Why hasn't Kundera won the Nobel prize in literature?

[campbeca]

Hi,

I like books but have very limited literature knowledge. I have read quite a few Kundera books and I think they are every bit as good as Lessing, Coetzee or Garcia Marquez (other Laureates I am familiar with).

Has he been considered by the Nobel committtee? He seems serious enough and good enough to have picked one up long ago

[JBI]

Hmm, I haven't read him, but perhaps because his time hasn't come yet, or they don't think he is worthy. There are plenty of great writers waiting for their turn, and plenty who didn't get their turn.

[muhsin]

Hmm, I haven't read him, but perhaps because his time hasn't come yet, or they don't think he is worthy. There are plenty of great writers waiting for their turn, and plenty who didn't get their turn.

Correct!

[Remarkable]

Lately the Nobel Prize has become quite a political award so you understand yourself the rest.

[tractatus]

< Quote : but perhaps because his time hasn't come yet, >

Or his time has passed, he missed the train. There is no Soviet danger now, or goverment force.

[liberal viewer]

< Quote : but perhaps because his time hasn't come yet, >

Or his time has passed, he missed the train. There is no Soviet danger now, or goverment force.
:
Correct! He is a good writer, not a great one, I think. Sadly he seems to be a terribly old fashioned writer nowadays. The fall of the Soviet Union hurt him deeply in his quest for the Nobel, no doubt!
I guess his 2 more important books are the Joke, and "Life's somewhere else". I didn't care for the Unbearable lightness of being.

[Lambert]

Why hasn't Kundera won the Nobel prize in literature?

One word (courtesy of Nabokov): Superessayism

[Pecksie]

Why didn't Jorge Luis Borges win it?

Well maybe because you have to be a Communist-country escapee or a genocide survivor to win it. Unfortunately, these days the Nobel Prize seems to have more to do with life experiences/politics than with writing. It's been given to writers who in my opinion are mediocre (although there are a few exceptions, like Pinter or Coetzee), while ignoring major authors like Mario Vargas Llosa or Amos Oz.

I think the real trial will be posterity - Borges has become a classic, but I wonder who will remember Imre Kertész or Wislawa Szymborska in a hundred years.

[JBI]

For the above poster, footnotes please. This isn't the peace prize, and you're quite out of place commenting like that. Some have been awarded for that, but many were great authors. You're just throwing in against the 10 bad political choices in the past 96 years

[aabbcc]

The Nobel prize in literature is not a "measure" of one's greatness as a writer in any way. Even if you disregard the political component of about a dozen of those prizes, the fact is that many brilliant authors have not received it (Kundera, Krleža - even moreso Krleža than Kundera, etc...), whilst some which I would consider simply mediocre (Grazia Deledda, to put an example from my national literature) have received it. It really does not mean anything, a prize as any other prize; personally when reading I do not pay much attention to the prizes author won (or didn't win); it looks good under your name, and that's all - I would never go as far to consider it a true "sign" of something, of author's greatness or lack thereof.
Prizes won, recensions of critics, being put into Top X of Y, being considered a "classic"... All of it, essentially, means nothing. There are still "classics" which I consider barely above contemporary trash, and there are still underrated authors and works. Going for something because it's a winner of prize X, and considering prize X, critic Y and literary magazine Z to have a monopoly over what is "good literature" is nothing but (pseudo-)intellectual snobbery.

So really, don't stress too much over the fact Kundera didn't get it, it means nothing, just like it would mean nothing had he got it. ;)

[JBI]

Nobel's are important, simply because they allow the general public more access to many authors. There is no disputing that, and I probably would not have read many books if it wasn't for the fact that they won Nobels, and therefore were available in translation for me.

[Stewart]

It's been given to writers who in my opinion are mediocre while ignoring major authors like Mario Vargas Llosa or Amos Oz.
Let's face it, you can't say they are ignoring anyone. The Academy takes nominations from eminent personalities around the world, including previous Nobel laureates, and then make their choice. Llosa and Oz will most likely have been nominated but they just haven't won. And we will never know - at least, not for a long time - who was in contention as the Academy doesn't make that information known until fifty years later.


I think the real trial will be posterity - Borges has become a classic, but I wonder who will remember Imre Kertész or Wislawa Szymborska in a hundred years.
It's highly possible. Kertész Imre as pretty much unknown when he took the prize but his works are rapidly appearing in English now and that must surely mean that his stock, having risen, is rising further.

