Nobel Prize in Literature

[JohnAvg]

What do you think of the value, the controversies and thus the integrity of Nobel Prize?Many notable literati for example have been ignored by the Nobel comitee (Marcel Proust, James Joyce, Edgar Allan Poe, Leo Tolstoy, Mark Twain).

[Pecksie]

What do you think of the value, the controversies and thus the integrity of Nobel Prize?Many notable literati for example have been ignored by the Nobel comitee (Marcel Proust, James Joyce, Edgar Allan Poe, Leo Tolstoy, Mark Twain).

I agree with you --- we could add Borges to your list, and Mario Vargas Llosa, though the latter's still alive, so there's hope :)

The Nobel Prize for Literature is a strange thing --- it has been awarded to some perfectly forgettable authors, or obscure authors one suspects received it for political reasons, while notable writers such as the ones you mention have been passed over.

I, like many other readers and academics, am usually wary of Nobel laureates. That's why I was pleasantly surprised when I found myself thoroughly enjoying Orhan Pamuk's 'Istambul', the first of his books that I've read.

The relative secrecy of the proceedings probably adds to the doubts of many people in the world of literature. How is the winner chosen, i.e., what's the criterion? The Academy often refers to the 'universal value' of the winner's works, but it has been argued (validly IMHO) that winners should be internationally known writers, or writers who have achieved a certain reputation beyond the borders of their homeland, and not the kind of fairly unknown author that has often been awarded the prize, only to sink back into obscurity soon afterwards (and, mind you, I'm not referring to the likes of Pinter or Gordimer here :)).

Another important issue is, what are the qualifications of the people who choose the laureate? Not least, how many foreign languages do these people speak? (No one, of course, can be expected to know all the languages in the world, not even the major ones --- but the ability to read as many authors as possible in their original language is an important qualification).

In the end, you could say it's all subjective --- as with any award. Authors I find mediocre could be wonderful for you, and vice versa. But there are too many people who find the Nobel laureates list less than impressive, and that should give the Swedish Academy pause to think.

[JBI]

Yes, it's a real tragedy that Poe didn't win a Nobel - I mean, lets be honest - who else in the world could possibly have warranted one in that time period?

On a more serious note - the prizes do more good than harm, as, quite often, they get new translations published by very good authors, and give exposure to before unheard of names. The problem though, is there hasn't been a poet rewarded in 13 years, and I bet a novelist wins again next year, since politics are easier to judge in prose than in verse.

There have only been just over 100 awards of the prize. Of course people will be left out - but lets be honest, how many good Saramago translations and editions came out of him winning the laureate? Let the hype exist or whatever, at least we may get some good translations out of it.

My only problem is they clearly have a strong cultural bias, and they do not do enough to promote world literature (though, perhaps they are trying more so now). The winners are quintessentially European in aesthetics, that is the source of the appeal, and traditions outside of that zone seem to have a much harder time winning - though, I think Latin America has been appropriated to an extent - how could one ignore such a powerforce in world literature.


I agree with you --- we could add Borges to your list, and Mario Vargas Llosa, though the latter's still alive :)

The Nobel Prize for Literature is a strange thing --- it has been awarded to some perfectly forgettable authors, or obscure authors one suspects received it for political reasons, while notable writers such as the ones you mention have been passed over.

I, like many other readers and academics, am usually wary of Nobel laureates. That's why I was pleasantly surprised when I found myself thoroughly enjoying Orhan Pamuk's 'Istambul', the first of his books that I've read.

The relative secrecy of the proceedings probably adds to the doubts of many people in the world of literature. How is the winner chosen? What are the qualifications of the people who choose him or her? Not least, how many foreign languages do these people speak? (No one, of course, can be expected to know all the languages in the world, not even the major ones --- but the ability to read as many authors as possible in their original language is an important qualification).

In the end, you could say it's all subjective --- as with any award. Authors I find mediocre could be wonderful for you, and vice versa. But there are too many people who find the Nobel laureates list less than impressive, and that should give the Swedish Academy pause to think.

The seleciton process is actually done by nomination from Academics across the world, who put forward names for consideration (to sometimes comical effect, as the Canadian poet Irving Layton was brought into consideration a few times because of nominations from Italian scholars). AS people, the Swedish, statistically, have the highest rate of books read per year, so in a sense, culturally they are a very literate society. But yes, the judgments of texts needs to be done in the original - perhaps that is why there has only been one Arabic writer, and one Chinese writer, despite these languages' wide range of talent from there, and other regions, who have yet to win an award.

