what is up with the swedish academy's obsession with obscure writers?

[gustave dore]

Why does the academy award the nobel prize in literature to obscure writers? I think some of the recipients were writers who actually did need more exposure and that countries with strong literary traditions like Japan and China need more representation, but some of the people they hand the award is just ridiculous. The list of writers they missed the chance to award the prize to is long, and will grow longer as more of the greatest living writers are growing ancient and will soon die. Didn't they learn their mistakes when they missed on giants like Tolstoy or Joyce?

[nick mcglue]

Because it's entirely politicized. They actually said this award was a tribute to courage and suffering, when it's supposed to be about writing. That's why they snub White American male masters like Pynchon, Delillo, McCarthy, and Roth.

[OrphanPip]

Because it's entirely politicized. They actually said this award was a tribute to courage and suffering, when it's supposed to be about writing. That's why they snub White American male masters like Pynchon, Delillo, McCarthy, and Roth.

Nobel's endowment of the award outlined that the award should be political.

Also, the award isn't simply for literary fiction, but any form of literary production. As the most recent winner was awarded for writing investigative journalism and history not for fiction.

[Dreamwoven]

The Nobel Prize goes to an anti-Russian writer, so it is political, at a time when the bourgeois parties want Sweden to abandon its 200 years of armed neutrality and join NATO.

[prendrelemick]

Have you considered that she might've deserved it?

[ennison]

Of course they haven't considered.

[mortalterror]

Have you considered that she might've deserved it?

Sure, just look what she was wearing.

[nick mcglue]

Nobel's endowment of the award outlined that the award should be political.

Also, the award isn't simply for literary fiction, but any form of literary production. As the most recent winner was awarded for writing investigative journalism and history not for fiction.
That doesn't mean they can't nor shouldn't give the award to the most deserving writer. Also, there is nothing "apolitical" about any of those masters' writing, particularly Pynchon's and Delillo's.

And I never said the award was just for literary fiction; I have no idea why you brought that up.

[nick mcglue]

Have you considered that she might've deserved it?
Yes, I have, and looking at what she has written, she doesn't deserve it more than the writers I mentioned. However, if you would like to make a case for her, please do.

[Scheherazade]

Please do not personalise your arguments.

[OrphanPip]

And I never said the award was just for literary fiction; I have no idea why you brought that up.

The alternatives you suggested were all writers of primarily literary fiction.

I don't really get the reaction against her anyway. From what I can tell she's been a fairly highly regarded author in her home country and abroad. She's even won the book critics award in the US, so she's not even a nobody in the American literary world. Cormac McCarthy in comparison has received far less attention outside of the English speaking world. So I don't think it's as clear an open shut case that she is the obscure author and the few notable contemporary American authors are worldwide superstars.

[wordeater]

Maybe we should read one of her books first and judge afterwards.

[Scheherazade]

Maybe we should read one of her books first and judge afterwards.

Well, now there's an idea. My motto is, "don't trash it till you've read it."

[nick mcglue]

Please do not personalise your arguments.
I said this:

"Yes, I have, and looking at what she has written, she doesn't deserve it more than the writers I mentioned. However, if you would like to make a case for her, please do."

Asking someone to support their claim if they wish isn't personalizing the argument. Personalizing the argument is criticizing or attacking the person themselves when making the argument. As you can see, I did neither.

[nick mcglue]

Well, now there's an idea. My motto is, "don't trash it till you've read it."
Nobody's trashing Alkekeeevich, at least I wasn't. It's not a matter of her accomplishments, which are clearly substantial; it's a matter of the superior and sublime accomplishments of the four authors I mentioned who have been continually and unfairly snubbed.

[HCabret]

Why does the academy award the nobel prize in literature to obscure writers? I think some of the recipients were writers who actually did need more exposure and that countries with strong literary traditions like Japan and China need more representation, but some of the people they hand the award is just ridiculous. The list of writers they missed the chance to award the prize to is long, and will grow longer as more of the greatest living writers are growing ancient and will soon die. Didn't they learn their mistakes when they missed on giants like Tolstoy or Joyce?Just because you don't personally know who they doesn't make them "obscure".