[Pecksie]

For the above poster, footnotes please. This isn't the peace prize, and you're quite out of place commenting like that. Some have been awarded for that, but many were great authors. You're just throwing in against the 10 bad political choices in the past 96 years

I don't think I'm "out of place". I'm just giving my opinion, as you are. I thought that was the purpose of a forum. I am referring, specifically, to authors like Gao Xingjian and Imre Kertész (and, to a lesser extent, Szymborska). Bashevis Singer, in my opinion, was a good writer, but not Nobel Prize material - the discussion could go on and on. The reference to the Peace Price seems misleading to me - what I am trying to say is precisely that politics shouldn't count, whether in choosing an author for his/her political views or for having a background that's considered "politically correct".

BTW, does anyone know if there's any truth to the assertion that most Swedish Academy members don't speak any foreign languages? If it's true, it would add another dimension to the issue, in making them, arguably, not really qualified to judge about authors who, for the most part, write in languages they don't understand...

[JBI]

You are saying they should not count, but you are using your personal aesthetic to justify why they were political choices, rather than aesthetic choices. You did not state that it was your opinion in your post, you stated it with the confidence that it was fact. That is why I commented, not because you are necessarily wrong.

Do you speak Yiddish? I hope you do if you comment like that, though even people who do speak Yiddish, and translate, and critique it hold Singer in high esteem. Have you read Xingjian in Chinese, I would hope so if you jump the gun that quickly. What about Kretesz, or Szymborska, I trust you have read them in the original.

I am sure the academy speaks at least a few second languages (academics usually speak 3 or more, especially older European ones such as they, who are specified in literature). Either way, if you knew how the Nobels work, you would note that the authors they consider are nominated by academics across the world. Someone has read them in their original at least, and someone, who knows more about them than you do, has said they deserve the Nobel. Who are you to say they don't? We still, are assuming you are a hyperpolyglot, and speak all those languages well enough to read the entire opus of all those writers in their original.

Thank you. Either way, how politically correct is Harold Pinter? How "politically correct" is Jose Saramago? Both those guys have highly controversial politics, and have recently won. I assume you factored them into you Communist-country escapee or a genocide survivor" list. I also trust you have read both Mario Vargas Llosa and Amos Oz in the original, but either way neither are dead yet, so it is to be seen whether your prophecy will be fulfilled, and neither will win in their lifetime. Borges seems to be your best argument, but it really has no point. Borges' reputation was big enough anyway throughout the world, that him winning the Nobel would be pointless. It is better to see lesser-known great writers than well known great writers win the prize. I don't need the Nobels to tell me who is good or not, I need them to give the exposure to an artist that he needs to get the book in front of me.

[Pecksie]

You are saying they should not count, but you are using your personal aesthetic to justify why they were political choices, rather than aesthetic choices. You did not state that it was your opinion in your post, you stated it with the confidence that it was fact. That is why I commented, not because you are necessarily wrong.

Do you speak Yiddish? I hope you do if you comment like that, though even people who do speak Yiddish, and translate, and critique it hold Singer in high esteem. Have you read Xingjian in Chinese, I would hope so if you jump the gun that quickly. What about Kretesz, or Szymborska, I trust you have read them in the original.

I am sure the academy speaks at least a few second languages (academics usually speak 3 or more, especially older European ones such as they, who are specified in literature). Either way, if you knew how the Nobels work, you would note that the authors they consider are nominated by academics across the world. Someone has read them in their original at least, and someone, who knows more about them than you do, has said they deserve the Nobel. Who are you to say they don't? We still, are assuming you are a hyperpolyglot, and speak all those languages well enough to read the entire opus of all those writers in their original.

Thank you. Either way, how politically correct is Harold Pinter? How "politically correct" is Jose Saramago? Both those guys have highly controversial politics, and have recently won. I assume you factored them into you Communist-country escapee or a genocide survivor" list. I also trust you have read both Mario Vargas Llosa and Amos Oz in the original, but either way neither are dead yet, so it is to be seen whether your prophecy will be fulfilled, and neither will win in their lifetime. Borges seems to be your best argument, but it really has no point. Borges' reputation was big enough anyway throughout the world, that him winning the Nobel would be pointless. It is better to see lesser-known great writers than well known great writers win the prize. I don't need the Nobels to tell me who is good or not, I need them to give the exposure to an artist that he needs to get the book in front of me.