[Barbarous]

Eugenio Montale, Faulkner, T.S. Eliot, Mann, Neruda, Gabo Marquez, and even Grass have all won and brought to my attention by the Prize, which is great, and like said, that's what it's suppose to do. Though it is a bit discouraging when writers like Joyce, Borges, or Proust did not win...

[JBI]

Proust could not possibly have won - his one work wasn't even finished at the time of his death - perhaps they could have judged the first couple volumes? doubted though - they had 13 years, 2 where awards weren't won - in order to give it to him, and quite frankly, what are the chances? I don't see them, for instance, giving a nobel to an essentially unknown recluse like Proust for one volume alone. Two? perhaps, three, maybe, but really, where's the time for that in these years? volume three comes out in 1920/1921, Proust dies in 1922, the book is finished being published in 1927. There is no chance in hell that he could have won. I can't really see him as being in the position to upstage his hero, Anatole France in 1921, after his third volume of his one major work was published. perhaps Knut Hamsun, but even then - if you go back more, no countries involved in WW1 were winning, so the chances of Proust actually getting an award? Zero.

[mono]

I agree with Pecksie that the authors, at least ones I have read, who won Nobel Prizes for literature, won them for a reason, very suitable reasons, and deserve such recognition, rewards, and notoriety they received; certain writers, I think, deserved more than others (in theater, for example, I would favor George Bernard Shaw [1925] over Eugene O'Neill [1936] anyday), and, like Jean-Paul Sartre said in his rejection of accepting the Nobel Prize for literature in 1964, I feel that I would have respected a writer whether or not s/he did or did not earn a Nobel Prize, just how I adore certain writers if they did not receive acceptance for a Prize, like Arthur Miller, who teetered on the brink of earning one for years.
The Swedish Academy of Stockholm runs the selection process independently with the Swedish government, so I suppose one can complain about the process until blue in the face, despite Sweden proving the most current literary nation in the world, but it shall doubtfully change a thing, at least in our lifetimes. Even if Sweden and the Nobel Prize's submitting academics bore 100 times literary knowledge and capacity of 14th-16th century Timbuktu, some writers would still get left behind in the dust, and a merit of popularity among the academics will likely persist, creating a favoritism of not only "that wonderful writer" but also that "fantastic wo/man," explaining why J.D. Salinger, for one, will likely never earn a Nobel Prize not only for The Catcher in the Rye, but also, without doubt, the profound quantities of novels and short stories currently laying about his reclusive cabin.
As JBI mentioned, it also seems important to consider the cultural bias in selection. It required the equivalent effort of pulling teeth to get people like Boris Pasternak (1958), Mikhail Sholokhov (1965), and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1970) nominated, and the latter could not even attend his own ceremony for reasons of brainless nationalism, but it seems a rare year to see a writer outside of Europe and the United States even considered, let alone nominated, for a Nobel Prize for literature. Academics and Prize committees likely do not assume that these two regions of the world produce the best writers, yet it seems unfair to neglect more Pablo Nerudas, Gabriel García Márquezs, Naguib Mahfouzs, Kenzaburo Oes, J. M. Coetzees, and Rabindranath Tagores.

[JCamilo]

The only big warm is the general perception that a culture is not worth because they lack a nobel (such as portuguese or brazilian literature), but that is more a faulty of the public than the academy.

Anywyas, most of the judgments are unfair. The nobel is a yearly prize, they try to guess the future and tell who will be immortal. Obviously they will fail and obviously the mistakes will look more ridiculous by those looking decades after the prize. Now it is very easy to say Anatole France was not such a big hit and Proust was.
As JBI, explained, it was hard to see Proust, as it was hard to see other obvious names such Kafka or Fernando Pessoa.
It is not just bias we must look, Joyce never got it, they had decades after Ulysses. It is more a case of not saying "we are blind in 1929, we see now clearly in 1939" than anything. Virginia Woolf was a strong case, the feminism had something to do. They had a chance with Rilke, he was famous and well know enough. Lolita controversy probally costed to Nabokov a nobel. They overlook (so they would do it with Poe) so called pulp writers, I doubt H.G.Wells, Chesterton would have any chance, either if they are better or not than many winners. Guimaraes Rosa was considered in the exactly year of his death. But Borges case was really strange. The guy died slowly even in a pathetic way. He was even forgiven at some point by his political enemies, so they had every chance to homage him. But more strange was Cortazar. Reckonized, with european basis, politically aligned with the kind of left political view the nobel liked to accept... and nothing.
Frankly, the nobel is just as relevant as we allow it to be.

