. He looks at the world in a way I would imagine the dead would look at the world - with all their knowledge, condensed into one image.

That's one big reason why he has survived. But also, because he is a poet of modernity. He travels around in his poetry; he goes by car and by train, and by bus. It's a world that is recognizable, and at the same time, you feel you see this world for the first time - because he's found the perfect expression or the perfect image for what he sees and hears. There's a lot of music in his poetry as well.

Tranströmer has been publishing since the 1950s. How much of the collective Swedish conscience do you think is reflected in his work?

Is there a collective Swedish conscience? [Laughs.] I wonder. As I said, he's found expressions for modern life in Sweden.

But at the same time, he's a very existentialist poet. There's a lot of sorrow and death and darkness in his poetry, not only in his late poetry, where it's so obvious, but right from the start. But also light, of course.

Somebody once said that it's like in the Bible when God has to show us all the animals and give them their names. In a way, Tomas Tranströmer sort of does that in his poetry. He creates the world anew through language.

The poet was afflicted with a loss of speech and partial paralysis following a stroke two decades ago. How much do you think that event and his need for a helping hand affected his writing?

A lot. A mean, he's written little since then. The last big, really important collection - "The Sorrow Gondola," inspired by a piano piece by Franz Liszt - consisted of poems written both before the stroke, and also some were written after the stroke. There's hardly any difference between them and I can imagine that those written after the stroke already existed in some form beforehand.

After that, he has written one more collection of poetry where you can see that he's lost some of the touch. I mean, he still writes, but we don't really know how. He writes with the help of his wife, who interprets them. She writes things down, and he says whether or not that's what he meant. Of course it's affected him - after all, he's now aphasic. He can say "good" and "very good" and that's it.

What significance does it have that this year's Nobel Prize was awarded to a poet and not a novelist? Is our abbreviated take of the world nowadays, due to e-mails, text messages and the ever more hectic pace of life, reflected in that choice? Poetry has fewer words, yet more poignant images after all …

I think it was Wislawa Szymborska who was the last poet to be awarded the Nobel Prize [in 1996]. Perhaps I've missed someone, but it's been a very long time since a poet has been awarded the prize. I really don't know how the discussion goes in the Swedish Academy. They don't tell you now. They only tell you after 50 years. The last 10 prizes - I've been so surprised! Every time!

On that note, in the run-up to the announcement, literary critics considered possible candidates to be everyone from Syrian poet Adonis, to poetic music legend Bob Dylan to Japanese writer Haruki Murakami. What do you think personally about the choice?

I don't think Bob Dylan will ever get the prize! [Laughs.] I mean, I think he's a great poet, but I think the academy thinks he's in the popular sphere. Adonis has been on the agenda for quite some time and I haven't given up hope about him yet. But this year, I don't think they would ever have given it to him.

Because he's Syrian, it would have been interpreted by the press in a political way and I think the academy wants to avoid that. I mean, the election of a Nobel Prize winner is a very long and complicated procedure, and the ones who are on the committee for the literary prize - they differ very much in opinions, and they all have their favorites.

There's always lots of speculation about the winners every year, and rarely are they accurate. I'm almost always surprised myself.

Is there anything else you'd like to add?

Just that I'm very happy, and almost relieved that Tranströmer finally got the prize. It was almost too late, and it nearly drove tears to my eyes.

Interview: Louisa Schaefer
Editor: Stuart Tiffen