Do old Nobel prize winners fade into oblivion ...

[dfloyd]

I bought a book the other day by Anatole France who at one time was considered to be France's most populat novelist. He has, perhaps, an old-fashaioned elegant style, and I never read much about him anymore. He won the Nobel prize in 1921. Another author who is never mentioned on this forum is Sinclair Lewis. I suspect he is little read because many cannot relate to his satire as exemplified by Babbitt and Main Street. He also won the Nobel prize. A book which I have read twice is Doctor Zhivago, another Nobel prize winner. Loved the book and the movie, but it is not talked about much anymore. Is the Nobel Prize the kiss of death?

[OrphanPip]

The Nobel prize is certainly reflective of popular opinion of the time it was given, but I don't think it is necessarily a kiss of death.

W.B. Yeats, T.S. Eliot, Bernard Shaw, Ernest Hemingway, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Samuel Beckett, and Pablo Neruda are just a few of the Nobel winners that are still widely read today.

[mayneverhave]

I bought a book the other day by Anatole France who at one time was considered to be France's most populat novelist. He has, perhaps, an old-fashaioned elegant style, and I never read much about him anymore. He won the Nobel prize in 1921. Another author who is never mentioned on this forum is Sinclair Lewis. I suspect he is little read because many cannot relate to his satire as exemplified by Babbitt and Main Street. He also won the Nobel prize. A book which I have read twice is Doctor Zhivago, another Nobel prize winner. Loved the book and the movie, but it is not talked about much anymore. Is the Nobel Prize the kiss of death?

But seriously, who hasn't read Penguin Island?

[dfloyd]

I would say practically everyone who reads hasn't read this Anatole France classic. I can only assume that those who think France, W. B. Yeats, and T. S. Eliot are widely read today are members of the Literati. These and many other authors are not read by the ordinary reader who reads Hemingway, Mailer, and others of this ilk. To ask who hasn't read Penguin Island indicates the poster has associated with literature majors and not with the common reader - shall I dare say it - who prefers The Da Vinci Code to Yeats, Eliot etc. To make money, all authors must sell books to people other than college students who generally buy the cheapest they can find.

[Helga]

Halldor Laxness an Icelandic Nobel prize winner, have you ever heard of him?

[neilgee]

A book which I have read twice is Doctor Zhivago, another Nobel prize winner. Loved the book and the movie, but it is not talked about much anymore. Is the Nobel Prize the kiss of death?

When I did Russian Lit at Uni I asked the tutor why this book was not on the reading list and he said he just didn't think it was that good. I assume that this man knew what constitutes a worthwhile book because it turned out to be an absolutely compelling reading list, but, unfortunately that rather put me off reading [I]Zhivago and I never have got around to it.

Prior to that I always assumed it was one of the biggie Russian novels.

[dfloyd]

but he's better, in this one book, than Turgenev and some Tolstoy. Tolstoy's first three novels are not much: Childhood, Boyhood, Youth. In 1961, when I first read Zhivago, the stores were sold out. Probably because of the publicity the novel got. I strongly disagree with the prof who said it was not worthy. This may be the reason it's not discussed much anymore: berated by academia. It's too straight forward a love story; academia desires convulted novels like Ulysses to make their job seem wothwhile.

[Idril]

Halldor Laxness an Icelandic Nobel prize winner, have you ever heard of him?

I love him! If I had a gun to my head and had to pick my top 10 books, Independent People would probably be my first choice...the rest I couldn't pick because there are way too many to choose from but for many reasons, that book is an easy pick.

[Modest Proposal]

On a slightly different venue, I was incredibly surprised how hard it has been to find certain books that were once 'great'.

I'm trying to read the novels that made it on to both the Time Magazine and Modern Library Top 100 Books, and some of them are very forgotten. 'The Day of the Locust' has 46 reviews on Amazon and is not even available in paperback by itself. This is opposed to something like 'Angels and Demons' that has 2,300+ reviews.

I think that the real death knell for a book is when it is not topical or read in classes. These are the two things that seem to keep literature alive. And since studies show that shorter and shorter works are being tackled even in universities, even the greatest of works may die off.

[sixsmith]

I don't think it's a kiss of death but there are certainly some winners who are no longer read very much at all. Patrick White, for example, is Australia's only Nobel Prize winner and yet he is still going out of print in his homeland.

[Etienne]

Anatole France is certainly still considered a classic in french literature. And Pasternak's Zhivago is certainly among the most read classic of the 20th century.

"Halldor Laxness an Icelandic Nobel prize winner, have you ever heard of him? "

Yes I have.

"Patrick White, for example, is Australia's only Nobel Prize winner and yet he is still going out of print in his homeland. "

And yet I haven't heard of him. That proves an individual is not a standard. The fact that X hasn't heard of Y in Z country, doesn't tell much about anything.

[Modest Proposal]

I don't think it's a kiss of death but there are certainly some winners who are no longer read very much at all. Patrick White, for example, is Australia's only Nobel Prize winner and yet he is still going out of print in his homeland.

Ironically, "a kiss of death" is exactly what some authors think the award represents.

I was reading an article on how the permanent secretary of the Nobel Committee catagorically dismissed American authors as undeserving of the award and came across this quote. It seems relevent.

"Michael Dirda, the Pulitzer-prize winning critic at the Washington Post's Book World," said "The Nobel has the great glamour. It also has the burden of being a kind of kiss of death. Many writers think it crowns your life effort and nothing that you do afterwards is as good".

The article also recognizes the council's shoddy record with recognizing genius--Proust, Joyce and Nabokov.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/oct/01/nobelprize.usa

[stlukesguild]

I would say practically everyone who reads hasn't read this Anatole France classic. I can only assume that those who think France, W. B. Yeats, and T. S. Eliot are widely read today are members of the Literati. These and many other authors are not read by the ordinary reader who reads Hemingway, Mailer, and others of this ilk.

Who are these "common readers" who read Hemingway and Mailer but not T.S. Eliot, Yeats, Neruda, Kipling, Faulkner, Hermann Hesse, and any number of other Nobel Laureates... including Hemingway, by the way?

To ask who hasn't read Penguin Island indicates the poster has associated with literature majors and not with the common reader - shall I dare say it - who prefers The Da Vinci Code to Yeats, Eliot etc.

Ah... so by the "common reader" you do not mean the "common reader" as Virginia Woolf would have it: the educated reader who invests the time and effort into the exploration of good literature... for personal pleasure. Instead you are speaking of the masses... the vast majority of whom seldom read at all. And of what importance is their opinion when discussing the aesthetic merits of art? Has no one told you that art is an elitist game... an elitism not of social class or wealth but one of choice... an elective affinity? No literature disappears more rapidly than the popular period pieces. Who would admit to having bought Jonathan Livingston Seagull today... in spite of the millions of copies sold?

Kindred of the Dust- Peter B. Kyne
The Re-Creation of Brian Kent- Harold Bell Wright
The River's End-James- Oliver Curwood
A Man for the Ages-Irving Bacheller
Mary-Marie-Eleanor H. Porter
The Portygee-Joseph C. Lincoln
The Great Impersonation-E. Phillips Oppenheim
The Lamp in the Desert-Ethel M. Dell
Harriet and the Piper-Kathleen Norris
If Winter Comes- A.S.M. Hutchinson
The Sheik- Edith M. Hull
Gentle Julia-Booth Tarkington
The Head of the House of Coombe-Frances Hodgson Burnett
Simon Called Peter- Robert Keable
The Breaking Point- Mary Roberts Rinehart
This Freedom- A.S.M. Hutchinson
Maria Chapdelaine- Louis Hémon
Helen of the Old House- Harold Bell Wright

How many of these books have you heard of? They were all among the best-selling novels of the 1920s. As much as I read I can honestly say I have not heard of or read a single one... (although I've actually heard of Booth Tarkington). On the other hand Ulysses, The Wasteland, Eugenio Montale's Cuttlefish Bones, any number of Yeats finest poems, George Bernard Shaw's Saint Joan, Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain, Hermann Hesse's Sidhartha and Steppenwolf, Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises as well as several volumes of short stories, and Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury were all produced during this same period. I'll venture a guess that many on this discussion board have heard of a number of these writers and their books... and maybe even read a few in spite of their having won the accursed Nobel.:rolleyes:

To make money, all authors must sell books to people other than college students who generally buy the cheapest they can find.