This thread should be closed as it's topic has diverged away from literature and into politics.

[nick mcglue]

Just because you don't personally know who they doesn't make them "obscure".

This thread should be closed as it's topic has diverged away from literature and into politics.
The Nobel Prize decisions are partly political, so it's inevitable that politics will be part of the discussion. Since none of the discussion has strayed into irrelevant politics themselves, I don't see why it should be closed. However, that's for the moderator to decide.

[HCabret]

The Nobel Prize decisions are partly political, so it's inevitable that politics will be part of the discussion. Since none of the discussion has strayed into irrelevant politics themselves, I don't see why it should be closed. However, that's for the moderator to decide.
The discussion of politics is explicitly forbidden on this forum.

[nick mcglue]

I get that. But there's a difference between discussing the irrelevant, extraneous politics of the presidential election and the politics behind literature. There is nothing wrong with discussing relevant politics to an author or a literary work: e.g. John Milton being influenced by Oliver Cromwell in writing Paradise Lost, the influence of King James on Shakespeare's plays, or the politics of Victorian England in Dickens' novels.

Also, if your standard of politics were to be observed, this thread should have been stopped at the onset, as it was inherently political from the getgo. Again, though, that is for the moderator to decide.

[nick mcglue]

The alternatives you suggested were all writers of primarily literary fiction.

I don't really get the reaction against her anyway. From what I can tell she's been a fairly highly regarded author in her home country and abroad. She's even won the book critics award in the US, so she's not even a nobody in the American literary world. Cormac McCarthy in comparison has received far less attention outside of the English speaking world. So I don't think it's as clear an open shut case that she is the obscure author and the few notable contemporary American authors are worldwide superstars.

Yes, and my suggesting writers of primarily literary fiction does not preclude writers of non-fiction. So, the correction was still un-warranted.

And I never, as I mentioned in an earlier post, slurred her or her accomplishments in any way. She just is not as influential or as accomplished a writer (yet) as the four authors I mentioned. And I have no idea where you get your information on McCarthy. His works have been translated into numerous languages in numerous countries--including China and other Asian countries--and he is studied in and acclaimed by all of those countries.

And please stop misrepresenting my posts. I never said she was obscure--and if she was it wouldn't matter--and I never said it was an "open and shut case." I just correctly said those authors have better cases than her based on the accomplishments the Nobel committee listed. If you disagree with me, I would gladly read your argument for Alekeevich having a better case than those authors.

[Eiseabhal]

Ok so perhaps her work is more craft than art but it is on a monumental and moving scale. She is not obscure. People who think that should read more widely. Had, say, McCarthy won it this year that would have been ok too but there's no reason why she should not get the dosh. She must have been nominated. Someone has to get it. Why should it be one of the poster boys from the English speaking world. Surely it's up to the group that choose and there's no need to get hot under the collar about it. Unless, of course,we have on this forum someone who nominated their own favourite and is now disgruntled. Or maybe a gambler who's just lost his breeks betting on Pynchon. (Excellent writer) The notion that the Swedish Academy are biased against Americans is too ludicrous to engage with.

[nick mcglue]

Ok so perhaps her work is more craft than art but it is on a monumental and moving scale. She is not obscure. People who think that should read more widely. Had, say, McCarthy won it this year that would have been ok too but there's no reason why she should not get the dosh. She must have been nominated. Someone has to get it. Why should it be one of the poster boys from the English speaking world. Surely it's up to the group that choose and there's no need to get hot under the collar about it. Unless, of course,we have on this forum someone who nominated their own favourite and is now disgruntled. Or maybe a gambler who's just lost his breeks betting on Pynchon. (Excellent writer) The notion that the Swedish Academy are biased against Americans is too ludicrous to engage with.

