The unimportance of the Nobel Prize of Literature

[liberal viewer]

In one of the threads someone (can't remember who or where) made a big deal about the Nobel and someone else answered that the prize "had become too politicized recently". Actually it has always been that way. The Nobel grants a writer instant recognition and best seller status as people will buy his works (although won't necessarily read them). I think the members of this forum, "we few, we happy few!", should be weary of this or any other award. Heck, after all, the greatest writers of the XX Century did NOT receive the award: Proust, Kafka, Borges, Tolstoy (granted he died in 1910, but damn!) Ibsen (1906), and specially the greatest of them all: James Joyce.
On the other hand, the list of very mediocre, but politically correct, writers who won this award is enormous: Sully Prudhomme, Rabindranath Tagore, Jacinto Benavente, Pearl Buck, Winston Churchill!, Isaac Singer!, Toni Morrison (hmm!) and a very long etcetera.

[Etienne]

I agree with practically all you said but...

...I'll tell you what's their importance. It's for the writers who win it, and for the publicity it brings to the literary world. That one agrees or not with the laureates it doesn't matter, the absence of the prize would be worse.

Following this reasoning, why the whining about their importance? I read Tolstoy, Kafka, Joyce, etc. and so, I do not care about the prizes they might have gotten.

[ForzaSugar]

I don't think Joyce is greater than Kafka or Proust and not even close to Tolstoy's quality.

On the other hand, i agree with your idea about Nobel Prize.

[stlukesguild]

Hmmm... T.S. Eliot, Andre Gide, W.B. Yeats, Hermann Hesse, Thomas mann, Luigi Pirandello, Juan Ramon Jimenez, Camus, Boris Pasternak, Steinbeck, Sartres, William Faulkner, Lagerkvist, Hemingway, Samuel Beckett, Pablo Neruda, Eugenio Montale, Vincente Aliexandre, Czeslaw Milosz, Gabriele Garcia Marquez, William Golding, Jaroslav Seifert, Joseph Brodsky, Octavio Paz, Seamus Heaney, Wislawa Szymborska, Jose Saramago, Gunter Grass, etc... quite a list of "mediocre but politically correct writers," eh? Of course all prizes in the arts are BS to a greater or lesser extent. On the other hand, I would have to say that the Nobel probably has a far better track record than most other awards. Certainly, it's completely unimportant that Borges, Kafka, Proust, Joyce, and Tolstoy did not win this award. I don't think anybody with half a brain imagines that the Nobel is consistently awarded to the greatest living author yet to have been acknowledged. It's merely is a recognition of writers who have made notable contributions to the field of literature. Many of the Nobel Laureates were indeed among the greatest living writers of their time (Eliot, Yeats, Montale, Beckett, and others ... see above). Some... undoubtedly... are but mediocre. I will note that beside recognizing a good number of truly gifted writers, the Nobel has also brought far wider attention to some worthy authors who were all but unknown (at least on the larger international scale) prior: Saramago, Seifert, Szymborska, etc...

I agree that it is something of a travesty that Borges, Tolstoy, Kafka, Proust, and Joyce were never awarded the prize. Of course Kafka was largely unknown until well after his death which would largely have disqualified him while Tolstoy died in 1910 and wrote little of great consequence during the 20th century... beside which I might note that the Nobel doesn't seem to get into the swing of things in recognizing the really important authors until after WWI.

I don't think Joyce is greater than Kafka or Proust and not even close to Tolstoy's quality.

I'm in complete agreement here.

[Simao]

You know whats funny? I have never heard of the ones that you mentioned who actually won the award except for Churchill lol but I know/read books for the ones that you mentioned who didn't win it.
The noble prize isn't an indication of how good a book is and alot of writers get ignored even though they contributed way more than alof of the writers who won it to the literature world.
And I agree that Tolstoy and Kafka are better writers than James Joyce.

[Aiculík]

The trouble with any award is, that there will always be people who will be disappointed and disatisfied with the winners and feel that someone else should have win it instead.

With literature, it's even more difficult, because to judge objectivelly, it wold be necessary to read all books and then choose which one is the best. And that's not possible. Besides, there are no objective "criteria of quality". Which means it's dependent on the opinon of the people who are in the committee. So in order to make it less subjective, they have to accept some kind of "policy" what books they will consider, and based on which criteria they'll choose it. Inevitably some otherwise great authors, but that don't fit into this "policy" are ommitted.

Of course, you'd choose differently. Me, too, in some cases (though I'm afraid that if I were the judge, Joyce would still remain without prize. :D)But do you really think that in that case, nobody would protest? That people wouldn't wonder how is it possible you ignored such a great author as XY, while award someone as mediocre as YX? One of the solution would be to ignore all awards. But simply won't happen. People love to evaluate, judge, criticise, compare - especially someone else's work. :)

So the question is - should Nobel prize (or any other) give prizes only to publicly renown authors? Only to the authors expected by majority to win? Or should they try and discover authors and works, that are not so known and popular, but nevertheless of the same (or even higher) quality? And that's importance of Nobel prize. It gives the chance to authors that would be ignored and forgotten, just because people never heard of them.

I disagree with the statement that the Nobel prize makes authors "best sellers". My experience is quite opposite - most of people would not buy it, because it won Nobel prize and they expect it will be too difficult for them to understand. Many authors on the list, especially those who did not write in English, are still rather unknown for the public.

"We few, we very happy few" - sorry, but what's that supposed to mean? Who are those "happy few"? In opposition to who? And what exactly should they be aware of?
Not that I didn't understand, I just hope I understood it wrong.

[johann cruyff]

As for Kafka,it is completely understandable,since he was practically anonymous,and would have stayed that way if it weren't for Brod who posthumously published pretty much all the works by which the people know Kafka today.

I remember reading some sort of an explanation(Wikipedia,I think) as to why Tolstoy was not awarded with the Prize.Basically,it was Alfred Nobel who stated that the winners should be promoters of "sound idealism" or something similar,so Tolstoy didn't exactly qualify.Later,of course,the committee abandoned that policy.

[nebish]

Toni Morrison mediocre ? - Put her in a head-to-head against any of the winners since Samuel Beckett, she wins 32 by ko, several points victories and 4 draws..

[liberal viewer]

Toni Morrison mediocre ? - Put her in a head-to-head against any of the winners since Samuel Beckett, she wins 32 by ko, several points victories and 4 draws..

