
Svetlana Alexievich Nobel Lecture: On the Battle Lost - nkurz
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2015/alexievich-lecture_en.html
======
shrineOfLies
This is one of the most powerful speeches I've come across.

I'll explain in short.

It makes me happy that such sadness, fear, pain and suffering is not present
today.

On the other hand, It makes me sad that all of that meaning is lost in society
and we chase frivolous things. We don't value humans for their humaneness
anymore. We value them for their external appearance, and other frivolous
things.

I understand that I cannot generalize the general public this way, but
remember i'm taking a subjective stance. I'm merely stating its impact on my
thoughts, it may be far from the truth or on point. I dont care.

~~~
deepsun
> We value them for their external appearance, and other frivolous things.

Like we value King Carl Gustaf for only being born in a royal family, and bow
to him while accepting Nobel prizes.

~~~
smsm42
I think the respect there comes from what he represents (tradition, collective
judgement of the Nobel Committee, respect gained by the Nobel prize as a
result of it being awarded to certain people, etc.) not from the actual person
of Carl Gustaf. While we can question each of those, e.g. achievements of some
of the laureates may appear to many rather questionable today (I won't name
names but I have a few in mind and many people do too), I think we can not
deny that Nobel prize is still regarded as an esteemed award. So that what
people are bowing to, not the external appearance of some old man named Carl.

~~~
tormeh
This. Carl XVI Gustaf, as a person, is of questionable importance and virtue.
But as king of Sweden he's a living symbol. He's like the flag or something.
Achieving this effect is also why European royalty has been widely
apoliticized.

------
osipov
The Nobel Prize winner and the author is a profoundly tragic figure.
Unfortunately the English language Wikipedia article on her doesn't begin to
describe the level of suffering and pain that her family has experienced and
that shaped her childhood.

Unfortunately the suffering she went through caused her to have a very
negative bias towards the outside world. Her writings are the epitome of
depression: imagine a writer describing San Francisco by focusing just on the
parts of the Tenderloin district covered in piss. That is pretty much her
unique viewpoint on the world and Russia in particular.

Her family has reasons to have gripes against Russians, given that her parents
were Ukrainian and Belorussian minorities who suffered disproportionally when
they tried to establish independent states. So take her speeches and her
writing with a generous dose of salt. She is well known for her agenda and her
unhealthy worldview.

~~~
conistonwater
That's a pretty ridiculous ad hominem. You don't seem to even try to engage
with the substance of what she's saying.

~~~
osipov
Nonsense. My entire argument is about her writing and how it was shaped by her
childhood experiences.

~~~
smikhanov
While being factually true, that's an incredibly shallow view of her work.
It's the same as linking all your sexual preferences to (un)resolved Oedipus
complex from your childhood -- it's most likely to be true, but doesn't give
you any useful insight into the subject matter.

~~~
osipov
>“my politics are closest to that of The Economist newspaper: mildly
Libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially liberal where it’s practical and
pragmatic, cautiously globalist”.

now everything falls into place: just like The Economist you are also
virulently Russophobic

~~~
smikhanov
It looks like we're talking about different magazines called The Economist,
but I appreciate your interest anyways.