1. Nobody said she wasn't deserving. I correctly said the four authors I mentioned were more deserving. If you disagree, I'd look forward to your argument.

2. I never got "hot under the collar about it," so don't misrepresent my posts. I merely made, as I noted above, the salient argument that they didn't pick the most--or one of the most deserving--writers.

3. Firstly, I said the academy had a bias against White male American authors, not Americans period. So, again, don't misrepresent my arguments.

Secondly, many countries, including Sweden justly resent America's imperialism and imperialistic policies. I'm surprised someone from Scotland doesn't know that. And the Nobel committee has always, as they did this year, privileged authors of struggle. Since White male American authors are the group least likely to come from struggle, that does put a bias against them. An argument against that fact is truly (as you say) "too ludicrous to engage with."

[Eiseabhal]

Several white male Americans have been given the prize. At least they look peelie-wallie to me. It isn't the intention of the people who choose this prize to give it to every worthy writer. Nor does it mean that not getting it implies the writer isn't able. There are over 200 nominations. This year's recipient will have been nominated before - perhaps several times. The prize is not as a rule awarded for political reasons. I say as a rule but of course Churchill was given it. The airy-fairy wording of Nobel's will meant it has been difficult to assess exactly what he intended. With that being hard to interpret there have been different kinds of authors given the award over the decades.

[nick mcglue]

Several white male Americans have been given the prize. At least they look peelie-wallie to me. It isn't the intention of the people who choose this prize to give it to every worthy writer. Nor does it mean that not getting it implies the writer isn't able. There are over 200 nominations. This year's recipient will have been nominated before - perhaps several times. The prize is not as a rule awarded for political reasons. I say as a rule but of course Churchill was given it. The airy-fairy wording of Nobel's will meant it has been difficult to assess exactly what he intended. With that being hard to interpret there have been different kinds of authors given the award over the decades.

1. No White male American author has been given the prize since John Steinbeck in 1962. That is over 50 years and definitely establishes a pattern of rejection, particularly considering all the worthy candidates.

2. Secondly, show me the courtesy of actually reading my posts and not misrepresenting them. I never said it was the academy's intention to give the prize to every worthy writer, nor did I say an author not getting the award implies the writer isn't able. So, your saying those things was irrelevant.

3. You can't say the award isn't awarded for political reasons, particularly since the Academy notes political factors in almost every award, including this year when they said the award was a monument to "courage and struggle." And neither your point about Churchill, nor what you say "as a rule," changes that fact.

Now, if you're going to address my post, do me the courtesy of actually addressing my arguments this time. I certainly have addressed yours.

[Eiseabhal]

So I take it that you know these writers you mention we're actually nominated. As I said there are over 200 nominations. Someone has to be chosen and there's no reason why it should be a white male American. There have been only 14 female recipients. That might seem more like rejection. There have been very few dramatists. That might seem like a literary form has been ignored. Come to think of it no Scots. How awful! Generally it seems a widely spread prize and usually given to someone who deserves it. You sound incredibly aggrieved. So perhaps you should write to the Swedish Academy and demand a re-think.

[Eiseabhal]

PS You seem to have read a different press release to me.

[nick mcglue]

So I take it that you know these writers you mention we're actually nominated. As I said there are over 200 nominations. Someone has to be chosen and there's no reason why it should be a white male American. There have been only 14 female recipients. That might seem more like rejection. There have been very few dramatists. That might seem like a literary form has been ignored. Come to think of it no Scots. How awful! Generally it seems a widely spread prize and usually given to someone who deserves it. You sound incredibly aggrieved. So perhaps you should write to the Swedish Academy and demand a re-think.

I'm sorry, but you and I are done. That's the third time you didn't address anything I said in my post and instead misrepresented me, so there's no point in us continuing. Here are some of your misrepresentations.

1. I never said a White male American author had to be nominated. I said 4 particular ones had been continually passed over and, as I showed in my last posts, the academy has shown a clear resistance to giving the award to a White American male.