Ha! Ha! That was a good one, but, of course, you can't mean it, can you? I mean, just of the top of my head, since Mr. Beckett won the award you have:
Neruda, Canetti, Golding, Pinter, García Márquez, Heaney, Solzhenitysn, Saramago, Paz, Milosz, Grass, Coetzee, who are, I think vastly superior to Ms. Morrison... I mean, come on!

[liberal viewer]

The trouble with any award is, that there will always be people who will be disappointed and disatisfied with the winners and feel that someone else should have win it instead.

With literature, it's even more difficult, because to judge objectivelly, it wold be necessary to read all books and then choose which one is the best. And that's not possible. Besides, there are no objective "criteria of quality". Which means it's dependent on the opinon of the people who are in the committee. So in order to make it less subjective, they have to accept some kind of "policy" what books they will consider, and based on which criteria they'll choose it. Inevitably some otherwise great authors, but that don't fit into this "policy" are ommitted.

Of course, you'd choose differently. Me, too, in some cases (though I'm afraid that if I were the judge, Joyce would still remain without prize. :D)But do you really think that in that case, nobody would protest? That people wouldn't wonder how is it possible you ignored such a great author as XY, while award someone as mediocre as YX? One of the solution would be to ignore all awards. But simply won't happen. People love to evaluate, judge, criticise, compare - especially someone else's work. :)

So the question is - should Nobel prize (or any other) give prizes only to publicly renown authors? Only to the authors expected by majority to win? Or should they try and discover authors and works, that are not so known and popular, but nevertheless of the same (or even higher) quality? And that's importance of Nobel prize. It gives the chance to authors that would be ignored and forgotten, just because people never heard of them.

I disagree with the statement that the Nobel prize makes authors "best sellers". My experience is quite opposite - most of people would not buy it, because it won Nobel prize and they expect it will be too difficult for them to understand. Many authors on the list, especially those who did not write in English, are still rather unknown for the public.

"We few, we very happy few" - sorry, but what's that supposed to mean? Who are those "happy few"? In opposition to who? And what exactly should they be aware of?
Not that I didn't understand, I just hope I understood it wrong.

You make some interesting points, my friend, but I don't think you understood my main concern: The Nobel doesn´t really judge quality or artistic merit, but it is given due to political considerations. That's what I find so objectionable.
As for the quote, I'm sure you know it is from Shakespeare, don't you? I was simply referring to the members here. What is the beef there?

[liberal viewer]

Hmmm... T.S. Eliot, Andre Gide, W.B. Yeats, Hermann Hesse, Thomas mann, Luigi Pirandello, Juan Ramon Jimenez, Camus, Boris Pasternak, Steinbeck, Sartres, William Faulkner, Lagerkvist, Hemingway, Samuel Beckett, Pablo Neruda, Eugenio Montale, Vincente Aliexandre, Czeslaw Milosz, Gabriele Garcia Marquez, William Golding, Jaroslav Seifert, Joseph Brodsky, Octavio Paz, Seamus Heaney, Wislawa Szymborska, Jose Saramago, Gunter Grass, etc... quite a list of "mediocre but politically correct writers," eh? Of course all prizes in the arts are BS to a greater or lesser extent. On the other hand, I would have to say that the Nobel probably has a far better track record than most other awards. Certainly, it completely unimportant that Borges, Kafka, Proust, Joyce, and Tolstoy did not win this award. I don't think anybody with half a brain imagines that the Nobel is consistently awarded to the greatest living author yet to have been acknowledged. It merely is a recognition of writers who have made notable contributions to the field of literature. Many of the Nobel Laureates were indeed among the greatest living writers of their time (Eliot, Yeats, Montale, Beckett, and others ... see above). Some... undoubtedly... are but mediocre. I will note that beside recognizing a good number of truly gifted writers, the Nobel has also brought far wider attention to some worthy authors who were all but unknown (at least on the larger international scale) prior: Saramago, Seifert, Szymborska, etc...

I agree that it is something of a travesty that Borges, Tolstoy, Kafka, Proust, and Joyce were never awarded the prize. Of course Kafka was largely unknown until well after his death which would largely have disqualified him while Tolstoy died in 1910 and wrote little of great consequence during the 20th century... beside which I might note that the Nobel doesn't seem to get into the swing of things in recognizing the really important authors until after WWI.

I don't think Joyce is greater than Kafka or Proust and not even close to Tolstoy's quality.

I'm in complete agreement here.

All the writers you mentioned, with the possible exception of Juan Ramon Jimenez, are truly great and wonderful, but that was not the point I was making! I was referring to the "political stench" that comes out from the nominations. How can we take seriously an institution that awarded a prize to Pearl Buck, or the others I mentioned?
As for Joyce not being as great as Kafka or Proust, like they said in the Big Lewoski: "Well, that's like... your opinion, dude!"

[liberal viewer]

I don't think Joyce is greater than Kafka or Proust and not even close to Tolstoy's quality.

On the other hand, i agree with your idea about Nobel Prize.

Interesting, isn't it?
On the other hand, I've noticed that there is some sort of anti-Joyce bias in the thread! I wonder why; I mean Joyce changed literature, just like Shakespeare, Cervantes, Homer, Dante...

[ForzaSugar]

Interesting, isn't it?
On the other hand, I've noticed that there is some sort of anti-Joyce bias in the thread! I wonder why; I mean Joyce changed literature, just like Shakespeare, Cervantes, Homer, Dante...

Because he's probably the most over-rated author of 20th century. I personally never got bored while i read Kafka, Proust, Tolstoy, Faulkner or even Maxim Gorky. But i found Joyce really boring...

[aeroport]

Interesting, isn't it?
On the other hand, I've noticed that there is some sort of anti-Joyce bias in the thread! I wonder why; I mean Joyce changed literature, just like Shakespeare, Cervantes, Homer, Dante...

A change for the worse, to be sure... :p
Well, okay, not entirely. But having read a little bit of the Wake, and maybe half of Ulysses, all told (plus Portrait and a few stories), I find it pretty easy to side with Joycians and haters alike... Is there an award for that kind of writer?

[ForzaSugar]

Pulitzer?

[stlukesguild]

Toni Morrison mediocre ? - Put her in a head-to-head against any of the winners since Samuel Beckett, she wins 32 by ko, several points victories and 4 draws..