Is this so? You know this for a fact? And perhaps you imagine that the ultimate goal of every author is to make as much money as possible? Or perhaps some of the best writers simply write for an audience that they imagine is not unlike themselves and shares a like passion for the power of the written word.

[JBI]

Anatole France is certainly still considered a classic in french literature. And Pasternak's Zhivago is certainly among the most read classic of the 20th century.

"Halldor Laxness an Icelandic Nobel prize winner, have you ever heard of him? "

Yes I have.

"Patrick White, for example, is Australia's only Nobel Prize winner and yet he is still going out of print in his homeland. "

And yet I haven't heard of him. That proves an individual is not a standard. The fact that X hasn't heard of Y in Z country, doesn't tell much about anything.
Patrick White, though I haven't read his work, is very well regarded...

..................................................


Seriously, up until recent times the award has been pretty accurate in terms of guessing authors who have had significant contributions, though the Scandinavian over-representation has perhaps limited the extent of that (countries with so few people ultimately, though very literary, won't get the same exposure as English speaking countries) but if you were really going to smack the list, you'd probably be better off talking about Eurocentrism and Western Bias in general than anything else.

For instance, the only Chinese author on that list is an ex-pat, despite China being one of the most literary countries, throughout the 20th century.

Most "Serious readers" or whatever you want to term them don't particularly care about the awards - they thank them for giving wider ranges of translations and publications of authors they perhaps hadn't heard about, but I think most people don't particularly care. As it is the Nobel Judges have done far better than the Pulitzer ones.

Seems like a bit of snobbishness without cause at any rate, so I'll take my leave. If you are really going to criticize the awards, at least come at it from an angle that is worth critical attention.

[stlukesguild]

A book which I have read twice is Doctor Zhivago, another Nobel prize winner. Loved the book and the movie, but it is not talked about much anymore. Is the Nobel Prize the kiss of death?

When I did Russian Lit [in translation] at Uni I asked the tutor why this book was not on the reading list and he said he just didn't think it was that good. I assume that this man knew what constitutes a worthwhile book because it turned out to be an absolutely compelling reading list, but, unfortunately that rather put me off reading Zhivago and I never have got around to it.

Hmmm... and yet we had a discussion not long ago here on LitNet (I guess we're all "literati":brow:) about Pasternak's poetry. Pasternak is largely known in the US for Dr. Zhivago (thanks to the movie, no doubt) but in Russia he is THE great 20th century poet. While the Nobel is not always brilliant in its choices there are any number of writers among the ranks who I have read and have no problem seeing as deserving of recognition:
Harold Pinter, V. S. Naipaul, Günter Grass, José Saramago, Wislawa Szymborska, Seamus Heaney, Kenzaburo, Toni Morrison, Octavio Paz, Naguib Mahfouz, Joseph Brodsky, Jaroslav Seifert, William Golding, Gabriel García Márquez, Elias Canetti, Czeslaw Milosz, Odysseus Elytis, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Vicente Aleixandre, Saul Bellow, Eugenio Montale, Heinrich Böll, Pablo Neruda, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, Samuel Beckett, Shmuel Agnon, Jean-Paul Sartre, Giorgos Seferis, John Steinbeck, Ivo Andric, Saint-John Perse, Salvatore Quasimodo, Boris Pasternak, Albert Camus, Juan Ramón Jiménez,
Ernest Hemingway, Pär Lagerkvist, William Faulkner, T.S. Eliot, André Gide, Hermann Hesse, Eugene O'Neill, Luigi Pirandello, Ivan Bunin, Sinclair Lewis,
Thomas Mann, George Bernard Shaw, William Butler Yeats, Anatole France,
Rabindranath Tagore, Rudyard Kipling, Henryk Sienkiewicz...

As another has noted a great many of the writers were non-Anglo (as should be expected) and one is dependent upon available translations. A great many of the writers are also poets, playwrights, or writers in genre outside of the novel which puts them at a definite disadvantage in the opinion of many "common readers".

The article also recognizes the council's shoddy record with recognizing genius--Proust, Joyce and Nabokov.

Joyce was almost certainly far too experimental for the Nobel committee to recognize... his merits are still hotly debated among academics and "literati". Nabokov is certainly no greater a genius than any number of Noble Laureates (Beckett, Faulkner, Eliot, Hesse, Mann, etc...) and many others who did not receive the nod: J.L. Borges, Kafka, Italo Calvino, Rilke, Pessoa, etc... Proust, on the other hand, died before the vast majority of In Search of Lost Time was even published... let alone translated and available to Noble jurors etc...

[Nick Capozzoli]

academia desires convulted novels like Ulysses to make their job seem wothwhile.

And Joyce, oddly enough, did not win a Nobel...though perhaps the Nobel Committee thought they were giving him one when they awarded Beckett...:brow:

[JBI]

Honestly, how could anybody consider Proust as someone who "should have" won the nobel... When exactly? His one major work wasn't even complete at his death, and the great bulk of it published posthumously. When exactly should he have won, and for what?

The only possible years, that is, years he could have won where he was well enough known, were 21 and 22, and quite frankly, by what had been published of his work at that time, I have no problem seeing how Anatole France, the most famous French novelist of his time, and Knut Hamsen won. Quite frankly, I think Proust himself would have thought France a far better candidate for Laureateship - he was after all one of Proust's idols.

If you are going to play the "who didn't win it who should have" game, at least choose unhonored writers who possibly could have logically won - Borges perhaps, and I could think of a dozen Chinese writers off the top of my head, but, quite simply, their work hadn't been translated until recently, and the world was essentially divided, the committee favoring mostly Scandinavians, and Europeans and Americans in general - I should say Western and Northern Europeans too, not quite Eastern Europe either - and even then a limited selection. Quite simply, the world until the last 20 years was a pretty closed place, in terms of the exchange of texts - now the job of the Nobel Committee is pretty much impossible - lets be honest, who can they possibly award without causing a backlash from somewhere?

[mortalterror]

And faced with the sheer volume of literature that comes out every year, how can anyone be considered an expert on the whole world? Perhaps we have some unreasonable expectations, and perhaps the Nobel Committee is overreaching itself with it's stated goals.

[Modest Proposal]

The article also recognizes the council's shoddy record with recognizing genius--Proust, Joyce and Nabokov.

Joyce was almost certainly far too experimental for the Nobel committee to recognize... his merits are still hotly debated among academics and "literati". Nabokov is certainly no greater a genius than any number of Noble Laureates (Beckett, Faulkner, Eliot, Hesse, Mann, etc...) and many others who did not receive the nod: J.L. Borges, Kafka, Italo Calvino, Rilke, Pessoa, etc... Proust, on the other hand, died before the vast majority of In Search of Lost Time was even published... let alone translated and available to Noble jurors etc...

First off, I was quoting the article. I don't necessarily think Proust should have won, but I do think there are some poor choices on the list.

I've never heard Joyce's merits contested by any serious, respected critic. Surely, I have heard his choice of format debated, but 'The Dead" is WIDELY considered one of the greatest short stories of all time. 'Dubliners' may be as well the greatest collection--though Ficciones and The Piazza Tales are my favorites--. Seriously? Contested? If he didn't invent stream-of-consciousness he perfected it. Whether you like his writing or not he HAS to be in the top 5 most influential authors of the last 100 years. He's the very symbol of modernism.

I don't really know why mentioning others who 'deserved' to win is defending the committee. I think if anything it drives home my point. I was saying that they have made some poor choices and some clumbsy oversights. It seems you agree?

Also StLukes, did you really mean that Nabokov is no greater a genius than "any number" or did you mean the select few you mentioned? I think it is safe to say that Nabokov is a greater genius--or at least his works evince a greater genius--than most of the Laureates. And certainly his work has left a more lasting impression than most.

I think part of the issue is that it is very easy for someone--like myself--on a forum to criticize a group doing their best at a very difficult endeavor. Perhaps my original post didn't reflect this, but I am troubled by this type of arm-chair criticism in politics, literature and life in general.

