Nobel Prize for Literature 2018/2019

[DiapDealer]

As long as there have been awards, there have been those who sought to tear down the winners (and those who nominated/selected them). But I don't believe those who choose to do so have gained any more popularity or credibility. They're just a bit noisier now that they have more of a platform to shout from.

[Alanon]

For me (and many, many others) the premise has always been questionable, and there are several good arguments why the award should be changed in some way. To begin with, an international award shouldn't really be stewarded by a national Academy of Arts. Things like science are also questionable, but less so, since the scientific community has firmer standards to fall back to. The real question for me is why have we allowed an essentially national book award with international ambitions to gain international acclaim? Is it just the appeal of a cash award to great authors?

The "committee approach" the Academy has adopted enables bickering and delaying awards to certain authors, which resulted in the flippant dismissal of some of the universally recognised greatest writers of their generation (Tolstoy, Gorky, Borges, Roth, to name a few), in favour of "compromise candidates", as if the fact one was nominated (the records of which being sealed for more than half a century) is somehow the same as receiving the award itself. All the while many insignificant authors have in fact received it (Prudhomme, anyone?) - far too many Nordic writers of minute global significance among them, which have been given this international award because of local lobbying and national sentiments. Far from being an expression of "critical consensus" the laureates are an amalgam of political and local bartering. "Lofty idealism" indeed.

The Academy, knowing the public is aware of this, periodically engages in attempts of emblematic PR ventures, such as the recent Bob Dylan escapade. I'm a greater fan of Dylan than Roth, but there is no doubt that the award - and literature - would have been better served by honouring one of the last giants of a dying breed of authors. This latest double award is also a balancing act. Handke is no Grass, but is representative of a kind of intellectual highbrow literature many appreciate and feel is under siege. Regardless of the merits of that argument, I've never been able to get into his writing, though he is revered in some circles in Serbia, for reasons better left unmentioned.

The fact that the circumstance of a double award was exploited, I think is self-evident. I secretly believe that Handke was smuggled in, so to speak, by the conservative committee hardliners, in exchange for allowing another token "activist literature" candidate. (This is by no means a reflection on, or dismissal of, Ms Tokarczuk's body work, which I'm unfamiliar with. If anything, it is a dismissal of the committee's body of work.) Had the awards been given in proper sequence and usual form, I think neither Ms Tokarczuk nor Handke would have won. After all, had they not given it to Dylan and Ishiguro beforehand? Quite enough for at least a couple years of choice local candidates.

As far as more representative awards go - how about the Man Booker, or one of the many Pen centre awards?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Alanon

For me (and many, many others) the premise has always been questionable, and there are several good arguments why the award should be changed in some way. To begin with, an international award shouldn't really be stewarded by a national Academy of Arts. Things like science are also questionable, but less so, since the scientific community has firmer standards to fall back to. The real question for me is why have we allowed an essentially national book award with international ambitions to gain international acclaim? Is it just the appeal of a cash award to great authors?

The "committee approach" the Academy has adopted enables bickering and delaying awards to certain authors, which resulted in the flippant dismissal of some of the universally recognised greatest writers of their generation (Tolstoy, Gorky, Borges, Roth, to name a few), in favour of "compromise candidates", as if the fact one was nominated (the records of which being sealed for more than half a century) is somehow the same as receiving the award itself. All the while many insignificant authors have in fact received it (Prudhomme, anyone?) - far too many Nordic writers of minute global significance among them, which have been given this international award because of local lobbying and national sentiments. Far from being an expression of "critical consensus" the laureates are an amalgam of political and local bartering. "Lofty idealism" indeed.

The Academy, knowing the public is aware of this, periodically engages in attempts of emblematic PR ventures, such as the recent Bob Dylan escapade. I'm a greater fan of Dylan than Roth, but there is no doubt that the award - and literature - would have been better served by honouring one of the last giants of a dying breed of authors. This latest double award is also a balancing act. Handke is no Grass, but is representative of a kind of intellectual highbrow literature many appreciate and feel is under siege. Regardless of the merits of that argument, I've never been able to get into his writing, though he is revered in some circles in Serbia, for reasons better left unmentioned.