Ha! Ha! That was a good one, but, of course, you can't mean it, can you? I mean, just of the top of my head, since Mr. Beckett won the award you have: Neruda, Canetti, Golding, Pinter, García Márquez, Heaney, Solzhenitysn, Saramago, Paz, Milosz, Grass, Coetzee, who are, I think vastly superior to Ms. Morrison... I mean, come on!

Damn it man! Don't forget Montale... and Szymborska is certainly no slouch.

[stlukesguild]

You make some interesting points, my friend, but I don't think you understood my main concern: The Nobel doesn´t really judge quality or artistic merit, but it is given due to political considerations. That's what I find so objectionable.

I agree that there is this bias. Walcott gets the Nobel in 1992 on the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage: a writer from the Americas... but not Anglo nor of Spanish/Portuguese heritage. We need a Black writer and a woman... bingo! Toni Morrison fits the bill. The next year we strive to look even more multi-cultural... let's go to Asia: Kenzaburo Oe. The war in Iraq is running on? Let's look like we're above such things. We'll select a writer from an Islamic nation: Orhan Pamuk. I somewhat suspect that Hermann Hesse was given the Nobel immediately after WWII partially to prove that the Nobel committee could see beyond the Nazis in looking at Germany's literary achievements while Gunter Grass was undoubtedly passed over for years due to his political leanings and would never have earned the award if they'd known about his Nazi past. On the other hand... what was political about Saramago? Szymborska? Milosz? Faulkner? Montale? and many others who certainly deserved recognition.

[stlukesguild]

All the writers you mentioned, with the possible exception of Juan Ramon Jimenez, are truly great and wonderful...

I personally like Jimenez... although if the goal was recognition of the great contribution of Spanish writers to the poetry of the 20th century there would have been better choices: Federico Garcia Lorca, Miguel Hernandez, Antonio Machado, Rafael Alberti, and Jorge Guillen, especially.

[stlukesguild]

On the other hand, I've noticed that there is some sort of anti-Joyce bias in the thread! I wonder why; I mean Joyce changed literature, just like Shakespeare, Cervantes, Homer, Dante...

Yes he did... but literary merit does not lie solely with the impact upon the works of others and unfortunately Joyce is one of the most influential but seldom read writers... or rather, seldom read outside of academia and for pure pleasure. Personally, I like Joyce... but I will have to admit that even with a decent amount of experience in reading I find Joyce rough going... especially Finnegan's Wake... and I'm not certain that the reward is worth the effort. This was never true of Kafka or Proust... who it should be noted, are no less influential. I've always imagined Joyce as an equivalent to Arnold Schonberg (or even Stravinsky at times). You must certainly be in the right mood to listen to that stuff... especially when Richard Strauss or Duke Ellington are so much more pleasurable.

[Etienne]

Because he's probably the most over-rated author of 20th century. I personally never got bored while i read Kafka, Proust, Tolstoy, Faulkner or even Maxim Gorky. But i found Joyce really boring...

Admitting you subjectively find him boring, objectively, he had an immense impact on literature, which would be pretty futile to deny.

[JBI]

You make some interesting points, my friend, but I don't think you understood my main concern: The Nobel doesn´t really judge quality or artistic merit, but it is given due to political considerations. That's what I find so objectionable.

I agree that there is this bias. Walcott gets the Nobel in 1992 on the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage: a writer from the Americas... but not Anglo nor of Spanish/Portuguese heritage. We need a Black writer and a woman... bingo! Toni Morrison fits the bill. The next year we strive to look even more multi-cultural... let's go to Asia: Kenzaburo Oe. The war in Iraq is running on? Let's look like we're above such things. We'll select a writer from an Islamic nation: Orhan Pamuk. I somewhat suspect that Hermann Hesse was given the Nobel immediately after WWII partially to prove that the Nobel committee could see beyond the Nazis in looking at Germany's literary achievements while Gunter Grass was undoubtedly passed over for years due to his political leanings and would never have earned the award if they'd known about his Nazi past. On the other hand... what was political about Saramago? Szymborska? Milosz? Faulkner? Montale? and many others who certainly deserved recognition.

Neither Walcott nor Morrison are mediocre writers. If you have not read these people in entirety, a) you can't accurately judge, and b) you cannot comment accurately.

Morrison's novels Song of Solomon and Beloved are both excellent examples of literature, and definitely worth the mention. If it was someone like Angelou who won the award, then I could agree with you, but Morrison's blend of Virginia Woolf with Faulkner has created a new, and lasting addition to literature.

Walcott's poetry, though some is mediocre, I'll admit, is very effective, and perhaps some of the best written by a living poet. Sure it is coincidental that he won the award at that time, but then again, better then than never. He clearly has talent, and I will argue that most of his work warrants reading and re-reading.

Lately people like Pamuk and Jelenik have won when it wasn't deserved (according to critics). Having not read those people in their original, I am unfit to give an accurate opinion, but I will say that they may be trash, or the awards weren't warranted.

Joyce only became James Joyce several years after Ulysses was published. By the time he was getting old, he fell in disrepute for publishing Finnegans Wake. I hardly can see a chance for the committee to award a prize to him. Kafka only achieved heightened fame posthumously, and Proust didn't complete his one and only real work. Tolstoy died 9 years in, and went a little crazy in his old age, making him a little bit radical/incorrect. If he had lived another 20 years I would argue he most certainly would have received an award, but one must consider the view on literature and social norms at the time; the world was still highly rooted in Victorian perceptions of society.


There are those who deserved and weren't rewarded, and those who didn't deserve, now that we look back on it. All critics make mistakes/bad decisions. That doesn't mean the awards in general are useless. Many great writers have gained wider readerships, and more accessibility because of winning the award. I doubt as many translations of some of the great works of the 20th century would be available if not for the awards.

To say the awards are unimportant is to say that critics are unimportant. How would you be able to say these people are great or aren't great without the knowledge that their works exist.

P.S. You missed Nabokov, Arthur Miller, W.H. Auden, Graham Greene and a few more.

[ForzaSugar]

Admitting you subjectively find him boring, objectively, he had an immense impact on literature, which would be pretty futile to deny.

Think it like Larry Bird and Michael Jordan. Larry Bird was a really good scorer, but everyone prefers to watch Jordan on action. Right. It's like that. Joyce is simply boring. And as Stlukesguild said an author doesn't have to be boring to make a big impact on literature. Plus i am not an average reader, i always like to read complicated and good novels, and i should tell you, for example Proust is much deeper and complicated than Joyce, yet he's not boring, reading him is like a travel with a close friend. But Joyce... Nope... I am sorry he'll always have to be remembered as a boring intellectual more than an artist for me.