That said, the original poster noted a very real phenomenon in noting the neglect of some of these authors. I was trying to show ways and examples in which the award does not always corrolate to the most lasting work. I was not criticizing a group for not always succeeding at a difficult job, but rather suggesting why the lauded books are neglected. Namely, award committees very often fail to see that which will be most far-reaching. But I think this is very understandable. That which will have the most affect in the future, often doesn't seem quite so pertinent in its day.

[JBI]

First off, I was quoting the article. I don't necessarily think Proust should have won, but I do think there are some poor choices on the list.

I've never heard Joyce's merits contested by any serious, respected critic. Surely, I have heard his choice of format debated, but 'The Dead" is WIDELY considered one of the greatest short stories of all time. 'Dubliners' may be as well the greatest collection--though Ficciones and The Piazza Tales are my favorites--. Seriously? Contested? If he didn't invent stream-of-consciousness he perfected it. Whether you like his writing or not he HAS to be in the top 5 most influential authors of the last 100 years. He's the very symbol of modernism.

I don't really know why mentioning others who 'deserved' to win is defending the committee. I think if anything it drives home my point. I was saying that they have made some poor choices and some clumbsy oversights. It seems you agree?

Also StLukes, did you really mean that Nabokov is no greater a genius than "any number" or did you mean the select few you mentioned? I think it is safe to say that Nabokov is a greater genius--or at least his works evince a greater genius--than most of the Laureates. And certainly his work has left a more lasting impression than most.

I think part of the issue is that it is very easy for someone--like myself--on a forum to criticize a group doing their best at a very difficult endeavor. Perhaps my original post didn't reflect this, but I am troubled by this type of arm-chair criticism in politics, literature and life in general.

That said, the original poster noted a very real phenomenon in noting the neglect of some of these authors. I was trying to show ways and examples in which the award does not always corrolate to the most lasting work. I was not criticizing a group for not always succeeding at a difficult job, but rather suggesting why the lauded books are neglected. Namely, award committees very often fail to see that which will be most far-reaching. But I think this is very understandable. That which will have the most affect in the future, often doesn't seem quite so pertinent in its day.

Top five most influential writers in what language? The dominance of vernacular Chinese, for instance, can be attributed, at least to an extent, to the influence of Lu Xun, who was responsible for, really, the emergence of vernacular modernist writing in China (or better put, was the largest figure). In terms of influence too, Chairman Mao has had profound effect on Chinese letters; perhaps we should give him a Nobel prize, no? He certainly had a greater influence on letters than Churchill come to think of it.

What is top five then, and where do we draw the line? Soseki, for instance, the central figure of the Japanese Modern literary canon could have won it a potential 12 times - he was the dominant writer during the Meiji period, and is still immensely popular - not to mention he too was important in the emergence of a vernacular form of written language. Where is his Nobel? what is world literature?

What the committee essentially decides is who gets a giant cheque (1.5mil cash and a couple million more in royalties from boosted sales). All they can do is guess who they think deserves it, and feel the backlash. Nobody really serious is going to pay much attention to them anyway.

[mortalterror]

Soseki, for instance, the central figure of the Japanese Modern literary canon could have won it a potential 12 times - he was the dominant writer during the Meiji period, and is still immensely popular - not to mention he too was important in the emergence of a vernacular form of written language. Where is his Nobel? what is world literature?

I was just looking at Botchan and it's pretty good. While we're making a list of good writers who didn't get the prize: Tolstoy, Ibsen.

[Modest Proposal]

Top five most influential writers in what language? The dominance of vernacular Chinese, for instance, can be attributed, at least to an extent, to the influence of Lu Xun, who was responsible for, really, the emergence of vernacular modernist writing in China (or better put, was the largest figure). In terms of influence too, Chairman Mao has had profound effect on Chinese letters; perhaps we should give him a Nobel prize, no? He certainly had a greater influence on letters than Churchill come to think of it.

What is top five then, and where do we draw the line? Soseki, for instance, the central figure of the Japanese Modern literary canon could have won it a potential 12 times - he was the dominant writer during the Meiji period, and is still immensely popular - not to mention he too was important in the emergence of a vernacular form of written language. Where is his Nobel? what is world literature?

What the committee essentially decides is who gets a giant cheque (1.5mil cash and a couple million more in royalties from boosted sales). All they can do is guess who they think deserves it, and feel the backlash. Nobody really serious is going to pay much attention to them anyway.

JBI, I'm having trouble discerning the purpose of your direct responses to my posts. I quoted an article with an informed opinion suggesting the Nobel Prize may not have as much merit as is supposed. So... your last post about money and the awards not being serious doesn't really seem in opposition to my own post.

As far as Joyce being a top 5 most influential author, your rebuttal seems like many I've gotten from you. You ask a whole bunch of questions and try to blur distinctions. Essentially, rather than suggest an alternative answer you seem to constantly be falling back on the idea that everything is subjective and thus no answer can possibly exist. Again, does this idea of a semi-nihilistic approach to literature seem so attractive to you or do you just disagree with me not care to dispute my suggestions with actual alternatives. I'm not trying to be rude, but it seems a little strange that you are so content to just ask questions like "what is top 5?" and "where do we draw the line?". I appreciate your suggestions of Mao and Soseki but get the feeling you aren't using them as true alternatives to my suggestions but just as a sort of fulcrum to heave around the weight of your nihilistic argument.

How about this: you name 5 authors who you think are more influential in the last hundred years than Joyce. Keep in mind that behind Mandarin Chinese (it being the first by over twice as much as the next), English is the second most common language in the world. And Joyce is generally considered--I say generally because this is the ONLY serious suggestion I've heard--the most influential author of the language in the last century.

Japanease is the ninth most common language and from my experience in three different colleges in the US--obviously a limited test group--doesn't seem to be taught here in translation as much as French, German, Russian, Spanish or Italian.

All that being said, I'm prepared to be enlightened and have no qualms in admitting my limited exposure. German and a little Spanish are my only other languages.

Oh, and just so you understand, I don't want to make this a debate about the nature of influence--Hitler SURELY influenced much literature by his actions but that is not really the point--. I'm talking about a literary influence that is as close to measurable as anything in the humanities can be. Many, many authors and critics credit Joyce with ushering in and defining modernism. This is the type of influence that I believe the committee commits to honoring.

[stlukesguild]

I do think there are some poor choices on the list.

Undoubtedly. But then who would agree with every selection made by any awards committee? As JBI suggests there are some truly great writers who have been selected who I might not have other wise heard of. The award also made such writers of great merit available in translation. Harold Pinter, V. S. Naipaul, Günter Grass, José Saramago, Wislawa Szymborska, Seamus Heaney, Kenzaburo, Toni Morrison, Octavio Paz, Naguib Mahfouz, Joseph Brodsky, Jaroslav Seifert, William Golding, Gabriel García Márquez, Elias Canetti, Czeslaw Milosz, Odysseus Elytis, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Vicente Aleixandre, Saul Bellow, Eugenio Montale, Heinrich Böll, Pablo Neruda, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, Samuel Beckett, Shmuel Agnon, Jean-Paul Sartre, Giorgos Seferis, John Steinbeck, Ivo Andric, Saint-John Perse, Salvatore Quasimodo, Boris Pasternak, Albert Camus, Juan Ramón Jiménez,
Ernest Hemingway, Pär Lagerkvist, William Faulkner, T.S. Eliot, André Gide, Hermann Hesse, Eugene O'Neill, Luigi Pirandello, Ivan Bunin, Sinclair Lewis,
Thomas Mann, George Bernard Shaw, William Butler Yeats, Anatole France,
Rabindranath Tagore, Rudyard Kipling, Henryk Sienkiewicz... This seems to be a pretty good collection of writers although I certainly could come up with another list of writers who are just as strong from the same period. Still, the choices seem quite strong enough to undermine any notion that the Nobel Prize is the "kiss of death".

I've never heard Joyce's merits contested by any serious, respected critic. Surely, I have heard his choice of format debated, but 'The Dead" is WIDELY considered one of the greatest short stories of all time. 'Dubliners' may be as well the greatest collection--though Ficciones and The Piazza Tales are my favorites--. Seriously? Contested? If he didn't invent stream-of-consciousness he perfected it. Whether you like his writing or not he HAS to be in the top 5 most influential authors of the last 100 years. He's the very symbol of modernism.