Hmmm... you sound a bit rude to me. But never mind, it's Sunday and I haven't had to witness or listen to any aggression for two full days, so I'm relaxed and I can take it :lol: If you really want to know, I don't speak Yiddish, although I do speak Spanish, English, French, Italian, and have a smattering of Portuguese. But I don't think that's the point at all. Ad-hominem attacks are really out of place, and if I spoke only my mother tongue, I think my query would still be valid. I was only wondering (and you would have noticed, had you bothered to read what I wrote) whether there is some truth in what I heard about Academy members not speaking any foreign languages. I don't know if they do or not - I was asking, as I wondered whether perhaps someone in this forum knew. Because I remember reading something of the sort on the Internet, and of course I think that the more languages they speak, the more qualified they would be.

Of course I don't know for sure (can anyone?) whether any given writer has been nominated for political reasons or not. And, to a certain extent, we all express our own personal opinions or apply or personal aesthetics when we say that someone should or shouldn't be awarded a Nobel Prize - what's wrong with that? Your own opinions don't seem particularly undeniable, or even well-argued, to me. They're just that - opinions. Well, maybe we could just add the letters "I.M.H.O." after each sentence in our posts, to leave no doubt about it, but then again, it might be a bit cumbersome.

When I see the Nobel Prize awarded to a writer who is relatively obscure outside his or her own country (not just this humble wretch's opinion, but that of many critics as regards Xingjian, Kertész et al.), I (mistrustful ignoramus that I am) tend to ask myself which is the huge merit that lies behind the award in those cases, and whether it is literary or of some other kind. It's only natural. "Who am I to say they don't" deserve the prize? Well, who are you to say they do?

As to your assertion that Borges didn't need the Nobel Prize because he was famous enough, that is simply untenable. The function of the Nobel Prize, I should think, is not rescuing unknowns from obscurity (there are other, "smaller" prizes for that), but rewarding an individual's lifetime of achievement.

[FranzKafka]

Kundera/Borges
Well a lot of people have typed away at all possible reasons, but there really is not a specific reason. it is not because he isn't good enough or that he is an "old fashion" writer. It falls into the category of how they pick their pieces to be awarded, which has more than likely been distorted just as any award giving ceremony.
He doesn't need it, and neither do you. The focus of writing should hold nothing of ceremonies or even good reviews. A story, a style should come clean and from the gut, anything else would be a suicide to the point.
none of this matters.

[Jozanny]

I am staying out of the Nobel legitimacy issue. It detracts from the merit of the award itself, which I think is a fine honor for our best who have striven for a lifetime of achievement.

As to Kundra, he isn't that good. He smears petroleum jelly over any concrete sensibility. He doesn't like ideology. Check. He creates interesting bedroom scenes. Check. A decent amount of poignancy permeates his narrative. Check.

This doesn't hold a candle to what Grass did for Germany with The Tin Drum or what Mabfouz does for contemporary Egyptian society. Kundra is closer to a European version of everyone's favorite New Yorker story.

Try Danilo Kis if you really want challenging pathos.

[johann cruyff]

Try Danilo Kis if you really want challenging pathos.

Brilliant! I had the pleasure of reading Kiš in his(well,mine as well) mother tongue, and can safely say he ranks amongst the best writers of the 20th century. I'm not sure if all of his works have been translated,but I'd assume some of the most important ones exist in translation to all the major languages.

[Jozanny]

Brilliant! I had the pleasure of reading Kiš in his(well,mine as well) mother tongue, and can safely say he ranks amongst the best writers of the 20th century. I'm not sure if all of his works have been translated,but I'd assume some of the most important ones exist in translation to all the major languages.

I can only imagine how sublime he must be in his own language. It is a shame he is not better known.:(

[Erichtho]

The Nobel Prize is given to an author who has written the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency, which already includes a political attitude; thus to criticise the presence of political reasons in the choice of winners is to disagree with the whole concept of the Nobel Prize.

Personally, I have never cared much about the Nobel Prize or any other literature award. Usually I register who wins it and that's about it. It doesn't lead me to read or not to read an author because of it. Those who receive it are already translated into various languages and relatively famous, what they gain is some money and a short-term popularity within a broader audience - those non-readers who buy one book by the author shortly after the announcement in order to have a fashionable topic for conversation, or simply to have something to show off in their bookshelves. Are these the "readers" an author wants to have? I doubt it.

So many Nobel Prize winners are already forgotten, or has anyone here read something by Carl Spitteler or Erik Axel Karlfeldt? To win or not to win doesn't mean anything.

Concerning Kiš: I've read two works by him (Mansarda and Grobnica za Borisa Davidoviča); sure, Kiš isn't world-famous but he is also not totally obscure. I cannot say that I was especially fond of these books, though.