[Aiculík]

You make some interesting points, my friend, but I don't think you understood my main concern: The Nobel doesn´t really judge quality or artistic merit, but it is given due to political considerations. That's what I find so objectionable.
As for the quote, I'm sure you know it is from Shakespeare, don't you? I was simply referring to the members here. What is the beef there?

Well, what were 'political considerations' behind Seifert? Canetti? Gide? Lagerkvist? And I could continue.
Can you give me some other argument to support your theory, besides names of few authors? Because, as you can see, many people would disagree that e.g. Morrison only got the award because of "political reasons" without really deserving it... and maybe also with other authors you mentioned.

Let me ask again - Have you read books by all laureates? Do you base your theory on your own experience with their work?

For example, what Morrison's books have you read? What was so unsatisfying about them that it convinced you that she didn't deserve the award and only won due to political reasons?

And as for the quote - no, I didn't know it's from Shakespeare. First, I only read some 4 or 5 of his plays and second, I read them in my language, not in English. But that's not what I asked.
I know you meant members of the forum. But why should we be "happy few"? Because we discuss literature? And so we are more intelligent, more aware of how things really are, than those that aren't members of "happy few"? And if we're "happy few", aware of what things really are, does it mean they're just "dumb masses"?
That's what I thought about when I saw the quotation. Maybe you didn't mean that. Maybe I'm just paranoid. :) But it sounded like that to me. That's why I said I hope I'm wrong.


You make some interesting points, my friend, but I don't think you understood my main concern: The Nobel doesn´t really judge quality or artistic merit, but it is given due to political considerations. That's what I find so objectionable.

I agree that there is this bias. Walcott gets the Nobel in 1992 on the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage: a writer from the Americas... but not Anglo nor of Spanish/Portuguese heritage. We need a Black writer and a woman... bingo! Toni Morrison fits the bill. The next year we strive to look even more multi-cultural... let's go to Asia: Kenzaburo Oe. The war in Iraq is running on? Let's look like we're above such things. We'll select a writer from an Islamic nation: Orhan Pamuk. I somewhat suspect that Hermann Hesse was given the Nobel immediately after WWII partially to prove that the Nobel committee could see beyond the Nazis in looking at Germany's literary achievements while Gunter Grass was undoubtedly passed over for years due to his political leanings and would never have earned the award if they'd known about his Nazi past. On the other hand... what was political about Saramago? Szymborska? Milosz? Faulkner? Montale? and many others who certainly deserved recognition.

Well... you know I'm not sure if there's bias on the side of the Academy, or on the side of the readers.
"She only won because she's black and a woman and they needed someone like that." - yes, I heard that many times. All who said that - with only one exception - had never read anything by Morrison. And I have same experience with Pamuk.

Maybe they did choose Pamuk because he is from Islamic country. Does it mean he doesn't deserve recognition?
Does it mean he only won the prize because he's from Islamic country, while if they judged objectivelly and considered only literature, it is clear that the prize would go to... WHO?

Who should win the prize so that it would be clear that there's no political reaon for his winning?

From my own experience, when I discussed it with different people... they usually won't say it directly... becaue it doesn't sound nice. But usually, from what they say, it becomes clear that the winner should meet several conditions:
1. white
2. male
3. from USA or European country
4. some add that he should not be active in politics and should not prefere any religion (especially not Christianity)

Occasionally it may be female, black (or any other race), or different continent, because we're not racists, we're tolerant and democratic - but there should be even more strict requirements, they would have to prove they're real geniuses that truly deserve the prize, and they'd have to submit detailed CV (better biography) that they never had any religion, philosophy and were never active in politics. Of course, it's necessary to provide some real evidence of what they claim in their CVs. And of course, they shouldn't win too often - because, as everyone knows,, there aren't so many geniuses outside USA and Europe - and it's real rarity among woman and non-white people. :rolleyes:

(Maybe I should add that the last paragraph is ironic and it's definitely not my opinion)

[liberal viewer]

"Well, what were 'political considerations' behind Seifert? Canetti? Gide? Lagerkvist? And I could continue."

Let me ask again - Have you read books by all laureates? Do you base your theory on your own experience with their work?
No, I don't think I've read all the prize winners, but I've read a lot of them, to see that some weren't prize worthy.

For example, what Morrison's books have you read? What was so unsatisfying about them that it convinced you that she didn't deserve the award and only won due to political reasons?

And as for the quote - no, I didn't know it's from Shakespeare. First, I only read some 4 or 5 of his plays and second, I read them in my language, not in English. But that's not what I asked.
I know you meant members of the forum. But why should we be "happy few"? Because we discuss literature? And so we are more intelligent, more aware of how things really are, than those that aren't members of "happy few"? And if we're "happy few", aware of what things really are, does it mean they're just "dumb masses"?
That's what I thought about when I saw the quotation. Maybe you didn't mean that. Maybe I'm just paranoid. :) But it sounded like that to me. That's why I said I hope I'm wrong.
Continue by all means, because of the writers you mentioned, if you fail to see the politics involved, well, I can't help you anymore. Let's take André Gide, for example, a marvellous writer without a doubt. I find two novels of his specially interesting: The counterfeiters and the Caves of the Vatican. But Mr. Gide, who was a homosexual, was also a socialist and even, briefly a communist. He renounced communism and went into a huge controversy with European socialists. He eventually travelled to Africa and tried to help with poverty and injustice. I mean, no political considerations? Come on!
Can you give me some other argument to support your theory, besides names of few authors? Because, as you can see, many people would disagree that e.g. Morrison only got the award because of "political reasons" without really deserving it... and maybe also with other authors you mentioned.

Yep, I fail to see Morrison's greatness, I read Sula and Beloved and although I find an intelligent woman and a concerned woman, I truly don't find her special. But, the Academy wanted a black woman, and this one fit the bill.

It is useless trying to explain the quote if you haven't read the play where it is taken from: Henry V. But, by all means. read it, try to undertand it, and maybe you won't even need to ask these questions, because it trully shows you have no idea what I'm referring to.

[Etienne]

Think it like Larry Bird and Michael Jordan. Larry Bird was a really good scorer, but everyone prefers to watch Jordan on action. Right. It's like that. Joyce is simply boring. And as Stlukesguild said an author doesn't have to be boring to make a big impact on literature. Plus i am not an average reader, i always like to read complicated and good novels, and i should tell you, for example Proust is much deeper and complicated than Joyce, yet he's not boring, reading him is like a travel with a close friend. But Joyce... Nope... I am sorry he'll always have to be remembered as a boring intellectual more than an artist for me.