Yes... Joyce along with Eliot are the central figures of Modernism... and that is what is open to criticism. There are more than a few who question the merits of Modernism and whether it went to far in its mannerisms. There are any number of readers here who are more than well-read who question the obscurantist nature of Joyce and question whether his innovations were truly expressive... or merely innovation for the sake of innovation. They are not alone. Nabokov had mixed feelings on his work, often championing some of his fiction while condemning other works... In Nabokov's opinion, Ulysses was brilliant, Finnegans Wake horrible—an attitude Jorge Luis Borges shared. Again, they were not alone in their opinions. Harold Bloom went so far as to suggest remorsefully that Finnegan's Wake may rapidly become the greatest unread book.

I personally quite liked Ulysses and found Finnegan's Wake fascinating... although I far prefer Proust... and I have no doubt that he is among the most influential writers of Modernism... but that still does not assure him unequivocal praise. Marcel Duchamp and Andy Warhol are equally two of the most influential artists of Modernism... and yet the jury is still out as to whether their achievements and influence are actually worthy of praise.

Also StLukes, did you really mean that Nabokov is no greater a genius than "any number" or did you mean the select few you mentioned? I think it is safe to say that Nabokov is a greater genius--or at least his works evince a greater genius--than most of the Laureates. And certainly his work has left a more lasting impression than most.

Certainly he was a greater genius than a number of Nobel Laureates... but there are more than a few who easily equal or surpass him: Faulkner, Hemingway, Günter Grass, José Saramago, Octavio Paz, Gabriel García Márquez, Czeslaw Milosz, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Saul Bellow, Eugenio Montale, Heinrich Böll, Pablo Neruda, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, Samuel Beckett, Shmuel Agnon, Jean-Paul Sartre, John Steinbeck, Boris Pasternak, Albert Camus, T.S. Eliot, André Gide, Hermann Hesse, Eugene O'Neill, Luigi Pirandello, Sinclair Lewis, Thomas Mann, George Bernard Shaw, William Butler Yeats, Rabindranath Tagore, Rudyard Kipling... Measuring influence of Nabokov vs a Spanish or Italian or Polish or Russian poet or novelist may be difficult if one does not have a firm grasp of the literary achievements of those traditions... while the issue of lasting influence is really open to debate when discussing the literature of the last 50 or 75 years.

That said, the original poster noted a very real phenomenon in noting the neglect of some of these authors.

Again, I agree that some of these authors are rather neglected today... perhaps deservedly so in some instances. On the other hand... out out the sizable number of Laureates I can say I have read a great works by more than I haven't. I will also say that the original poster's complaints that the Nobel Laureates are scarcely read in comparison to Dan Brown except by the academic "literati" strikes me rather ingenuous and less than well informed when it comes to literature.

[JBI]

OK, would you prefer them all English authors? And would you prefer them people who hadn't won the prize? Even amongst prize winners,

Eliot,
Faulkner
Yeats
Shaw
O'Neal

Those all seem just as, if not more important and influential than Joyce - I wouldn't doubt that Joyce pops up in some of their work, notably Eliot, as an influence, and that there is an influence overlap, but just from the beginning of the list, you can piece those.

As for non-winners, I'll try to stick to English, but it is a bit trickier.

Robert Frost
Virginia Woolf
Northrop Frye
Wallace Stevens
D. H. Lawrence.

Of course, you are welcome to debate any of these selections, and I could probably construct a list involving tons of others from other languages, but that isn't my point. My point really, as you said, is a sort of nihilism, where I acknowledge the awards mean virtually nothing.

As Mortal said it, neither Tolstoy nor Ibsen won (I can't see when exactly they could have properly one - Ibsen being somewhat marred by the reputation of Ghosts, and Tolstoy kind of seen as an eccentric, especially in his old age - but even still they didn't win) and a whole bunch of others didn't win either. There are still works whose influence is perhaps comparable to Joyce in many languages that haven't been translated, much less recognized - even popular literature seems to go the most from English to other languages (usually American, but sometimes English English) and not so much the other way around - the most popular Chinese novelist, for instance, Jin Yong, has only recently begun to be translated, and those works which have are rather limited in publication and somewhat difficult to come by, despite the fact that within China his sales are comparable to J. K. Rowling, except he seems to have achieved some critical acclaim - not saying that I think him a good author, as I haven't read one of his books cover to cover, but it just seems to put things in perspective.


Now back to another topic, the question of literary influence - Mao is very much a literary figure with immense influence - the little red book is perhaps the most printed book of the century (I don't have the numbers, so perhaps the Bible was printed more times), and his other works, essays and poetry, have been absorbed into curriculums and text books since the time they were written. I mentioned Soseki earlier, his influence was immense, and he was a literary writer, rather than a half-writer, half-philosopher, half-dictator. The only reason I put him down is to stand in contrast to Winston Churchill's Laureateship, but even so it makes no difference.

There is no way to prove influence, and everything is so intertextual anyway that there is no way to say what is from where, and who borrowed what from whom - we can draw a link from Joyce to Faulkner, for instance, but the web also pulls from all sorts of other places, some of them hardly "literary" in the sense we see them - after all, arguably the greatest influence on modernism was the bottle.

As you put it, Hitler's influence was immense (I think Knut Hamsen in particular took a liking to his thought) but do we call that a major writer? What is a major writer, and how do we define it? Do we base it purely on innovation in form? If so, it wasn't Joyce who invented that, and the credit goes mostly to The Golden Bough for the myth-method construction of Ulysses.

No, we don't seem to judge literature, much less anything else on those grounds, and don't get me wrong, I believe in good literature, and in aesthetic "merit" in a sense, but I wouldn't be as silly as to say that anybody can concretely answer any question that asks "who is the top 5" or "who is the best writer" with any certainty. As an above poster put it, being an expert in world literature is an impossible task - even time period experts, such as those specializing in a decade, or part of a century tend to be narrowed further in their field - A Spenser expert, for instance, perhaps wouldn't know exactly everything about Philip Sidney, or Thomas More (and, having read through bits of More's 1000odd page debate with Thomas Tyndale, I can see why - there is just so much text out there, that nobody can absorb it). Where does that leave one?

Firstly, the biggest limitation is probably language - for Nobel scholars, we can assume that the farther the country is from Scandinavia, generally the less likely the judges are able to read the text in the original. The second thing is institutional bias - the way people get nominated now to the Nobels, is that academics each nominate a few names, and a short list is assembled from them - this has lead in the past to some funny results, for instance, the Canadian poet Irving Layton was once long-listed because Italian academics were rather fond of his work. So even then, the amount of institutions working within the language, and sending names would drastically shake things - the largest Italian department outside of Italy, for instance, is in the University of Toronto, and that is by no means a very big department - the English department is like 6 times the size - how does that effect the amount of people nominating Italian, over English language authors.

Another bias we have is genre based - with the exception of a handful of people here, everybody is essentially a novel reader, in that they do not read much in terms of Poetry, Drama, or other genres, such as personal essay or literary criticism. In the institutions (especially in American ones, I personally think) it would seem that education, at least on the undergraduate level is potentially limitable to novels, the bulk being American - here in many institutions the same trend occurs, in others, a certain range of subjects are required. What that means, essentially, is that one can decide being well read means knowing American fiction, and that is it - as long as someone has read, for instance, Toni Morrison (and don't get me wrong, I think she is a great novelist), it can be argued, one somehow knows something about literature, and can define what good literature is.

The point being, that you, for instance, place Joyce on a pedestal as the be all and end all despite the fact that he was limited to two genres really (unless you want to count his mediocre verses and his crappy play), being Short story and Novel, and arguably, especially around 1922 limited in geographic scope to the British Isles mostly, given the ban on his work in the US, and the difficulty of translation. Where then does one go from there in approaching these sorts of things. How can one judge that.

I am personally a fan of Joyce's work, others, whose opinions differ from mine, who I nevertheless respect would disagree over his merit - I don't like playing the value game, so I won't. But without acknowledging one's limitations, one should not make sweeping remarks.