2. Your points about dramatists and Scots is specious. First of all, literature in most countries usually privileges fiction and poetry over drama, and the award has historically matched that privilege. As to Scots, no Scottish author in the last 50 years has accomplished as much or attained as much esteem as the four American authors I mentioned. So, that's the fault of Scottish authors who just haven't been good enough. Sorry, but that's true.

3. The only one who sounds "incredibly aggrieved" is you, since you take such offense at my argument for the four authors. I only argued that the academy made an error and gave a well-supported reason for why they likely did so. That has clearly upset you so much, you haven't been able to stop talking at me, even though you never counter my correct arguments or support your erroneous ones.

So, I'll let you be aggrieved on your own and say goodbye. To facilitate that, I am putting you on ignore and on my foes list.



P.s. You seemed to have read the wrong press release.

[Eiseabhal]

Well exit pursued by a mild rebuke then. Our voice of poor-misunderstood-white-male-Americans has gone and Svetlana Alexievich still has the prize awarded by these dastardly Swedes. I would be delighted if McCarthy or Pynchon actually one day got the accolade of this award but it would not make me want to read them any more than I already do though it might make some others do that. I hope Alexievich gains many more readers as a result of this award.
I would expect that McCarthy has been nominated by now but who knows for certain.

[mortalterror]

I know that the Nobel committee of the last couple decades likes to give the literature prize to the most political author instead of the best living writer. The Nobel Prize has been really political and weird too with Obama and the entire EU. But do they do the same thing with the science prizes? Are physicists, chemists, and doctors getting Nobel prizes for their political efforts more than for the quality of their work? I know the committee has snubbed some great writers, but they must have snubbed some great scientists as well.

[HCabret]

Discussion of politics is explicitly forbidden on this forum. Please do not discuss politics.

[mortalterror]

Discussion of politics is explicitly forbidden on this forum. Please do not discuss politics.

It's pertinent to the discussion of literary prizes and the criteria with which they are awarded, therefore it's valid. Also, if you aren't a mod, please don't act like one.

[ennison]

The Swedes have frequently awarded the prize to an author despite the political repercussions (Solzhenitsyn etc) and they always do so on the basis that what they are rewarding is the quality of literary output. Their ideas of what constitute literary output have changed over the century plus a decade and their ideas of what constitutes quality have changed with the changing make-up of the committee. Remember here are a group of able readers deciding what to do with monies left in a private will and as my friend Eiseabhal has said the will was written rather vaguely. Some of the acerbic comments here do not seem to grasp that. They are not duty bound to give it to anyone the people contributing to this site have heard of nor to give it to our favourites. Nor do the writers have to accept. Sartre refused it. He also said he would turn down the Lenin prize if offered it. I'm afraid that only made him sound more egotistic in my eyes but there you have it. Others would disagree. It must be assumed by some contributors that it's the world voting but it ain't. It is simply a group of well-read Swedes. There are lots of literary awards. Not enough for every good writer. But they aren't writing for awards are they? Anyway to misquote Captain Hoseason: There are mair men in the world than boats to put them in. He was a callous fellow wasn't he!

[kiki1982]

Well as far as I can see, the 'problem' with the Nobel Prize for Literature is that writers have to be nominated in their own country first. The Academy depends on the academic world in writers' home-countries, which is usually already dodgy. So if you talk about 'white-male-American bias', you've already got a problem in the academic world with that. Secondly: who knows? Maybe these superior writers in English do not compare to other writers on the long list the Academy starts with.

I don't know how they narrow the long-list down, but as they only start reading when they are down to a short-list of 5, it stands to reason that politics does play. That's been a problem with literature since its advent though. I mean, why does lit get censured, banned and burnt? Because politicians don't like it. And the academics that get into the upper echelons of universities as professors, particularly in dictatorships (of which there are plenty around in the world IMO), are either compelled to repeat what their patrons say or what the academic world considers to be the 'truth', which, again, is defined by university patrons ('merit' in this respect is closely connected to what people want to hear). Both of these aspects can be highly toxic to literary works. How many admittedly great writers haven't been banned from academia? Either for political reasons or for reasons of plain misunderstanding. I mean, at some point Steinbeck's win of the Nobel Prize was received with disbelief and DH Lawrence was viewed as licentious. Brontë as coarse. Dario Fo was nominated despite being banned by the Catholic Church because he made fun of it.