The fact that the circumstance of a double award was exploited, I think is self-evident. I secretly believe that Handke was smuggled in, so to speak, by the conservative committee hardliners, in exchange for allowing another token "activist literature" candidate. (This is by no means a reflection on, or dismissal of, Ms Tokarczuk's body work, which I'm unfamiliar with. If anything, it is a dismissal of the committee's body of work.) Had the awards been given in proper sequence and usual form, I think neither Ms Tokarczuk nor Handke would have won. After all, had they not given it to Dylan and Ishiguro beforehand? Quite enough for at least a couple years of choice local candidates.

As far as more representative awards go - how about the Man Booker, or one of the many Pen centre awards?

In general, I agree that literature awards would be better served staying national. So much of good literature depends on context and frame of reference.

It really kind of depends on what the award is suppose to represent and what it's suppose to achieve. In general, I tend to think of it as a "this is what a read read person should have read", but in reality, it does seem to be more of a popularity contest, a clique thing or even a "art" thing. [from the stand point of if the average person might actually like it, it can't be art]

[Alanon]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

In general, I agree that literature awards would be better served staying national. So much of good literature depends on context and frame of reference.

It really kind of depends on what the award is suppose to represent and what it's suppose to achieve. In general, I tend to think of it as a "this is what a read read person should have read", but in reality, it does seem to be more of a popularity contest, a clique thing or even a "art" thing. [from the stand point of if the average person might actually like it, it can't be art]

Precisely. The original reasoning for giving the decision-making process of the Nobel prize over to the Academy was due to lingering XIX-century optimism of the ability of great institutions to transcend vagaries of public opinion, and the limits of particular cultures, towards a pan-European ideal. I think it can be read from Nobel's own summaries of what each award was supposed to signify, which was later expanded to encompass the West, and only later on the European east, far east and today - the globe. However, in order to be able to adjudicate what a well-read person is supposed to know, you first have to have an underlying vision of culture that such a person helps define.

It's within that context that national awards should be able to provide more coherent criteria (but they do not always succeed in doing so). The Nobel was, in essence, a cosmopolitan effort, mistakenly given over to folks that simply weren't cosmopolitan enough, as the record has shown. Instead, they focused their energies on balancing national sentiments with great literature, and great literature (at least from this distance) has not always prevailed. It may be that many of their selections will live on as cornerstones of culture and civilisation, but as it stands now, I feel they were half-right at best, which is really no better than what "ordinary" conscientious book lovers would have come up with.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You know when you chop out a section of a post, you can totally change how it reads. The rest of the quote was " I can remember them giving it to Bob Dylan a few years ago and he skipped the presentation ceremonies. "

So I was giving two different points on why I thought that maybe the Nobel prize wasn't the most important event in literature.

You asked "Why do you feel that prizes exist for no other reason than to create extra sales? " which is not even remotely what I said. I gave two reasons why it might not be the most important event in the literary world, I never said nor implied that the only reason a prize exists is to create extra sales.

I avoided the opinion part purely on purpose. Only because you think that Bob Dylan got the award undeservedly, does not make the Nobel Prize any different. You did however put a strong correlation between the importance of a prize and resulting increased sales. If you did not imply that increased sales afterwards are a very important measure stick on how important a prize is, then why mention it at all?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I avoided the opinion part purely on purpose. Only because you think that Bob Dylan got the award undeservedly, does not make the Nobel Prize any different. You did however put a strong correlation between the importance of a prize and resulting increased sales. If you did not imply that increased sales afterwards are a very important measure stick on how important a prize is, then why mention it at all?

I know you avoided the second reason on purpose. While I think that Dylan is a song writer not a novelist, my point was that he didn't bother to show up to the award banquet and his response when told he won wasn't exactly ecstatic, so it wasn't my opinion, it was Dylan's reaction that I was talking about.

You know, if you took a minute to actually read and think about what was said, you wouldn't find yourself trying to spin things quite so much.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I know you avoided the second reason on purpose. While I think that Dylan is a song writer not a novelist, my point was that he didn't bother to show up to the award banquet and his response when told he won wasn't exactly ecstatic, so it wasn't my opinion, it was Dylan's reaction that I was talking about.

