Nobel Prize in Literature 2013 to be announced Oct. 10

[Dr. Drib]

Haruki Murakami [3/1 odds] appears to be the favorite, an author whom most readers of MobileRead are probably familiar with.

Other possible candidates: Philip Roth [16/1 odds], Joyce Carol Oates [6/1 odds].

Others considered: Peter Nadas [7/1 odds]; Thomas Pynchon [20/1] - a writer that I hope wins, but he's way too controversial a figure.

Other long (loooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnng) odds would be with J.K. Rowling [500/1], a popular genre writer of mysteries and fantasies, but (in my opinion) a writer without the literary cache to win.



Here are my personal favorites below. I'm hoping that one of them wins:

1) Haruki Murakami - probably not, due to the bloated monstrosity he published a year or so ago. He's a writer who transcends genre (unlike Rowling), and has a considerable body of respectable work behind him. He needs another great novel (like "The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle") before he can win, in my opinion.

2) Joyce Carol Oates - This is one that I would like to win. She's been writing for 50+ years and has a considerable body of work behind her. Like Murakami, her work transcends the confines of genre (often seen as gutter fiction, a view that I do not share, however, relying instead upon 'Sturgeon's Law'.)

3) Thomas Pynchon - another great writer. Although I have yet to read his current novel, there has been talk about awarding the Nobel to him for years. At the moment, he is a very distant odds on. In fact, now that I think about it, if he won, he would probably not accept an award, as he did with "Gravity's Rainbow." That means that he will probably not win the Nobel. He's too controversial.


The Nobel Prize in Literature, for the past decade or so, has been highly criticized and politicized (according to a number of pundits), and is extremely controversial at this time.

I'll be looking forward to finding out who wins.





Don

[HarryT]

Regarding the other prizes, I was delighted to see that Peter Higgs has finally won the Nobel Prize for Physics for predicting the existence of the Higgs boson. I never thought he'd get it in his lifetime (Nobels can't be awarded posthumously).

[Dr. Drib]

After considerable thought, I think Peter Nadas will win the Nobel Prize in Literature (2013).




Don

[Yolina]

Well as long as it's not EL James (currently at 500/1 too apparently) some people are a tad optimistic when it comes to betting

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib dropped this squib

Thomas Pynchon [20/1] - a writer that I hope wins, but he's way too controversial a figure. . . . In fact, now that I think about it, if he won, he would probably not accept an award, as he did with "Gravity's Rainbow." That means that he will probably not win the Nobel. He's too controversial.

If I understand you correctly, Doctor, the odds are slim Pynchon will win because he's reclusive and tends not to accept awards. Do you mean something else when you say he's controversial? I hadn't ever thought of him that way and grew up reading him, too.

He lives fairly close to my old apartment in NYC. I had a few brief newsgroup exchanges with him in the 90s, but that was the internet. I've never actually seen him, as other friends claimed to have done.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

If I understand you correctly, Doctor, the odds are slim Pynchon will win because he's reclusive and tends not to accept awards. Do you mean something else when you say he's controversial? I hadn't ever thought of him that way and grew up reading him, too.

He lives fairly close to my old apartment in NYC. I had a few brief newsgroup exchanges with him in the 90s, but that was the internet. I've never actually seen him, as other friends claimed to have done.

I wasn't clear, actually. I also need to expand a bit:

It's not the reclusive part; actually, it's the way he turned down the award for "Gravity's Rainbow," which most authors would deem a high distinction, an honor.

Since the Nobel is seen as the 'ultimate' award for a singular work in most instances (and one given not necessarily for a body of work) - ; in short, the Nobel committee might be reluctant to give an award to an author who might not be receptive to such a distinction.

I need to point out all my writing is mere theorizing, sort of like flapping one's arms in a breeze in order to stir the underarm hair.




Don

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

sort of like flapping one's arms in a breeze in order to stir the underarm hair.

This is lovely. You should turn it into something for the first sentences thread.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

It's not the reclusive part; actually, it's the way he turned down the award for "Gravity's Rainbow," which most authors would deem a high distinction, an honor.

The word I usually hear applied to that sort of behavior is difficult, which is often a euphemism for DNU.

[doubleshuffle]

DNU?
Dnipropetrovsk National University?
Dansk Naturist Union?
Department of Natural Unicorns?

[Billi]

Alice Munro from Canada won it.

[HarryT]

The Literature prize almost always seems to go to authors I've never heard of, which I'm sure is indicative of my appalling ignorance, rather than any fault on the part of the Prize committee .

It does often seem to be awarded as a kind of "lifetime achievement award", rather than for one specific work.

[kennyc]

Hmmmmm......as I said in the other thread, I keep trying to read her work and it just doesn't connect with me....

Originally Posted by HarryT

The Literature prize almost always seems to go to authors I've never heard of, which I'm sure is indicative of my appalling ignorance, rather than any fault on the part of the Prize committee .

It does often seem to be awarded as a kind of "lifetime achievement award", rather than for one specific work.

I've set myself a long term project of reading at least one work by every Nobel Prize for Literature. I purposely begin at the beginning and for winners before WWI and shortly after the only source through my local library system has been collections of works by winners. These have included the bonus of the award committees reasoning and the author's acceptance speeches. The first of those often cites the the author's entire body of work as the reason for the award. As you say a lifetime achievement award.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The Literature prize almost always seems to go to authors I've never heard of, which I'm sure is indicative of my appalling ignorance, rather than any fault on the part of the Prize committee .

It does often seem to be awarded as a kind of "lifetime achievement award", rather than for one specific work.

In my impressively humble opinion, Alice Munro was a great choice! Her short stories are good in the classic sense -- and like stories by Borges, they're so compressed that people often compare them to miniature novels -- but the kinds of characters she writes about wouldn't have been as closely observed or even understood until now. Her short story, "Five Points", actually changed a town; the collection in which it appears, Friend of My Youth, deserves to be on your reading list.

An excellent interview with Munro appears here. I love the fact she talks about a "soggy" paragraph.

[kennyc]

Hmmm again. I have her selected stories '96 but it doesn't include that story (I can't read from the New Yorker as I don't have a sub) but includes the title story 'Friend of My Youth'....