The fact that these allegedly 4 greats of American literature have been snubbed, might be because they are not on the long list or they haven't made the criteria for the Nobel Prize, which are quite particular, if vague. Who's to say? We'll know that in 50 years, when the records are published.

Candidates must also get the majority of the vote in the Academy. So even if a candidate makes the short-list, then still there could be a problem of conflicting opinions. Not everyone agrees on what makes a great writer.

I know the Belgian entries always included Flanders's 'star' writer Hugo Claus. Indeed, he was really our only one and he was terrible at that. On the other side, a Marcellus Emants, who is on a par with Turgeniev would never have been nominated, because when he was alive he was largely and inexplicably passed over by the academic world, and has recently been re-appreciated for his great characterisation. Similarly, the avant-garde Flemish writer Paul Van Ostaijen would never have received one, although his work was clearly new in every sense of the word, because he is absolutely untranslatable and I'm not sure he was liked by the establishment (the establishment being French-speaking and he writing in Dutch and he was still a bit young). And he wrote poetry, which doesn't bode well from the start.

The reasons why a Nobel Prize Literature is awarded to a particular candidate and not to the writers we personally consider 'great' could be many.

[edit] Personally I would have liked that Wodehouse could have won the Nobel Prize for Literature, but then he was ignored by the British for alleged collaborating with the Germans (poor man, he wasn't interested in politics and ever so naïve) and only welcomed back by the very end of his life. Maybe for fear it would soon be too late. And he was a comic writer. Definitely not idealist or ideal enough, even though he might have ticked all the other boxes.

[nick mcglue]

The Swedes have frequently awarded the prize to an author despite the political repercussions (Solzhenitsyn etc) and they always do so on the basis that what they are rewarding is the quality of literary output. Their ideas of what constitute literary output have changed over the century plus a decade and their ideas of what constitutes quality have changed with the changing make-up of the committee. Remember here are a group of able readers deciding what to do with monies left in a private will and as my friend Eiseabhal has said the will was written rather vaguely. Some of the acerbic comments here do not seem to grasp that. They are not duty bound to give it to anyone the people contributing to this site have heard of nor to give it to our favourites. Nor do the writers have to accept. Sartre refused it. He also said he would turn down the Lenin prize if offered it. I'm afraid that only made him sound more egotistic in my eyes but there you have it. Others would disagree. It must be assumed by some contributors that it's the world voting but it ain't. It is simply a group of well-read Swedes. There are lots of literary awards. Not enough for every good writer. But they aren't writing for awards are they? Anyway to misquote Captain Hoseason: There are mair men in the world than boats to put them in. He was a callous fellow wasn't he!

Neither I nor Mortal Terror said the academy voted because of political consequences; we said they voted for political reasons. Your mentioning Solzhenytzen supports that.

And I never said anybody was "duty-bound" to give anything. I won't say anything about acerbic comments or your friend, but it would help if you addressed what I actually said and not make straw-men arguments saying what I didn't. I only noted they have overlooked four of the greatest, most accomplished, most influential, and most respected authors in the World. And, because of their professed political considerations and their clear resistance to awarding White American males, that was a likely factor in their giving the award to a less traditionally qualified candidate.

As to accepting it, I have no idea why you brought that up. That isn't relevant to my argument, and I'm certain Pynchon would never accept it. That doesn't mean deserving candidates should be continually passed over for political reasons. And as to the will, the will being vague means they have less reason to adhere to a political contingency; it's the Nobel prize for literature, not the Nobel prize for political significance.