I am not saying Joyce is better than Proust. Only I find that a Nobel Prize should be awarded more on someone who, let's not mince words, made a revolution in literature and is one of the most important writers of the century and is thoroughly enjoyed by many, than on someone who might be fun to read by the "common man" but has had no impact whatsoever on literature.

One can find Shakespeare boring, but would you disagree that he would have deserved a Nobel prize back then, if only for the impact he had on literature? Same for Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Rabelais, Sterne, Dante, Voltaire, Dostoevsky, etc. Whether many people find them boring or not, it really does not matter to the objective influence such writers had.

[Oomoo]

The problem with the Nobel Prize is that at the beginning writers had to be "idealistic" in order to win. That's one reason Tolstoy didn't win the prize - another is that he'd simply have declined it, because he became a loony at old age. Another reason why many authors, I think Kafka included, didn't win is that you need a vast amount of work to be recognized as a candidate; same for Joyce, too, I think.

[ForzaSugar]

I am not saying Joyce is better than Proust. Only I find that a Nobel Prize should be awarded more on someone who, let's not mince words, made a revolution in literature and is one of the most important writers of the century and is thoroughly enjoyed by many, than on someone who might be fun to read by the "common man" but has had no impact whatsoever on literature.

Agreed.


The problem with the Nobel Prize is that at the beginning writers had to be "idealistic" in order to win. That's one reason Tolstoy didn't win the prize - another is that he'd simply have declined it, because he became a loony at old age.

Who said Tolstoy wasn't idealistic. Do you know Gandhi's pacif resistance simply adopted from thoughts of Tolstoy (they were pen friends)? Well... Not sure about being loony (maybe he understood the world better) but i also read a theory about that he was became a Muslim at old age.

[Etienne]

but i also read a theory about that he was became a Muslim at old age.

Well you read nonsense.

[JBI]

Agreed.



Who said Tolstoy wasn't idealistic. Do you know Gandhi's pacif resistance simply adopted from thoughts of Tolstoy (they were pen friends)? Well... Not sure about being loony (maybe he understood the world better) but i also read a theory about that he was became a Muslim at old age.

Civil disobedience didn't start with Tolstoy; I know for a fact Thoreau wrote about it first, and coined the term. As for going loony, have you read the Kreutzer Sonata? It's an interesting book, but it is as loony as you get. The last stages of Tolstoy's life showed drastic change from his early works, and really would have destroyed his chances of winning any world renown prize, since the world was still, as I stated before, highly influenced by Victorian social mores. Besides which, he became a minimalist, which, especially around that time, was seen as a political blunder, especially with the October Revolution coming in just a few years. Elitists weren't about to give an award to someone who broke every social rule known to them. It didn't matter anyway, because as stated above, he probably would have rejected it.

He wrote a lot more than Anna Karenina and War and Peace you know.

[JBI]

Oh and another note, almost forgot. It was that he became a Christian Anarchist in old age, not a Muslim; wikipedia it if you doubt me.

[ForzaSugar]

Well you read nonsense.


Oh and another note, almost forgot. It was that he became a Christian Anarchist in old age, not a Muslim; wikipedia it if you doubt me.

It's actually based on his book where he collected sayings of prophet Muhammed and personal letters.


Civil disobedience didn't start with Tolstoy; I know for a fact Thoreau wrote about it first, and coined the term.

Civil disobedience is different than pacif resistance. Anyway, i didn't claim something has started with Tolstoy, i simply declared he was idealistic, actually quite idealistic. That's all.

[Simao]

I don't really know why it is so hard to believe that such a prestigious award as the Nobel Prize is effected by politics. Politics has major effects on results of sports and economy and many other fields and to say that it has little to now effect to this prize is just nonsense. I am no conspiracy-theory adapter but I can see clearly from various events of life that politics has its roots deep in this world.
Nothing is a pure win anymore and everything is under doubt and these are not only "does he deserve this award" doubts but rather on the mechanism and requirments that allowed this person to win it.

[Remarkable]

Nobel Prize is entirely based on politics.Let me take a recent example:Orhan Pamuk.Many said to me that"I am Red" was a good book,so I read it.It was after all a nice book,it held me and the story was pretty interesting:also a good way of writting.But certainly it was not a great piece of literature.It is said by all that he took the prize because in his books he gives this peaceful message:he says that East and West are alike,that the people are all the same and that there is no need for hate.And you know what?I understand this point of view that the jury has.After all,we are in a world very much in need of peace and good literature that conveys this kind of messages is very much needed to be publicised.

Although,on the other hand,one might say that this is a literature prize,not a peace one(there is a whole section for that)and it should be given to a truly great writer that gives intelectual growth to his/her readers rather than a messenger of peace.

I agree that there are many writers who deserve that price a lot more and Joyce is one of the greatest.What's great about Joyce is not only his exeptional way of writing,where language itself gives you immense pleasure,but also his philosophy on life and his clear thinking;he was a man ahead of his time,after all.But there again,comes the politizised prize:how could the Nobel be given to anyone spitted by his own country?

[Aiculík]

Continue by all means, because of the writers you mentioned, if you fail to see the politics involved, well, I can't help you anymore. Let's take André Gide, for example, a marvellous writer without a doubt. I find two novels of his specially interesting: The counterfeiters and the Caves of the Vatican. But Mr. Gide, who was a homosexual, was also a socialist and even, briefly a communist. He renounced communism and went into a huge controversy with European socialists. He eventually travelled to Africa and tried to help with poverty and injustice. I mean, no political considerations? Come on!
Can you give me some other argument to support your theory, besides names of few authors? Because, as you can see, many people would disagree that e.g. Morrison only got the award because of "political reasons" without really deserving it... and maybe also with other authors you mentioned.

Yep, I fail to see Morrison's greatness, I read Sula and Beloved and although I find an intelligent woman and a concerned woman, I truly don't find her special. But, the Academy wanted a black woman, and this one fit the bill.


Again, you didn't answer if you read all winning books, so I have to presume you haven't. Interesting. So, Gide is great writer, but also homosexual and desillusioned exsocialist - so he had to win it just for political considerations. Yeah, sure. Especially being homosexual helped him a lot. In 1947. :rolleyes:

And Morrison - as you don't like her, it's obvious that she won just because she was black.