You know, if you took a minute to actually read and think about what was said, you wouldn't find yourself trying to spin things quite so much.

I read exactly what you wrote. And dismissing a prize's importance simply by the statement of one eccentric artist is rather childish. So I dismissed it as a simple rant. Contrary to your belief, the Nobel Price is not exclusively for novelists. It is for literature. Lyrics are a form of literature. Just like poetry is a form of literature. Did Bob Dylan deserve to get the prize in the first place? That is neither for you nor me to decide. It is not a popularity contest. The Nobel Prize (any, not just literature) is a pat on the back, after the effect, in hindsight, that this artist or scientist managed to have a meaningful impact or influence during their lifetime. For literature it is writers you should have been reading.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I read exactly what you wrote. And dismissing a prize's importance simply by the statement of one eccentric artist is rather childish. So I dismissed it as a simple rant. Contrary to your belief, the Nobel Price is not exclusively for novelists. It is for literature. Lyrics are a form of literature. Just like poetry is a form of literature. Did Bob Dylan deserve to get the prize in the first place? That is neither for you nor me to decide. It is not a popularity contest. The Nobel Prize (any, not just literature) is a pat on the back, after the effect, in hindsight, that this artist or scientist managed to have a meaningful impact or influence during their lifetime. For literature it is writers you should have been reading.

I see, so giving an example is childish, thus that example can be dismissed and the other example can be spun as prizes only value is how much sales are generated by them. Oh, and then you can simply assume that I'm not well aware that poets have won the Noble prize, ergo I must be pig ignorant of it. Yes, it's a nice rhetorical device if you can pull it off.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I see, so giving an example is childish, thus that example can be dismissed and the other example can be spun as prizes only value is how much sales are generated by them. Oh, and then you can simply assume that I'm not well aware that poets have won the Noble prize, ergo I must be pig ignorant of it. Yes, it's a nice rhetorical device if you can pull it off.

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.

[pwalker8]

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.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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.

Only one of the two that you mentioned are observational. Unless I missed your source, that you didn't mention, about low sales increases. In any case it would be hard to track, without reliable source, a correlation between Nobel Prize and increased sales, let alone show a causation. Most other prizes in literature concentrate on a single book, or possible books if it happens to be a series, that are recently released.

Only because you say so, doesn't make it so. Among all the reasons you could have mentioned, you cherry pick two. I have to assume, please correct me if I am out of line with my thinking here, that those two reason are the most important to you. 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. No more sex, crime, and corruption. Maybe even less euro centricity going forward.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Only one of the two that you mentioned are observational. Unless I missed your source, that you didn't mention, about low sales increases. In any case it would be hard to track, without reliable source, a correlation between Nobel Prize and increased sales, let alone show a causation. Most other prizes in literature concentrate on a single book, or possible books if it happens to be a series, that are recently released.

Only because you say so, doesn't make it so. Among all the reasons you could have mentioned, you cherry pick two. I have to assume, please correct me if I am out of line with my thinking here, that those two reason are the most important to you. 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. No more sex, crime, and corruption. Maybe even less euro centricity going forward.

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. I have no way of actually checking to see what award moves the needle on sales the most, which is why I said "I suspect". The suspicion is based on the observation that I remember seeing a lot more books with the blurb "Pulizter prize winner" or "Newbury prize winner" among others, that I see "Nobel prize winner". Maybe it's valid, maybe it isn't.

The observation that Bob Dylan didn't show up for the award ceremony and his muted reaction to winning it was much, much more important to my opinion, than the fact that Dylan, a song writer, won it.

Cherry picked? Really? 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.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Cherry picked? Really? Cherry picked is a term used when someone ignores facts that doesn't match a thesis.

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.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I have no way of actually checking to see what award moves the needle on sales the most, which is why I said "I suspect". The suspicion is based on the observation that I remember seeing a lot more books with the blurb "Pulizter prize winner" or "Newbury prize winner" among others, that I see "Nobel prize winner". Maybe it's valid, maybe it isn't.

If randomly asked to name a prize related to books/writing, I'd come up with Booker, Pulitzer, Hugo and Nebula before I thought of Nobel.
(The first is probably because I'm British, and the last two because I read a lot of Sci-Fi.)

[Quoth]

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