And your assumptions are wrong again. When did I ever say it was the world voting? I never did. However, like the Pulitzer committee or the Booker Prize committee, they shouldn't greatly diminish literary accomplishments when giving a literary award. And I never said the writers were writing for awards--another misrepresentation on your part--I just said certain authors were greatly deserving of a particular award, and it was unfortunate they greatly seem to be passed over for political, non-literary reasons.

So, there again are my actual arguments actually addressing yours. If you address my post in the future, you should actually address them.

[nick mcglue]

Well as far as I can see, the 'problem' with the Nobel Prize for Literature is that writers have to be nominated in their own country first. The Academy depends on the academic world in writers' home-countries, which is usually already dodgy. So if you talk about 'white-male-American bias', you've already got a problem in the academic world with that. Secondly: who knows? Maybe these superior writers in English do not compare to other writers on the long list the Academy starts with.
Firstly, that's not a problem, as all four of those writers have been continually nominated for the award. And the academic world, including many (if not most) female and POC scholars have great respect for all four of the White male American authors I mentioned, so there is no problem there. As to your "maybe," Pynchon, Roth, Delillo, and McCarthy are more esteemed, read, translated, and studied in numerous countries than most authors. However, if you want to make a case for their inferiority to many other writers, please do.


I don't know how they narrow the long-list down, but as they only start reading when they are down to a short-list of 5, it stands to reason that politics does play. That's been a problem with literature since its advent though. I mean, why does lit get censured, banned and burnt? Because politicians don't like it. And the academics that get into the upper echelons of universities as professors, particularly in dictatorships (of which there are plenty around in the world IMO), are either compelled to repeat what their patrons say or what the academic world considers to be the 'truth', which, again, is defined by university patrons ('merit' in this respect is closely connected to what people want to hear). Both of these aspects can be highly toxic to literary works. How many admittedly great writers haven't been banned from academia? Either for political reasons or for reasons of plain misunderstanding. I mean, at some point Steinbeck's win of the Nobel Prize was received with disbelief and DH Lawrence was viewed as licentious. Brontë as coarse. Dario Fo was nominated despite being banned by the Catholic Church because he made fun of it.
Firstly, thanks for your agreement that politics have played a significant role in the academy's decision. Some of the posters on this thread seem oblivious to that or just don't want to accept that reality. However, just because politics have affected literature in many toxic ways before, as you noted, it doesn't mean we should be quietist and fatalist and just accept it when it happens. If the Nobel is going to award for Chemistry, they should primarily award for Chemistry, not primarily for politics. If they are going to award for Literature, they should primarily award for literature, not politics.


The fact that these allegedly 4 greats of American literature have been snubbed, might be because they are not on the long list or they haven't made the criteria for the Nobel Prize, which are quite particular, if vague. Who's to say? We'll know that in 50 years, when the records are published. Candidates must also get the majority of the vote in the Academy. So even if a candidate makes the short-list, then still there could be a problem of conflicting opinions. Not everyone agrees on what makes a great writer.


The reasons why a Nobel Prize Literature is awarded to a particular candidate and not to the writers we personally consider 'great' could be many.
Of course it's possible, almost everything is. However, you yourself have already admitted people very often let politics dictate their decisions regarding literature, and I have made a sound, logical reason for why the Nobel committee did just that. And I never said everyone agrees what a good writer is so I have no idea why you said that. No committee has complete agreement, but a committee judging literature of the world should have knowledge of the literature of the world, including America, and shouldn't exclude any candidates for their country or non-political reasons. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, they too often do.

And of course the reasons the writers I mentioned were excluded could be many. However, some reasons are always more likely than others, and I have well-shown why politics and other non-literary/aesthetic factors are the likely reasons why the authors I mentioned have been snubbed.

[kiki1982]

Firstly, that's not a problem, as all four of those writers have been continually nominated for the award. And the academic world, including many (if not most) female and POC scholars have great respect for all four of the White male American authors I mentioned, so there is no problem there. As to your "maybe," Pynchon, Roth, Delillo, and McCarthy are more esteemed, read, translated, and studied in numerous countries than most authors. However, if you want to make a case for their inferiority to many other writers, please do.