The author of that article - perhaps a little bit intelligent, though by no means a sort of lit-crit genius, would have us believe, for instance, that somehow the Nobels should have acknowledged Proust, despite the impossibility of such a choice, as I have stated above. The Nobel's only mean anything if you think they do. Personally, I don't particularly think they do, but perhaps that is just me.


Really, playing this value game, and discussing awards is so trivial - the whole notion of putting Joyce on a "top five" list is kind of silly in the first place, and I won't even bother defending my list against criticism because, quite simply I don't particularly care - it's a joke list more than anything else written in about 30 seconds.

Lets be honest, the whole notion of Nobel prize winners fading into oblivion is kind of silly - all authors, no matter how good, will have an up and down period - Tennyson and Longfellow, the most popular poets of their time period, Longfellow making giant amounts of cash off the writing of poetry (something like over 300,000$ a year at that time) have ebbed, and been reduced to classrooms and academic centres. The only writers who seem to never lose favor are those who most readers are forced to read, Shakespeare, perhaps a bit of Keats, or whatever, but even they are not appreciated in their fullest as perhaps they once were. The point being, that time is the killer of authors, and the Nobels have very little to do with it. Eliot winning the Nobel had a greater affect on his wallet than it did on his reputation.

[Etienne]

"somehow the Nobels should have acknowledged Proust, despite the impossibility of such a choice, as I have stated above."

They could have, by 1918 he had published the two first parts of In Search of Lost Time and he died in 1922. He had time enough to receive the Goncourt.

[OrphanPip]

"somehow the Nobels should have acknowledged Proust, despite the impossibility of such a choice, as I have stated above."

They could have, by 1918 he had published the two first parts of In Search of Lost Time and he died in 1922. He had time enough to receive the Goncourt.

It is rare that Nobel Prizes are given close to the publication of the writer's prominent works that inspired the decision to give the prize. Also, Nobel's will specifically instructed that the award be given to "those who most benefited mankind", so there was a large bias early on for works that were seen as being socially important, rather than artistically. Which explains why authors like Pearl S. Buck have been recognized.

It is also important to realize that for the first few years the award for literature was decided exclusively by the academics at the university in Stockholm, so they may not even have been aware of Proust, or maybe he just wasn't that popular in their French department.

[JBI]

"somehow the Nobels should have acknowledged Proust, despite the impossibility of such a choice, as I have stated above."

They could have, by 1918 he had published the two first parts of In Search of Lost Time and he died in 1922. He had time enough to receive the Goncourt.

In 18 there was no award, and, you and I both know the stretch of that - the award is for lifetime achievement, and was generally given at that time to old, established authors accepted by the academy - as I mentioned, there is very little likelihood of him even being considered over the three that won it from 1919 to 1921. Perhaps if he had completed his work and lived longer, then maybe he would have won, but in all honesty, the French were quick to recognize him, but the Swedish, and over already well loved and revered authors - seems kind of difficult. In truth, him winning would have been a shock to the point where people today would have been baffled by it - like crowning Petrarch Laurel poet for his just-started poem The Africa, which, by account of scholars of Petrarch I know who have read it, is god awful.

[Modest Proposal]

To StLukes:

Yes... Joyce along with Eliot are the central figures of Modernism... and that is what is open to criticism.

I understand what you are saying about modernism, and wouldn't be surprised if the movement is looked at with some criticism in the future in much the same why the artificial and hyper-aesthetic Mannerism art is sometimes seen today. What I'm suggesting is that since Modernism was the dominant form for most of the 20th century, and since Joyce is seen as its prototype and archetype, Joyce is far more important to letters than many of those listed. But, as you suggested, there is A LOT of room for this type of criticism and I don't know that it is productive. I mostly wanted to clear up my own understanding of the award's aims and Joyce's achievements, to show the discrepancy that I believe is manifested there.

Honestly, suffice to say for the rest of your post that I disagree with the credit given to many you named. But, debating degrees of genius is probably not very fruitful on a forum. I will concede that there are as great geniuses as Nabokov on the list but would not include most you mentioned. If you are curious which--not that you should be--these are those I've read and disagree compare to Nabokov: Hemingway, José Saramago, Octavio Paz, Gabriel García Márquez, Saul Bellow, Pablo Neruda, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, John Steinbeck, Albert Camus, Hermann Hesse, Eugene O'Neill, Sinclair Lewis, George Bernard Shaw.

I love many of these writers and their work but--as I said--simply disagree with your assessment of their comparability to Nabokov.

To JBI...

I REALLY don't want to hijack this thread so I'm only going to address your points that address my own.

First, I never said anything about top 5 writers. I said, early that this type of rank is probably meaningless. I said most influential. This, I think, is a bit more calculable based on Literature academic communities and the responses of other authors. Most of your post seemed centered on this and the "value game" which I also do not wish to participate in. Good. One thing down.

However, I would like to address your two lists provided in the beginning of your post.

Eliot,
Faulkner
Yeats
Shaw
O'Neal

Those all seem just as, if not more important and influential than Joyce - I wouldn't doubt that Joyce pops up in some of their work, notably Eliot, as an influence, and that there is an influence overlap, but just from the beginning of the list, you can piece those.

As for non-winners, I'll try to stick to English, but it is a bit trickier.

Robert Frost
Virginia Woolf
Northrop Frye
Wallace Stevens
D. H. Lawrence

I know you enjoy gliding through the ambiguous causeways in literary study--I think the freedom literature affords in interpretation and response is the main reason most of us enjoy it--but some of these examples seem to fly in the face of common--and academic--sense. (((I just realized that if you were composing a list of 'better' writers, my post will be meaningless, but I'm going off the assumption that you were responding to my challenge of finding more important writers of the time)))

Of your list Eliot, Faulkner and Woolf all practiced in the field that Joyce cultivated. You may find them better--I prefer Faulkner myself and Woolf at times--but their very careers played out in Joyce's shadow and for the most part they recognized this.

Lawrence is certainly a brilliant writer and his pushing of taboo subjects absolutely cements his place in history, but, again, I don't think you can compare his influence to Joyce's. He continued the tradition of British literature and pressed some issue buttons but didn't really affect the course of literature. The same can be said for Shaw, O'Neil and Frost. Great writers but which of them shifted the entire landscape in the way Joyce did. Honestly, I don't think Frye deserves to be mentioned with the others and as much as I love Stevens, he too is not really comparable insofar as influence goes.

I think your strongest argument could be made for Yeats but even he--with his mixture of popularity, innovation and genius--seems less relevant to the century. I see Joyce as far and away of these authors the one most important to the evolution of 20th century literature.

I'm not addressing the rest of your post, mostly, because I agree with it. The only reason I took issue and addressed what I did, is because I believe that influence is one of the things--in this strange world of the Humanities--that we can at least strive to measure. And in fact we should, because influence--even over quality and ethics--may be the most important--not best--fact with which we deal.

From my modernist experience, Joyce's influence in the west is uneclipsed. That doesn't mean he is the best, but it does mean for the last hundred years--most of the period in which the committee has operated--the second most common language was most affected by him.

Goodnight all!

[mortalterror]

Modest, I think you might be overestimating the effect that James Joyce had on T.S. Eliot and Virginia Woolf. Joyce was born in 1882, as was Woolf, and Eliot gets born just six years later. They are his contemporaries, not his successors. They were both professional writers with established reputations by the time Joyce became important enough to read. I doubt Ulysses(1922) had that much impact on the composition of either The Wasteland(1922) or Mrs. Dalloway(1925). As I recall, Eliot was more impressed by guys like Dante, at that time.

I'm not sure about the relationship that Faulkner had with Joyce but Hemingway is about the same age and he was just a friend. Hemingway was more influenced by Sherwood Anderson, Henry James, Maupassant, Flaubert, and Stephen Crane, to name a few. Although he smuggled copies of Joyce's Ulysses into countries where it was banned, there is some speculation that he never finished his own copy; leaving him in somewhat the same predicament as Dr. Johnson who "would rather praise" Congreve's work "than read it."

