Nobel Prize for Literature 2018/2019

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't really care about the rest of the conversation, but that is far and away the oddest definition of cherry-picking I've ever heard.

So what is your definition of cherry pick? That's the most common usage for cherry picking that I've seen - only use facts or data points that match your thesis.

[Alanon]

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

Nobel is author's lifetime achievement, the others are for titles.
No book wins a Nobel prize.

The Academy has in the past referenced a body of work (as the original award intended), but has often singled out a singular book or part of one's creation as the reason for the award.

For example, Eliot received it for his poetry, not criticism or plays, and I believe the rationale for Galsworthy, Raymont and some others mentioned specific novels of theirs. They make it up as they go along.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yep, your thinking is way out of line. Those were merely the first two rationals that popped in my mind, certainly not the two most important rationals in forming my opinion. They are both observational.

Thank you for confirming. Your idea of prioritizing and way of thinking is indeed difficult to rationalize. It almost looks like... Wait, let me rephrase that. I suspect that you are often times setting yourself up to be misinterpreted. It blends in perfectly with cherry picking. You are upset that I used the term? And you even throw a definition in my direction. One I was aware of in meaning, not necessarily in your wording. What I said here, which you also quoted, but didn't respond to (bold added for emphasis):

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Why, oh why, did you have to drag Bob Dylan into the spotlight and ignore last years scandal? That, in my humble opinion, did a whole lot more damage than both your prime reasons combined. You would unfortunately also have to admit that last year's events gave a good beginning to start reparations of lost trust and reputation in the Nobel Prize as it was intended to be.

Is a perfect example why this definition:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Cherry picked is a term used when someone ignores facts that doesn't match a thesis. Since no one has put out any facts at all, how can I be cherry picking? We are talking opinions, not facts. Using the term in that manner renders it meaningless.

Applies. It will take time to fix it, but it is against your wishes if you don't want the Nobel Prize to (re)gain importance.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Thank you for confirming. Your idea of prioritizing and way of thinking is indeed difficult to rationalize. It almost looks like... Wait, let me rephrase that. I suspect that you are often times setting yourself up to be misinterpreted. It blends in perfectly with cherry picking. You are upset that I used the term? And you even throw a definition in my direction. One I was aware of in meaning, not necessarily in your wording. What I said here, which you also quoted, but didn't respond to (bold added for emphasis):


Is a perfect example why this definition:

Applies. It will take time to fix it, but it is against your wishes if you don't want the Nobel Prize to (re)gain importance.

Why would I bother to respond to every little twist you try to throw out?

Let's see now, you try to throw up straw men then claim that I went out of my way to set myself up to be misinterpreted? Maybe you need to look in a mirror and ask yourself why you spent so much effort hurling yourself at a conclusion about what I meant without confirming it one way or the other.

I think that my first post was quite clear. I questioned if the Nobel prize was the most important event in literature [note that I did not say it was not, I questioned if it was. A very deliberate distinction]. Then I gave two examples of why it didn't appear to be. I was not trying to write a thesis or build a case, I was simply questioning if a statement was true or not.

Perhaps a more productive tact might be simply to say why you think that it is indeed the most important event in literature, if that is what you think, and engage in a discussion, rather than go into standard internet attack mode.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Why would I bother to respond to every little twist you try to throw out?

Then don't attempt to accuse me of using the term "cherry picking" wrongly, and your only defense is by ignoring the reason I gave why "cherry picking" is justified, by doing another cherry picking.

Let's see now, you try to throw up straw men then claim that I went out of my way to set myself up to be misinterpreted? Maybe you need to look in a mirror and ask yourself why you spent so much effort hurling yourself at a conclusion about what I meant without confirming it one way or the other.

I think that my first post was quite clear. I questioned if the Nobel prize was the most important event in literature [note that I did not say it was not, I questioned if it was. A very deliberate distinction]. Then I gave two examples of why it didn't appear to be. I was not trying to write a thesis or build a case, I was simply questioning if a statement was true or not.

I responded in kind to your own straw man fallacy of giving weak examples that appear to you as effecting the importance. You gave the impression that driving sales and refusing the prize are very important reasons. You lied by omission. Those reasons were not really all that important to you after all. You simply questioned. An innocent question akin of: "Did you tell your parents yet that you are gay?" Or in this case: "Can the Novel Prize be considered important, when not even Bob Dylan jumped up and down with joy?"

Perhaps a more productive tact might be simply to say why you think that it is indeed the most important event in literature, if that is what you think, and engage in a discussion, rather than go into standard internet attack mode.

Glad you asked. I will give you two reasons why the Nobel Prize of Literature stands out. First that it is the only cosmopolitan and world wide prize independent of language and form. But what about the Booker? No, the Booker does not qualify as cosmopolitan as it restricts availability to an english translation or original. The second reason is the amount of prize money involved. No other prize comes even close. It awards the author directly instead of merely boosting sales.

[Dav_25]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Oh, the stream is on Yootoob too:

Thank you for sharing.