Bob Dylan wins Nobel Prize for Literature

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Perhaps you mean Elfriede Jelinek?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfrie...he_Nobel_Prize

I wonder how she managed with her lecture? That can't have been easy with the conditions she suffers from. That does have to be given "live", I believe. Don't think you'd get away with a video recording of it.

[doubleshuffle]

.....

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I wonder how she managed with her lecture? That can't have been easy with the conditions she suffers from. That does have to be given "live", I believe. Don't think you'd get away with a video recording of it.

It was pre-recorded...
http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=721

[HarryT]

Thanks, Brian!

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm very sympathetic to the winner than didn't attend because of Stage Fright.

While this is not an example of non attendance, Richard Feynman in his autobiography Surely You Are Joking Mr Feynman gives an account of the reasons for his initial personal reluctance to attend to receive the Physics Prize and he was a very outgoing character. In the end he did attend and he describes what turned him around. It made interesting reading.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by HarryT

He can give the lecture anywhere he wishes. He just has to agree to give it as a condition of accepting the award.

Prove it. I don't doubt that is what the committee wants, but does it work like that? Once given the award doesn't just go away. How come Sartre is still listed as winner in 1964 despite him not only not giving an acceptance or lecture speech, but also trying to flatout refuse the award to begin with.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Prove it. I don't doubt that is what the committee wants, but does it work like that? Once given the award doesn't just go away. How come Sartre is still listed as winner in 1964 despite him not only not giving an acceptance or lecture speech, but also trying to flatout refuse the award to begin with.

That would be a question you'd need to address to the Swedish Academy, not me . I'm just going from what the BBC (whose reporting is generally accurate) reported about Mr Dylan.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That would be a question you'd need to address to the Swedish Academy, not me . I'm just going from what the BBC (whose reporting is generally accurate) reported about Mr Dylan.

That sounds fair enough. Usually I trust when you mention something as fact that you merely forgot to mention the source. I highly doubt you would try to sell your own opinion as fact, but in this case I couldn't find any hint of independent confirmation.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

That sounds fair enough. Usually I trust when you mention something as fact that you merely forgot to mention the source. I highly doubt you would try to sell your own opinion as fact, but in this case I couldn't find any hint of independent confirmation.

Would you trust the Swedish Academy themselves? From their statement:

...

That laureates decide not to come is unusual, to be sure, but not exceptional. In the recent past, several laureates have, for various reasons, been unable to come to Stockholm to receive the prize, among them Doris Lessing, Harold Pinter, and Elfriede Jelinek. The prize still belongs to them, just as it belongs to Bob Dylan.

We look forward to Bob Dylan’s Nobel Lecture, which he must give – it is the only requirement – within six months counting from December 10, 2016.

(emphasis mine)

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by HarryT

He can give the lecture anywhere he wishes. He just has to agree to give it as a condition of accepting the award.

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Prove it. I don't doubt that is what the committee wants, but does it work like that? Once given the award doesn't just go away. How come Sartre is still listed as winner in 1964 despite him not only not giving an acceptance or lecture speech, but also trying to flatout refuse the award to begin with.

I believe that the condition applies to acceptance of the Prize not the award of Laureate itself.

Sartre declined the prize, and so did not have to give a lecture.

{Second Edit: In anticipation of a rude demand to "Prove it" I have now had a look at the Nobel Prize website and cannot see anything there. So if DuckieTigger is demanding of proof and disbelieving of what has been said by at least 2 posters plus the news release, then they will have to go and sort it out themselves )}

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I believe that the condition applies to acceptance of the Prize not the award of Laureate itself.

Sartre declined the prize, and so did not have to give a lecture.

{Second Edit: In anticipation of a rude demand to "Prove it" I have now had a look at the Nobel Prize website and cannot see anything there. So if DuckieTigger is demanding of proof and disbelieving of what has been said by at least 2 posters plus the news release, then they will have to go and sort it out themselves )}

So it is about money? What kind a ridiculous award is that?

The Nobel committee is pig headed enough that they don't even have an exit strategy for anyone not wanting anything to do with the award.

From http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...ureates/1964/: (bold mine)

The Nobel Prize in Literature 1964 was awarded to Jean-Paul Sartre "for his work which, rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth, has exerted a far-reaching influence on our age".

Jean-Paul Sartre declined the Nobel Prize.

What good is it to decline it if you are still awarded it?

Same for Bob Dylan. Imagine he doesn't want it. It sure does not look like he is putting the least bit of effort into it. Then what? His name is going to be tainted forever by it and there is nothing he can do about it. Best strategy is continue to do nothing.

[Krazykiwi]

Re the giving of the lecture - Calling it a "requirement" is slightly overstating it:

The statutes of the Nobel Foundation (NOT Svenska Akademien) § 9

"It shall be incumbent on a prizewinner, whenever this is possible, to give a lecture on a subject relevant to the work for which the prize has been awarded. Such a lecture should be given before, or no later than six months after, the Festival Day in Stockholm or, in the case of the Peace Prize, in Oslo."

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_orga.../statutes.html

Also, pointing out that most of the rules surrounding the nomination, selection and award are governed by the Nobel Foundation and apply equally to all the awards, even though each of them are selected by entirely different bodies. Svenska Akademien's Nobel committee really can't do anything about what happens once they've chosen someone.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krazykiwi

Re the giving of the lecture - Calling it a "requirement" is slightly overstating it:

The statutes of the Nobel Foundation (NOT Svenska Akademien) § 9

"It shall be incumbent on a prizewinner, whenever this is possible, to give a lecture on a subject relevant to the work for which the prize has been awarded. Such a lecture should be given before, or no later than six months after, the Festival Day in Stockholm or, in the case of the Peace Prize, in Oslo."

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_orga.../statutes.html

Also, pointing out that most of the rules surrounding the nomination, selection and award are governed by the Nobel Foundation and apply equally to all the awards, even though each of them are selected by entirely different bodies. Svenska Akademien's Nobel committee really can't do anything about what happens once they've chosen someone.

[HarryT]

Thanks for that, Kiwi. Very useful post.

[Barty]

Dylan hasn't declined the award? He just won't give a lecture.