As for Joyce himself, I believe that he will be influential in his own way, in much the way that Dr. Johnson, Alexander Pope, and John Dryden were influential. They were the leading lights of English literature in their day, though at a distance their faults are magnified, their mannerisms quaint, and aesthetically ridiculous. No one doubts their intelligence, or that what they set out to do, they did as well as it could be done; but in time their reputations were all eclipsed by other figures and their works were marginalized.

[dfloyd]

You wouldn't think that a simple paragraph from an ingenuous reader would elicit such an outcry. It's a shame we don't have more of these; JBI and StLukes have pervasive arguments somehow backed up by all the impressive name dropping - in one of StLukes' lists there was actually a novelist I knew and have read: E. Philips Openheim. But if anyone can be said to win this argument (as for myself I don't even understand what they were arguing about), It must be StLukes, whose name sounds impressive - it reminds me of a hospital or a cathedral, because she has more lists with more names on them which are probably bywords in Ivy League schools and certainly not found found scrawled upon NYC subway cars and walls. These posts and riposts read like the old Thorstein Veblen and H. L. Mencken verbal dueling of times gone by. Keep up the good work! I enjoy reading your comments and lists, even though their meaning often escapes me.

[mal4mac]

Modest, I think you might be overestimating the effect that James Joyce had on T.S. Eliot and Virginia Woolf. Joyce was born in 1882, as was Woolf, and Eliot gets born just six years later. They are his contemporaries, not his successors. They were both professional writers with established reputations by the time Joyce became important enough to read. I doubt Ulysses(1922) had that much impact on the composition of either The Wasteland(1922)...

Joyce had come to the attention of Pound and started publishing in the Egoist in 1913-14 - but he had been 'important enough to read' in 1902 when Joyce read Yeats some of his epihanies, which Yeats called 'beautiful' and inspired him to help Joyce, and to sing his praises to the literati. Surely Eliot would have heard about Joyce as soon as he became a serious student of literature, even if only six years younger?

Certainly, Eliot invited Joyce to dinner in 1920 (not the other way around :). Read Ellmann's (wonderful) biography of Joyce, it might help you tease out some of these influences...

[kiki1982]

I think the problem is that a writer needs to be sent in by academics of the country to go on the list of candidates. Thus, the writer in particular should be around long enough for his work to be studied at universities.

A promiscuous lifestyle (Joyce just lived with Nora and only married in 1931) will not have helped. Also the fact that he was either liked or despised was a reason not to give it to him.

I don't think authors usually fade into oblivion once they have got their Nobel Prize. There are enough examples of them that did not to undermine that notion.

That the writer is still living when he gets his NB is another reason to be able 'to get it wrong' in terms of writers who do not go through the mists of time. Most undoubtedly brilliant writers are at least 50 years old, but a writer who already writes for 50 years is not easily findable. Of course, now, we're better off. People become older, so they have more chance to still be alive 50 years after the publication of their first book... :D

[JBI]

Joyce had come to the attention of Pound and started publishing in the Egoist in 1913-14 - but he had been 'important enough to read' in 1902 when Joyce read Yeats some of his epihanies, which Yeats called 'beautiful' and inspired him to help Joyce, and to sing his praises to the literati. Surely Eliot would have heard about Joyce as soon as he became a serious student of literature, even if only six years younger?

Certainly, Eliot invited Joyce to dinner in 1920 (not the other way around :). Read Ellmann's (wonderful) biography of Joyce, it might help you tease out some of these influences...

The truth is, Joyce had a minor impact on the Waste Land - actually, in truth it was more of an idea provider, than anything else, he eventually just did what Joyce did, and went back to the originals, rather than lifting from Joyce himself - I can't remember the name of the text he was most influenced by - it was some derivative of the Golden Bough that essentially applied its predecessor's theory to the grail myth.

If I recall correctly, at the time when most of the passages of The Waste Land were scribbled, Eliot hadn't even completed reading Joyce, and never made it the full way through Fraser, or some of his other influences either.

As for Woolf - well, she declined publishing Ulysses in the first place, so we all know what esteem she had for it at the time, but even so - who cares if she was influenced?

Who was Joyce influenced by? Is it then fair to suggest that Dante was the most major modernist figure, having influenced Joyce, Eliot, Pound, Montale, Ungaretti and many others? Where is the line drawn - I see your point, but notably other traditions were just as important in the development of modernism - and we are just talking about English modernism here aren't we - Modernism around the world was huge, and no doubt major players can be found in many places. Gadda and Svevo in prose from Italy for instance, could be called a somewhat major players - every country and every language that had a "modernist" movement in one form or another seems to have Joyce-sized or bigger players - Soseki and Lu Xun, who I mentioned earlier, Lorca perhaps in Spain, perhaps Pessoa in Portugal, - in France it is harder to pick out a figure head, I must admit, but I think the background pushes toward Zola as a forerunner - where does that leave us?

There is such an English bias on these boards that it is almost silly - of course people are going to recommend and cry when their favorite English authors don't win, and as for the rest, well, who?

Lets be honest, as Mortal has clearly stated, the notion of expert in World Literature is impossible - at any given time there is more being written by good authors in one day than one could possibly read.

I already stated above that I hardly take my list I posted seriously, and to not bother to critique it, as it was just a list, and therefore quite meaningless - nevertheless, I think you needed to unleash upon it - I would say that as of now, you have given no proof that Joyce was top 5 most influential, (believe me, I am curious as to who comprise the other 4) and would dispute your methodology in selecting such a figure, given his limitation in scope.

Quite simply, the world is very, very large. Anna Akhmatova for instance, could be considered in terms of influence I would argue beside Joyce - I am no expert on 20th century Russian literature, but I feel that this suggestion is at least a little bit satisfied. Kafka's influence, or Mann's influence to could stand beside Joyce, as could many other authors. The point is, one shouldn't make such wide statements.

As it is, Joyce is a dying author more so than most on that list, by readership standards - he exists, for the most part, in university classrooms, and even there he has lost quite a bit of ground. By that definition, perhaps giving him the award would have done nothing anyway - as it was he went and drank himself to death like the rest of them.



I'll hold to my earlier comment then. The greatest influence on English modernism was the Bottle - we should all give the people at the breweries Nobel Prizes for their contribution to letters - just think about it - Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Joyce, etc. etc. - the list goes on.

[mayneverhave]

The truth is, Joyce had a minor impact on the Waste Land - actually, in truth it was more of an idea provider, than anything else, he eventually just did what Joyce did, and went back to the originals, rather than lifting from Joyce himself - I can't remember the name of the text he was most influenced by - it was some derivative of the Golden Bough that essentially applied its predecessor's theory to the grail myth.

Perhaps you're referring to Weston's From Ritual to Romance. Since both Ulysses and The Waste Land were published in the same year, it's fair to say that neither was influenced directly by one or the other; just two authors writing about relatively similar themes using similar methods: one in prose the other in verse. Eliot's essay on Ulysses, Ulysses, Order and Myth might be helpful in that regard.

As for influence, Eliot was more of an influence on Hemingway than Joyce, but Pound probably takes the cake as the bellwether of that period.

And as for Joyce's influences; I would name Vico as a major influence on quite a few of those early 20th century writers.

[ennison]

It's a political prize rather than a literary one. Sometimes good talented writers get it. Often it goes to a writer who is worthy rather than a literary great. I have nothing against it going to pretty ordinary coves if it alerts the anglophone world to other cultures and countries.

[Modest Proposal]

There has been some great responses from all around about the level of Joyce's influence on certain authors but I think some things still stand. Joyce is still credited with being the major mover and shaker of the Modernist period within which most of these alternatives we are talking about existed. Woolf and Eliot were certainly contemporary but literary and intellectual history still credits Joyce with the kicking off of Modernism, specifically with stream-of-consciousness bringing out the new-ish psychological ideaologies and expressing the anxiety of the 'modernizing' forces--philosophically, technologically, and industrially--in Europe and America. Yes, there are some great points--and great discussions--being made, but does anyone have a reasonable alternative of someone who is more influential to literature in the west? I don't mean a political figure or the guy who influenced the guy who influenced the guy who influenced... I mean a real solid example of a well known figure of who is more important to the modernist era than Joyce.