I don't say I agree with all decisions of Academy, but to say that every writer you don't know or don't like won due to the political reasons - sorry, but that's just pathetic.

[liberal viewer]

Again, you didn't answer if you read all winning books, so I have to presume you haven't. Interesting. So, Gide is great writer, but also homosexual and desillusioned exsocialist - so he had to win it just for political considerations. Yeah, sure. Especially being homosexual helped him a lot. In 1947. :rolleyes:

And Morrison - as you don't like her, it's obvious that she won just because she was black.

I don't say I agree with all decisions of Academy, but to say that every writer you don't know or don't like won due to the political reasons - sorry, but that's just pathetic.

What is really pathetic is your failure to understand that a writer's artistic greatness are not the main reason for them to win this award. I gave you the example with Mr. Gide and you, sadly you didn't (once again!) understand what I was conveying. Morrison did win because she is black!
It is moving your faith in the members of the Academy. Following your line of reasoning, I guess you also believe in Santa Claus.

[Logos]

Please discuss the *topic* and keep personal insults out of it.

[Aiculík]

What is really pathetic is your failure to understand that a writer's artistic greatness are not the main reason for them to win this award. I gave you the example with Mr. Gide and you, sadly you didn't (once again!) understand what I was conveying. Morrison did win because she is black!
It is moving your faith in the members of the Academy. Following your line of reasoning, I guess you also believe in Santa Claus.

Can you please give some PROOF that Morrison won the prize only because she is black?

Not your feeling, or your personal opinion about Morrison. Something objective.

[Etienne]

It's actually based on his book where he collected sayings of prophet Muhammed and personal letters.

He did collect and study texts from most existing religions, and the most influential to him (besides Christianity) was Taoism (which I clearly remember) and a few other eastern religions (which I don't remember exactly).

[liberal viewer]

Can you please give some PROOF that Morrison won the prize only because she is black?

Not your feeling, or your personal opinion about Morrison. Something objective.

You are like that little battery that just won't stop, aren't you? Something objective: She is black, a woman and an American. A good writer, no doubt, but not a great writer. The Nobel foundation is hell bent on spreading the prize around and on trying to make everyone happy. Check the winners around the time Morrison got hers:
Ocatvio Paz: Mexico
Nadime Gordimer: South Africa
Derek Walcott: Caribbean, and a black man!
Toni Morrison!
Let's be honest here: Paz and Gordimer; two great, great writers (specially Paz), who deserved any prize they got, no question. But if you fail to see the socio-political context in which they won the award, then there is nothing to be done. I repeat, the Nobel is given for political reasons, not artistic ones.
If you can't see the writing on the wall, too bad for you.

[HotKarl]

Liberal Viewer:

What trait of Morrison's writing don't you like? All you seem to retort to other's qualms is that she's a black woman, and because of this fact, that somehow she's less deserving than a white male. Name traits about her fiction that make it mediocre.

I can't say that I've read all of Morrison's fiction, but I certainly didn't find Beloved mediocre. Between her use of collage to skew the plot line, the southern gothic motif of the house as the self, the use of magical realism to reintroduce beloved, and the dramatic portrayal of the monstrosities inflicted on each character due to slavery, I certainly have no qualms with the committee's selection of Morrison. Merely a good writer? The Nobel committee obviously disagrees with you.

You don't like their decision? Fine. But to disregard Morrison speaks more toward your male ethnocentrism than it does to the "unimportance of the Nobel Prize of Literature." Your subjective opinion of a writer isn't universal. I've had many professor who regard Toni Morrison as one of the world's greatest living writers, regardless of age, gender, and creed.

Are there other writers who deserve the award? Probably. But there are many writers who deserve the award. The committee happened to choose Morrison not because she's black, but because she writes excellent fiction that just so happens to deal with slavery and racism--and I don't see how that makes her writing lesser to other literatures. I'm sorry you can't get passed your personal biases to see that.

So, that said, prove me wrong. What elements in Morrison's fiction aren't good enough for you?

[stlukesguild]

Personally I don't feel that the Nobel Prizes are awarded solely based upon literary merit (and I don't think even the Nobel Committee suggests as much)... but at the same time I don't believe they award the prizes solely based upon politics either. I believe that Song of Solomon was a very good (if not great) work of fiction and that Tomi Morrison is certainly far more than a mediocre or even a merely "good" writer. On the other hand, I somewhat bristle at the notion that to question Morrison's qualifications or literary merit is default proof of male ethnocentrism. Why not just come out and play the "racism"/"sexism" card? If someone asks whether Toni Morrison was the greatest living author at the time of her winning the award I would have to say no. As such I don't believe that it should be immediately assumed that anyone who questions why she was selected for the award should immediately be painted as a racist or sexist close-minded to all but literature by male European and white Americans. I should be able to question of even criticize the literary achievements of Allen Ginsberg without being denounced as homophobic or the writings any non-Anglo writer without being painted as xenophobic. I can understand and even respect the reasoning behind the Nobel's efforts to appear more "multicultural"... there are indeed many writers of worth to be found in many places far removed from the usual West European/North American sources. On the other hand I can understand the those who would question why an author... any author... would be awarded the prestigious Nobel prize for literature if they were not one of the absolute greatest among living writers. When I personally read it is not for any social program or effort to broaden my cultural horizons. I read for my personal pleasure and I read in order to engage in a sort of dialog with the strongest minds (IMO) of this or any time/era/culture.

[HotKarl]

Actually St. Luke's, I agree with you; no one should have to worry about being labeled a racist, sexist, homophobe etc. when questioning a writer's artistic integrity. But, if you are going to question someone's artistic integrity, you'd better have some concrete reasoning. Just review LV's posts. He never gives text-grounded reasoning as to why Morrison doesn't deserve the award. There isn't an example like "Morrison's diction isn't genuine to the region" or "She uses metaphor poorly" or "there isn't any diversity in her white characters: they're all purblind racists." Undoubtedly, St. Luke's, you can give me a text-grounded reason why you don't like Ginsberg. But LV can't. No, he simply offers up the same reasoning time and time again:

"Yep, I fail to see Morrison's greatness, I read Sula and Beloved and although I find an intelligent woman and a concerned woman, I truly don't find her special. But, the Academy wanted a black woman, and this one fit the bill."

"Morrison did win because she is black!"

"Something objective: She is black, a woman and an American."

