Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
You haven't quite answered yet as if you are backpedaling.
The Bob Dylan issue put a dark stain on the handling of the Nobel Prize, I give you that. It is an outlier case, and Bob Dylan alone is not to blame. A part, possibly the bigger part, lies in how badly the commitee handled it. He clearly did not want anything to do with it, they should have simply given up and give the prize to the second up runner. You missed my subtle hint why I mentioned poetry. Look up the wording of why they decided to award Bob Dylan.
With that out of the way, how about the increased sales? That was your other feeling that the Nobel Prize lost importance. Does that make, in comparison, the Hugo as a prize any more important? I think not. And I have already voiced my opinion for the Nobel Prize not meant as a sales boost. Naturally there will be some added interest, either by revisiting the books to look at them in a new light, or scratch an itch if you are interested in history, possibly history in the making. Different prizes have different target groups. Subjectively your own group is the most important.
|
It's hardly backpeddling to show that you threw up a strawman of your own making and then tried to rhetorically tie me to that. Why should I try to defend a position that I neither said nor hold?
There are a lot of reasons why I question if the Nobel prize is the most important prize in Literature. Most are purely observational. I suppose if one really wanted to know, you could poll writers about which award would they most want to win, but I hardly have the urge to do so.