My logic flows thus: 1. English is the second most common language. 2. Modernism was the dominant movement in the 20th century English literature (when most Nobel's were given). 3. Joyce is the most prominent figure in the movement. 4. Joyce deserved the nod.

As to JBI's point... Yes. Many on here--including me--tend to have a bias in preference or exposure to Western lit. Are you really going to make a big deal about this? Everyone (as you yourself said) will have some sort of bias since a truly 'global' scholar cannot possibly exist.

I don't think however this is relevant to the post--or really all that shocking/unethical--. As I keep saying statistically English is very prevelant. Also, statistically, European languages tend to translate--somewhat--easily and quickly to other European languages. This means that the spectrum of Joyce's influence in some form or another would reach Spanish, Portugese, Italian, Russian and German audiences. I'm also sure that European and western hemisphere countries have a higher number of people whose secondary language at least affords them the reading of Joyce in some translation than most Eastern writers. This phenomenon--should you accept that Joyce is the most influential modernist writer (which obviously you don't have to do)--doesn't denote Racism or Eurocentrism, but a historical and mathmatical deduction. Surely the most--again, if you agree with my earlier point--influential English language writer deserves to be in the top 5 most influential in the world, because of the size of the languages sphere of influence? You say you don't want to consider it a measure of value, so don't. If you don't there is no controversy. I'm not talking about quality but about proliferation.

[JBI]

... And again you persist. Look, you cannot prove with evidence the importance of Joyce, nor can you prove he effected all modernism, or all English modernism at that.

Ulysses was banned in the US, and pretty much limited to selected corners of influence - its scope then was reaching barely a fraction of the "English" literary world. But that isn't my point. You and I both know that there are far more Native Chinese speakers than there are native English speakers. You also know, that China has also the benefit of pretty much being within one national boundary - Taiwan and Hong Kong perhaps slightly apart, though there was a great deal of crossover.

So clearly the dominance of English theory cannot hold any ground. And don't say China isn't a literary country, that is a lie, so don't bother, and don't say that Chinese people didn't write anything, as you know that isn't true either - so where does that leave us?

As of now the bulk of the texts from China haven't been translated, or have been translated limited (a 6 volume Lu Xun was translated, but its circulation pretty much limited to academic institutions).

As stated then, and as you put it, how can one body begin to understand all of world literature? You question it yourself, yet you make sweeping statements like "James Joyce was one of the top 5 most influential modernist authors," and other such claims - not only have you admitted you have no ground to make such claims, you have also admitted that nobody does. In that case, let us move on realizing that you realize you have no ground to make such claims about Joyce.

As it is though, just to be arrogant, I think you overestimate Joyce - Woolf and Faulkner and Eliot and Stevens have definitely been more influential, well, directly at any rate, even if they had been influenced by Joyce (though, I don't think Stevens had, as for the rest, some influence is certain, however minimal).

There is more to literature than English literature, and, surprisingly, gasp gasp, shock shock, there are many books written in other languages, and English's prominence as a spoken language has no bearing on its influence as a written language - within the next 50 years, the countries with the most English speakers will be China and India (they already are getting there) - keep that in mind. The scope of English is as wide as the speaking - I don't particularly think, for instance, Singaporean literature is so Joyce heavy as you would make it out to be, despite being mostly written in English.

[Modest Proposal]

Oh come on, JBI. Don't tailor definitions to suit your argument and especially don't suggest that I even hinted at some of the preposterous things you write. I can't help but think you are importing all of these outside issues to bolster your argument with some ethical impetus.

So clearly the dominance of English theory cannot hold any ground. When did I say anything about dominance? It is just silly to extrapolate my meaning thus.
And don't say China isn't a literary country, that is a lie, so don't bother, and don't say that Chinese people didn't write anything Again! What are you talking about? Saying these things seems only to endow your post with some moral authority which it does not have and to perjure mine as evil--which it is not. Please. PLEASE. PLEASE! Read my last post carefully, in fact I will express the contended issue here:

Ahem. English is a very common language and is THE most translated language. Therefore I propose that the most influential English author deserves to be listed in AT LEAST the top 5 most influential authors. Come on where is the controversy. This is strait forward logic. I'm not talking about him being better or "dominant" I am talking about a very obvious use of the term INFLUENCE. Now, you are free to disagree with my logic--I completely confess that with all its simplistic obviousness, it is not fact--but don't act like that type of deduction is regressive or unethical. Also, you are not obligated to believe that Joyce even IS the most influential English author. Don't if you don't wish to. My argument is just that he is, and being so he should be in the top 5 most influential. Islam is one of the most prevalent religions in the world; obviously Mohamed is one of the most influential people in history. Not centrism, just sense. You don’t have to believe in the Islam faith but recognize its prevalence.

Now, do you see what you continue to do? First you twist my words and attack a "value game" of which I am not a part. Then, you make my simple statements out to be heretical. Please, take what I say at face value.

I voiced a very common opinion that Joyce is the most prominent figure of English/Western Modernism. Sure he is not EVERY aspect personified, but as I repeat and repeat no other author figures is as prominently. I'm sorry but this is not that controversial. You don't have to agree, many do not, but to make some sort of claim that my suggesting this is arrogant or Eurocentric is balderdash.

[stlukesguild]

JBI makes interesting points... and surely we should acknowledge that our concept of literature in the West is Euro-centric and even Anglo-centric here. But then do we expect it to be otherwise? We are living in the West and here we are participating on an English-speaking literary forum. Of course JBI takes it all to something of a Borgesian extreme... but then he is nothing if he is not the ever dutiful student... ready to ever reiterate the PC thought of his professors at the drop of the hat. Especially if it gives him the upper hand of victim status in a debate.:D Joyce is undoubtedly one of the most influential Western authors of the 20th century if only measured in terms of his influence on other major writers: Faulkner, Eliot, Beckett, Pynchon, Barth, Nabokov, etc... As to just how influential he is in comparison to Eliot is debatable for it seems Eliot's influence was felt far more across national or linguistic boundaries. He has been claimed as a major influence by Spanish, French, Italian poets etc... I also agree that unless we are truly familiar with the great German, French, Italian, Chinese (etc...) Modernists and their impact upon their native traditions we cannot make a blanket statement about Joyce with any certainty. Again... I myself prefer Proust... and I have little doubt that Proust more than holds up to Joyce. I also wonder about Kafka whose world view almost appears more iconic and to continue to resonate more than Joyce's.

[JBI]

JBI makes interesting points... and surely we should acknowledge that our concept of literature in the West is Euro-centric and even Anglo-centric here. But then do we expect it to be otherwise? We are living in the West and here we are participating on an English-speaking literary forum. Of course JBI takes it all to something of a Borgesian extreme... but then he is nothing if he is not the ever dutiful student... ready to ever reiterate the PC thought of his professors at the drop of the hat. Especially if it gives him the upper hand of victim status in a debate.:D Joyce is undoubtedly one of the most influential Western authors of the 20th century if only measured in terms of his influence on other major writers: Faulkner, Eliot, Beckett, Pynchon, Barth, Nabokov, etc... As to just how influential he is in comparison to Eliot is debatable for it seems Eliot's influence was felt far more across national or linguistic boundaries. He has been claimed as a major influence by Spanish, French, Italian poets etc... I also agree that unless we are truly familiar with the great German, French, Italian, Chinese (etc...) Modernists and their impact upon their native traditions we cannot make a blanket statement about Joyce with any certainty. Again... I myself prefer Proust... and I have little doubt that Proust more than holds up to Joyce. I also wonder about Kafka whose world view almost appears more iconic and to continue to resonate more than Joyce's.

Good to know that being anglo-centric isn't a bad thing - even if we accept that without question, there is still the problem that the Nobel judges aren't Anglophones. Quite simply, they are Swedish, and the greatest criticism they have recieved throughout the history of the award seems aimed at their Scandinavian bias, choosing primarily Northern European authors over others. Of course, we do recognize this as an international award (however non-international its history). How then do we reconcile things?

As you put it Joyce is a major influence on Western, mostly English and French literature. That is true, I won't deny that - but can we say that warrants award? To what extent does that fact alone make him a better choice than, lets say, William Butler Yeats? Politically speaking, Yeats would appear to stand for more, but is that really a primarily important criteria? How then do we reconcile that with all the other ethnocentric biases? As mentioned earlier, the number of great authors is astounding - perhaps the Literature Judges aught to do like the sciences, and cut the cheque into parts - they managed to rob Agnon of half his award that way, but is that the solution? Where does one go?