If he would offer grounded reasons as to why Morrison's fiction isn't top tier, then fine; everyone is entitled to their opinion. But to repeatedly assert that "she isn't anything special" without reasoning and then imply she won the Nobel because it's some kind of literary affirmative-action award implies at least mild ethnocentrism, and, if not, definitely a bias toward his own tastes, as if only his eyes can recognize good literature.

Look, Morrison isn't my favorite writer either. But isn't it possible that in a world of thousands of different ethnic writers (white males included), the Nobel committee saw incredible talent in Morrison first and foremost, not just someone who "fits the bill?"

[Aiculík]

You are like that little battery that just won't stop, aren't you? Something objective: She is black, a woman and an American. A good writer, no doubt, but not a great writer. The Nobel foundation is hell bent on spreading the prize around and on trying to make everyone happy. Check the winners around the time Morrison got hers:
Ocatvio Paz: Mexico
Nadime Gordimer: South Africa
Derek Walcott: Caribbean, and a black man!
Toni Morrison!
Let's be honest here: Paz and Gordimer; two great, great writers (specially Paz), who deserved any prize they got, no question. But if you fail to see the socio-political context in which they won the award, then there is nothing to be done. I repeat, the Nobel is given for political reasons, not artistic ones.
If you can't see the writing on the wall, too bad for you.

You, my friend, obviously confuse terms "hypothesis" and "proof".
That morrison won the Nobel prize because she is black woman and not because the quality of her work is your hypothesis.
But, sorry to disappoint you, the fact that she is black and a woman does not prove it. Hypothesis cannot prove itself.
These facts were reasons for forming your hypothesis, but what you need to prove now is that her work is not of the sufficient quality.
And I'm afraid that your personal dislike of her work (or work of any other author) is not a proof, either.

You didn't give anything relevant that could support your hypothesis that Nobel prize is given just because political reasons. Every person has some religion or philosophy, and, of course everyone is from some geopolitical background; so of course you can always say that some author won because of this. You can form this hypothesis, yes.

However, unless you can prove that the Academy considers only this and not literary qualities of authors - things that would prove your hypothesis - you can only present it as your personal opinion.

Not something that is generally known truth and anyone not accepting it is simply too dumb to see it.

[Aiculík]

You are like that little battery that just won't stop, aren't you? Something objective: She is black, a woman and an American. A good writer, no doubt, but not a great writer. The Nobel foundation is hell bent on spreading the prize around and on trying to make everyone happy. Check the winners around the time Morrison got hers:
Ocatvio Paz: Mexico
Nadime Gordimer: South Africa
Derek Walcott: Caribbean, and a black man!
Toni Morrison!
Let's be honest here: Paz and Gordimer; two great, great writers (specially Paz), who deserved any prize they got, no question. But if you fail to see the socio-political context in which they won the award, then there is nothing to be done. I repeat, the Nobel is given for political reasons, not artistic ones.
If you can't see the writing on the wall, too bad for you.

You, my friend, obviously confuse terms "hypothesis" and "proof".
That morrison won the Nobel prize because she is black woman and not because the quality of her work is your hypothesis.
But, sorry to disappoint you, the fact that she is black and a woman does not prove it. Hypothesis cannot prove itself.
These facts were reasons for forming your hypothesis, but what you need to prove now is that her work is not of the sufficient quality.
And I'm afraid that your personal dislike of her work (or work of any other author) is not a proof, either.

You didn't give anything relevant that could support your hypothesis that Nobel prize is given just because political reasons. Every person has some religion or philosophy, and, of course everyone is from some geopolitical background; so of course you can always say that some author won because of this. You can form this hypothesis, yes.

However, unless you can prove that the Academy considers only this and not literary qualities of authors - things that would prove your hypothesis - you can only present it as your personal opinion.

Not something that is generally known truth and anyone not accepting it is simply too dumb to see it.

[muhsin]

In the presend worlld trend, almost everything is being politicize, guys. Not only that darned Nobel Prize but everything, am telling you. Go and think about these few words I write above.

[JBI]

I still haven't even heard one good line criticizing Walcott's poetry, so I am going to assume that you give up that fight since you probably haven't even read his work.

P.S. If you say Morrison won the Nobel for just being a black woman, than you also accuse the Pulitzer prize for doing the same thing.

I could understand if you made the argument against Alice Walker, had she won a nobel, but seriously, Morrison is highly acclaimed among almost all critics, from every side of the spectrum. Even Harold Bloom, a critic known for his anti-political approach to literature has gone as far as to canonize her work in his "The Western Canon".

[Klingsor]

Y The Nobel doesn´t really judge quality or artistic merit, but it is given due to political considerations. That's what I find so objectionable.

It is a misunderstanding, that the Nobel price is given due to artistic quality. Nobel's will said clearly: The price for literature shall be given to a writer who did something for the idealist progress of mankind. There is no talk about artistic merits!

[stlukesguild]

You might find this link interesting:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/articles/espmark/index.html

It explores the history of the Nobel Prize in Literature and what policies influenced the choices involved. Especially relevant to the discussion here would be the sections on the policies of "Attention to Unknown Masters" and "the Literature of the Whole World".

[Scheherazade]

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Some posts have been removed from the thread because of their offensive/off-topic nature.

[liberal viewer]

I'm afraid the "Morrison fraction", in all their rightoues indignation, fail to see my point. I am saying that the Nobel is given due to political reasons, regardless of the greatness or not of the awardees. One of the fellas asked me for facts (to be objective and not to express my opinion, I think he wrote), I did, and still he is confused because I said that she is black, a woman and an American (how more objective can one be?, but, alas! The Morrison crew feel offended I dared attack their heroine). Another guy tried to take me to task and mentioned the things he likes of the old woman. While admirable, it was not the point of this thread! If people want to discuss the perceived greatness of Morrison, maybe they should start a thread. Another guy even included Dereck Walcott and added him to the discussion. I had only said that he won the Prize a year or so earlier than Morrison. I don't think I said if I thought he was great or not, but those are the dangers we face in this PC era. More important for the discussion were 2 replies, one stating the mission statement of the Nobel Prize of Lit and another that took care in even offering links to what I had stated. It is moving that some still think the Nobel Prize is fair and just and that the ugly shadow of politics hasn't covered it, but they are wrong.
I don't want to leave out, as a favor for the guy who explained to us Morrison's greatness, my qualms with her as a writer. I think she is extremely self-indulgent, her devices seem to contrived and actually she is one of those writers where you can see the "seams" of the dress she is creating. I'm no expert on the woman, by any means, but I think her 2 main influences are Faulkner and García Márquez. But her voice is much smaller and less challenging, at least for me, than of those two giants.
We could continue, but, I think it has to be in another thread.
Cheers
:crash:

[tractatus]

I think and agree that the prize sometimes and somehow is political. But It is not the main criteria. As Mr. SIMAO states above "I don't really know why it is so hard to believe that such a prestigious award as the Nobel Prize is effected by politics. Politics has major effects on results of sports and economy and many other fields and to say that it has little to now effect to this prize is just nonsense. " I agree, but not that little, but a bit more effectual.
I want to add something more :
1. Joyce today (MAY not) recieve the awards, but not because of he is 'over-rated' because his literary uncorrect style. Academy, is existing from 'people'. They can easily make mistakes.
What kind of? My humble explain; As you can see from Nobel winners list, their success is somewhere between % 50 - % 70. Of course they did mistakes, sometimes from politics, sometimes just literary wrong ‘preference’.
If I was a jury, give me the nominees as Joyce, Marquez, Grass, Coetzee… I can easily see that; Joyce ? .. hmmm? err? yes he is different but? hmmm.. Hops, here is Marquez, he has more stable style including fun, love, death, traditions, politics… There are big themes. Magical Realism, is a well known, and stil populer style. So here is my choice, instead of an experimental man which i can not judge regularly and who never had a main theme, or at least touchy stories, plots etc.
Are the academists simple people like me ? Not literary ‘ordinary’ people like me, but you can understand me if i choose Marquez or someone equal, which wont give me a later headache. We can say that academy is “conservative” somehow.

[nebish]

politics probably is a key criterion..I wonder whether the overall slant would be towards Reactionaries (Kipling, Hamsun, Yeats, SInclair Lewis,Churchill, Pasternak, Solzhenitsyn, etc) or Radicals (Hauptmann,Bergson, Russell, Camus, Sartre, Neruda, Pinter,etc) ?..and a World Cup Final between the two teams would be refereed on merit

[Aiculík]

I'm afraid the "Morrison fraction", in all their rightoues indignation, fail to see my point. I am saying that the Nobel is given due to political reasons, regardless of the greatness or not of the awardees. One of the fellas asked me for facts (to be objective and not to express my opinion, I think he wrote), I did, and still he is confused because I said that she is black, a woman and an American (how more objective can one be?, but, alas! The Morrison crew feel offended I dared attack their heroine).
Bah. I know that Tony Morrison is black, woman, and American (after all, that's about everything you've been able to say about her and you keep repeating it over and over again :rolleyes: ). What I can't understand - and you, obviously, can't explain- is, what that says about her work. Because you say, she woudn't won the Nobel prize if she wasn't black, woman and American. All I ask again and again is: prove that she wouldn't win it if she didn't meet these three conditions. Prove that her work doesn't have sufficient quality.

She's not my heroine, she's not even my favourite author. I'm just mature enough to distinguish between my personal liking of a book and its quality.
I used Morrison only as an example, but same could be said about any Nobel prize winner.

But as you failed to give some real, literary arguments - not just plain statement "I didn't like her so she doesn't deserve the price" with only one author, I really doubt you could support your theory with any other. Which decreases your theory to the level of angry kid's reactions "They didn't give prize to the author I like but to the the one I don't so they must be corrupted, politicized, and therefore it doesn't have any importance. There, now I showed them!" Sorry, but that's about all you've said by now. And when people objected, you tried avoided the answer, covering your unability to provide serious argument with mocking irony... how cool.

No, I don't think that Nobel prize is "fair and just" - because I don't think any man can ever be fair and just. And Nobel prize is given by people. But that doesn't have to automatically mean that people in Academy don't really care for literary and artistic achievements of the winner or the value of his/her work and give prize only because of politics.

[liberal viewer]

Bah. I know that Tony Morrison is black, woman, and American (after all, that's about everything you've been able to say about her and you keep repeating it over and over again :rolleyes: ). What I can't understand - and you, obviously, can't explain- is, what that says about her work. Because you say, she woudn't won the Nobel prize if she wasn't black, woman and American. All I ask again and again is: prove that she wouldn't win it if she didn't meet these three conditions. Prove that her work doesn't have sufficient quality.

She's not my heroine, she's not even my favourite author. I'm just mature enough to distinguish between my personal liking of a book and its quality.
I used Morrison only as an example, but same could be said about any Nobel prize winner.

But as you failed to give some real, literary arguments - not just plain statement "I didn't like her so she doesn't deserve the price" with only one author, I really doubt you could support your theory with any other. Which decreases your theory to the level of angry kid's reactions "They didn't give prize to the author I like but to the the one I don't so they must be corrupted, politicized, and therefore it doesn't have any importance. There, now I showed them!" Sorry, but that's about all you've said by now. And when people objected, you tried avoided the answer, covering your unability to provide serious argument with mocking irony... how cool.

No, I don't think that Nobel prize is "fair and just" - because I don't think any man can ever be fair and just. And Nobel prize is given by people. But that doesn't have to automatically mean that people in Academy don't really care for literary and artistic achievements of the winner or the value of his/her work and give prize only because of politics.

Ah, you are pulling a funny! On the other hand you are showing intellectual dishonesty, because at the end of my post I included the problems I see with her literature. Didn't read that far, or you just can't read more than a few sentences at a time? You couldn't be more wrong, but heck, you've been wrong all the time in this thread, when you made the "angry kid" quip. Why would I care if this or that writer got the award, when I clearly stated that it has little to do with artistic merit? Wouldn't I be contradicting myself? Of course, these subtleties escape you, unsurprising. I just don't take the Nobel seriously because it is the most politicized prize around. Live with it.
As for your moving last paragraph, you are clearly a nice, naive, person who thinks the world is a wonderful place. Good for you. As I told you before, I guess you like to believe there is a Santa Claus as well.
:p

[kilted exile]

This is the reason given by the academy for Morrison getting the award:


1993

TONI MORRISON who in novels characterized by visionary force and poetic import, gives life to an essential aspect of American reality.

(taken from here (http://almaz.com/nobel/literature/literature.html))

Perhaps it might move the discussion on from the circular rut it is currently stuck in, if proponents of the only winning because she was a black american woman position could show that her novels are not:

1) Characterized by visionary force & poetic import

2) Giving life to an essential aspect of American reality.

Personally, I have never read Morrison.