[Barbarous]

Proust could not possibly have won - his one work wasn't even finished at the time of his death - perhaps they could have judged the first couple volumes? doubted though - they had 13 years, 2 where awards weren't won - in order to give it to him, and quite frankly, what are the chances? I don't see them, for instance, giving a nobel to an essentially unknown recluse like Proust for one volume alone. Two? perhaps, three, maybe, but really, where's the time for that in these years? volume three comes out in 1920/1921, Proust dies in 1922, the book is finished being published in 1927. There is no chance in hell that he could have won. I can't really see him as being in the position to upstage his hero, Anatole France in 1921, after his third volume of his one major work was published. perhaps Knut Hamsun, but even then - if you go back more, no countries involved in WW1 were winning, so the chances of Proust actually getting an award? Zero.

I, unfortunately for you, didn't ask whether or not the reality of winning was in his favor, although as the socialite Proust was, his novel did get around. À l'ombre des jeunes filles en fleurs (volume two) was, I would like to say, pretty well-read and before Proust's death, recognized. And of course the likelihood is low, I am well aware of the reasons why the three writers I mentioned were not presented with the award. Joyce, for his experiments, and Borges, for, more or less, his politics (though I cannot say too much on this because all I know of is Pinochet, who as I've come to understand is a little bit like a Spanish Hitler). All I remarked on was my heart on the matters of some writers I am affable to.

Though I'm sure it didn't look too swell on the Nobel Prize's part when Hamsun, a handful of years after his acceptance of the award, claimed Hitler to be a warrior for mankind and to add to that, Hunger wasn't even that great in my opinion...

[JBI]

You also must answer this question when saying "why didn't x get it": Who should not have got it in his place. For instance, Montale and Quasimodo got Nobels, whereas Ungaretti, probably their most important influence and model, did not.

It seems, often, the names one can ignore the easiest from the winners are Scandinavian ones - most of the others seem decent, whereas when one reads all of the Danish and Swedish winners, one can't help but think, "Who?" On that regard there is something, but lets be honest - if it means more translations from an at least important enough to be recognized by a Swedish academy writer, then where is the harm.

[JBI]

I, unfortunately for you, didn't ask whether or not the reality of winning was in his favor, although as the socialite Proust was, his novel did get around. À l'ombre des jeunes filles en fleurs (volume two) was, I would like to say, pretty well-read and before Proust's death, recognized. And of course the likelihood is low, I am well aware of the reasons why the three writers I mentioned were not presented with the award. Joyce, for his experiments, and Borges, for, more or less, his politics (though I cannot say too much on this because all I know of is Pinochet, who as I've come to understand is a little bit like a Spanish Hitler). All I remarked on was my heart on the matters of some writers I am affable to.

Though I'm sure it didn't look too swell on the Nobel Prize's part when Hamsun, a handful of years after his acceptance of the award, claimed Hitler to be a warrior for mankind and to add to that, Hunger wasn't even that great in my opinion...

So in a sense, Prousts chances of winning, since volume two came out in 1919, we can assume that Hamsun could not be upstaged by an up and coming two-volumed publish author, even if it did make a decent splash, he still was little known at this time, and could not possibly have been eligable for consideration. Now, the next year, even if his third volume began to really sell, there is still the problem of dealing with Anatole France, a writer accepted by the Academies (he had a chair in the Academie Francaise) and greatly revered, especially by Proust himself. So where then could one possibly fit in Proust, even if Hamsun did turn out to be a Nazi.


Who knows though - one could, perhaps, argue that Joyce lost because his book is untranslatable, and therefore irrelevant to anyone who isn't a master of English and European literature. He did make a splash in his day, of course, though, and I would personally kick off about 12 of the winners after Ulysses was published as a whole, and before Joyce death in favor of him, but the attitude of the time? perhaps, perhaps not - certainly the reaction to Finnegans Wake (then without even a proper title) screwed things up for him.