Or, perhaps a better question, who cares?

[Modest Proposal]

So...

At the bottom of this page is a link to a 'Similar Thread' called "The Unimportance of the Nobel Prize of Literature." I thought it interesting that the thread was so similar and then I opened it... lo and behold the first post says Joyce is the biggest oversight of the committee and the thread immediately descends into debating his value. There is nothing new under the sun. I just thought that was funny.

As to everything else, I think we all agree that there are spheres of influence in the literary world and the best we can do is be aware of them and avoid granting ourselves a privledged authority. That said...

I do think it a little strange that we need to walk on eggshells when something is so obviously logical. I understand that Europe's colonial history has a lot of scholars wary of celebrating the continent's acheivments, but surely something as simple as what I suggested shouldn't be shocking?

Let me ask it this way, just because the dallying around the subject has awoken a little indignation in me: do you think with the commonness of English and English being the most translated language, that the most influential English writer of the 20th century--whoever that me be [See also: Joyce]--would be one of the worlds most influential writers of the century?

Does this really strike you as incorrect logic, or is it just that the implications are somewhat counter the current politics?

[sixsmith]

Or, perhaps a better question, who cares?

I think you make an important point here JBI. Pointing out the shortcomings of the Nobel committee's choices is really no different than bemoaning the fact that Taxi Driver was beaten for best film by Rocky. The value of awards ceremonies is inherently dubious and they should largely be ignored. I imagine authors agree with me (at least in public) until they win one, at which point they say 'Its just great to receive some recognition (and a bump in sales).' Though i know Borges was gutted that he never received the Nobel nod.


JBI makes interesting points... and surely we should acknowledge that our concept of literature in the West is Euro-centric and even Anglo-centric here. But then do we expect it to be otherwise? We are living in the West and here we are participating on an English-speaking literary forum. Of course JBI takes it all to something of a Borgesian extreme... but then he is nothing if he is not the ever dutiful student... ready to ever reiterate the PC thought of his professors at the drop of the hat. Especially if it gives him the upper hand of victim status in a debate. Joyce is undoubtedly one of the most influential Western authors of the 20th century if only measured in terms of his influence on other major writers: Faulkner, Eliot, Beckett, Pynchon, Barth, Nabokov, etc... As to just how influential he is in comparison to Eliot is debatable for it seems Eliot's influence was felt far more across national or linguistic boundaries. He has been claimed as a major influence by Spanish, French, Italian poets etc... I also agree that unless we are truly familiar with the great German, French, Italian, Chinese (etc...) Modernists and their impact upon their native traditions we cannot make a blanket statement about Joyce with any certainty.

I basically agree with this (and i sort of agree with Modest that Joyce's influence on Western literature, even if we can't quantify it exactly, is basically beyond dispute). As to the ramifications of our focus on Joyce, Eliot, Proust whomever, it would be an exercise in tedium (and an impossible one at that) were we to preface our discussions with disclaimers about their cultural bias or Euro-centrism.

I also note Mortal's comments:


No one doubts their intelligence, or that what they set out to do, they did as well as it could be done; but in time their reputations were all eclipsed by other figures and their works were marginalized.

and those of St Lukes:


I also wonder about Kafka whose world view almost appears more iconic and to continue to resonate more than Joyce's.

As a reader (to put it crudely - seeking a 'connection' with an author's work), it seems to me that Kafka is at present the more relevant, the more prescient of the two though obviously many authors still look to Joyce as a touchstone.

[mortalterror]

As I keep saying statistically English is very prevelant. Also, statistically, European languages tend to translate--somewhat--easily and quickly to other European languages. This means that the spectrum of Joyce's influence in some form or another would reach Spanish, Portugese, Italian, Russian and German audiences. I'm also sure that European and western hemisphere countries have a higher number of people whose secondary language at least affords them the reading of Joyce in some translation than most Eastern writers.
For the sake of argument, say that you are right and English is the most common language in the world. Furthermore, let's allow your supposition that Joyce is the most influential writer in the given time period. Your point seems to be that mathematically, Joyce influenced the most people. Correct? But what you fail to take into account is that most people who read English won't read Joyce. He has a large pool of possible readers but a small slice of actual audience share.

Then we would have to dispute your definition of influential. Obviously, most people don't write anything like Joyce wrote now, nor did they ever. So his appeal has not penetrated to the mass media. Therefore, you must mean that he influenced other major writers such as Faulkner or Beckett. But wouldn't Pound be a more influential figure of the time influencing as he did Yeats, Eliot, Hemingway, Joyce, H.D., Lowell, William Carlos Williams, Ford Maddox Ford, and Wyndham Lewis?

However, on the surface of things, if influence is looked at in this manner it takes on a sort of skewed historicity. Is The Velvet Underground a more important band than The Beatles or The Rolling Stones just because the only people who heard their music started bands themselves? Does that even have anything to do with the quality of their music? To me, it looks like you are defining the importance of artists in a rather round about way to avoid the fact that Joyce has never been as popular as Hemingway, Faulkner, Eliot, Fitzgerald, or Steinbeck, among the masses or academics.

As far as your opinion that Nabokov is a better writer than all of the other Nobel Prize winners goes, that seems like the kind of opinion one would form after reading Lolita or Pale Fire as opposed to Glory, Laughter in the Dark, or Invitation to a Beheading. Then again, maybe you're just not reading the right volumes from the other writers works for a just comparison.

[sixsmith]

However, on the surface of things, if influence is looked at in this manner it takes on a sort of skewed historicity. Is The Velvet Underground a more important band than The Beatles or The Rolling Stones just because the only people who heard their music started bands themselves? Does that even have anything to do with the quality of their music? To me, it looks like you are defining the importance of artists in a rather round about way to avoid the fact that Joyce has never been as popular as Hemingway, Faulkner, Eliot, Fitzgerald, or Steinbeck, among the masses or academics.


That's a fair point and i think the influential artist, rightly or wrongly, is seen as more influential when he is 'avant garde.' Joyce gave the form a decent lurch forward so what he lacks in breadth he makes up for in intensity i suppose. We are on yielding ground when we start to quantify artist a's influence relative to artist b i think. Personally, the notion that the VU are as important as the Rolling Stones is not that outrageous. I don't agree, but I'm sure some wannabe hipster could make a decent case.

[ennison]

There are two Joycean styles. The experimental iconoclast who reaches his zenith ( or nadir) in Finnegan's Wake and the traditionalist iconoclast of Dubliners.

[Dreamwoven]

Jainitous started thread on Selma Lagerlöf in 2002(!). See http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?460-Selma-Lagerlof.

[ennison]

Another resurrected thread. Good to read it again even if one feels one's own contributions were largely invalid or no longer held.

[Dreamwoven]

Thats a paradoxical reply, ennison. Have you read anything by Selma Lagerlöf?

[ennison]

I was referring to this thread. Of Lagerlof I know nothing.

[Eiseabhal]

I think Ennison that she donated her Nobel prize to the Finns when the Commies invaded.

[Dreamwoven]

Can't find an Ennison who won the Nobel Prize??

[North Star]

Can't find an Ennison who won the Nobel Prize??
I think you're confusing things. Eiseabhal said to ennison that Largerlöf donated her Nobel prize to Finland, as she indeed did donate the gold medal she had received. The actual prize money she used 30 years earlier to buy her childhood home.

[Dreamwoven]

Thanks, North Star, that cleared it up for me.

[Eiseabhal]

Yes, indeed Dreamwoven, I should have used at least one comma in that post to make it clearer. Thank you for interpreting it for me.

[ennison]

I wish they had Nobel prizes for the things I'm good at - digging drains, planting spuds. Note the dash and comma Eiseabhal. I can give you a lesson in punctuation if you cross my palm with siller. PS I think you meant to thank North Star not Dreamwoven!

[Eiseabhal]

Hah Pedant!

[ennison]

I prefer to consider myself accurate and succinct. Pedantry is something quite other.