As for Borges, well, I can't come up with any excuses for that one.

[JCamilo]

I suggest that the same thing with Joyce and Borges: they took so long that would seems like accepting their own mistakes. When Joyce and Borges are just so obvious, they became bigger than the Nobel.

As Borges his politics are not just with Pinochet (Borges was Naive also) which was relevant because his long rivalirity with Neruda (altough by the end of Neruda life they both settled that as a respectful old man distance (Borges was Jack Lemmon, Neruda Walter Mathaw). It was his attitude in the inner politics of Argentina that are most screwed. His hatred with Peron made him never say anything against or even allowing some dictadors use him in the media as if he supported the regim (Borges just didnt care) and this came to the maximum when he even denied a massacre of young argies with a facetious answer (something about what he did not saw). Around that time he also started the ironies with the Nobel (it is a tradition to not give me the nobel) and well, it is hardly to be a target of Borges irony. Together with that the many stories about Borges racism towards black people (it should seem as a reflex of his europeanism, Borges praise of civilization rather than barbarie, and he equated africa - and even south america - with barbarie and had no sympathy for them). So, during the early 70's, he just blew off his chances.
The thing is that in the end of 70s , Borges was dying and writing about it. He became a recluse and a more afable man (Thus Borges attempts to be out of politics that costed him such hatred, became a more sympathetic attitude), softned his own feelings (there is no more risk of Peron returning), most of left radicals are dead and the cold war ending, the need of a duality over, guys like Sabato making peace with him, and he just was placed in the "Iconic" upper ladder that all guys who are past are. Someone had the smart idea of bringing the mothers of victims of the dictadors to talk with him and that did the trick (borges had soft spot for mothers and old ladies of society) and he could no more jest about what he did not saw. So, the Academy had about 7 years to bring Borges up, but what was the point? As I said, He was already bigger than the Nobel. They would never lower their egos and do any gesture of regret or start the dialogue. Not even the obvious excuse of Borges upcoming death, and really, at that point his actual production was not as relevant as for example, Octavio Paz or Marquez. So, in the end, every hyspano-american that won the nobel after the 70's is winning a piece of Borges.

[Pecksie]

and Borges, for, more or less, his politics (though I cannot say too much on this because all I know of is Pinochet, who as I've come to understand is a little bit like a Spanish Hitler).

Just to clarify: Borges was not at all a fascist. He never favored Pinochet, much less Hitler. He was a lifelong opposer of Argentine president Perón, who was a fascist of the left as much as Pinochet was a fascist of the right --- and he suffered for that opposition. The 'problem' with Borges' politics, if there was really any, was that he came from an upper-class background, was probably conservative, and not very interested in politics at all. He dealt in other wares --- in a certain way, 'his kingdom was not of this world' :)

I don't think he was a racist, either. His poems consistently feature characters from the most diverse backgrounds (Icelandic warriors, English soldiers, Arab mathematicians and scientists, Jewish philosophers --- he was fascinated by Judaism). I also don't believe he contrasted 'civilization' against 'barbarism' the way educator Sarmiento famously did... Many of his short stories feature gauchos and 'loose men' in highly appreciative, if somewhat romanticized, terms. The truth is Perón hated Borges for standing for all he detested, i.e. intellectuality, culture, and an utter contempt for his kind of authoritarian populism...

[JCamilo]

Borges was one of the first intelectuals to attack the Nazism. He always attacked them as barbarians who corrupted the great german culture. He was not facist at all. He was naive. Got himself in troubles for saying the wrong thing at the wrong momment.

Borges racism towards black people is somewhat notorious. Altough it can be apocriphyc. The truth is that he never showed to african culture the same admiration he had for arabian or japanese, for example.
He is also a eurocentric. This is also notable if we analyse his favorite works. I have read him dismissing south-american literature as inferior.
Now, he is a man with XIX mentality, guys who today provoke the debate about racism (Melville, Conrad, Stevneson, Kipling, etc), and at same time a great humanist, so everything about his is directed to culture, more closely to literature. His favoritism for gauchos are more a local color. He did not showed all this appreciation to all popular culture around the world.
Also, traditional aristocratic culture in Argentina is racist towards black people, so it would not be strange to find borges with those traits.
Anyways, he is not a racist in the sense of active attacks against anyone, individual etc. It is more a cultural flaw. As you said, he had no political position to be efective as rascist.