Firstly, let me say that before I came to this forum, I never even heard of McCarthy.

That said you thinking that I claimed that these four were inferior, is totally beside the point I made. No-one speaks about 'infeior', but about the reasons why writers could be excluded, despite them being good writers.

Maybe these four writers did make the long-list, maybe they didn't. The Nobel Committee asks literary societies, literature professors and former Nobel laureates around the world for submissions/nominations. These organisations/individuals who may make suggestions for a long-list run in their thousands. And of all those candidates, they select some 200. Now, percentage-wise what's the chance that your four American candidates make the long-list even? That is, if they have all been nominated, which you do not know for certain, as the records that could prove that are only published 50 years later. And yes, there are rumours. And they are just what they are: rumours.


If the Nobel is going to award for Chemistry, they should primarily award for Chemistry, not primarily for politics. If they are going to award for Literature, they should primarily award for literature, not politics.
.
And you think nominations for Medicine, for example, would also not be somewhat politically motivated and only based on merit? Ahem. I'm not sure how long it will take for someone who did research in embryo engineering to be awarded a Nobel Prize... Or someone involved with abortion, say?

The idea that anything can be judged solely on merit is a noble one but sadly idealist as well. Most people cannot judge on merit. Although they might proclaim they do, they judge according to their own ideas of what constitutes merit, and those are motivated by convictions, sometimes unconsciously, but mostly consciously. It's a bit Victorian: they set out with the noblest of intentions, but they fail because they have discounted the inherently human aspect in the whole process.


And I never said everyone agrees what a good writer is so I have no idea why you said that. No committee has complete agreement, but a committee judging literature of the world should have knowledge of the literature of the world, including America, and shouldn't exclude any candidates for their country or non-political reasons. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, they too often do.

a) I wasn't even really taking up your argument. What made you think I did?

b) What makes you think they exclude these writers solely because they are American? If they did this out of principle, they'd never have given Obama the Peace Prize (although that was a bit of a misguided decision, he hadn't even done anything [yet] apart from being the black guy everyone voted for).

[Aylinn]

I don’t know whether or not Alkekeeevich should get the Noble Prize, since I haven’t read her books. I just wanted to add that I had never heard of Pynchon, Roth, Delillo, and McCarthy before I came to this forum. Americans are good at selling their movies and serials, but literature, I am not so sure. In my country, it seems that people who are interested in literature are rather interested in Germen, French, Russian and British literature rather than American literature, though admittedly, Latin America literature is quite popular.


b) What makes you think they exclude these writers solely because they are American? If they did this out of principle, they'd never have given Obama the Peace Prize (although that was a bit of a misguided decision, he hadn't even done anything [yet] apart from being the black guy everyone voted for).
Maybe they hoped that it will stop him from starting new wars and making a mess.

[nick mcglue]

Firstly, let me say that before I came to this forum, I never even heard of McCarthy.

That said you thinking that I claimed that these four were inferior, is totally beside the point I made. No-one speaks about 'infeior', but about the reasons why writers could be excluded, despite them being good writers.
Firstly, your not hearing of McCarthy has no bearing on his acclaim in the world; you are not the world. Secondly, you explicitly said "Maybe these superior writers in English do not compare to other writers on the long list the Academy starts with." So, you clearly implied their inferiority to the writers who won might have kept the award from them. So, try to remember what you have posted.


Maybe these four writers did make the long-list, maybe they didn't. The Nobel Committee asks literary societies, literature professors and former Nobel laureates around the world for submissions/nominations. These organisations/individuals who may make suggestions for a long-list run in their thousands. And of all those candidates, they select some 200. Now, percentage-wise what's the chance that your four American candidates make the long-list even? That is, if they have all been nominated, which you do not know for certain, as the records that could prove that are only published 50 years later. And yes, there are rumours. And they are just what they are: rumours.
Nothing you said here counters anything I have said, so I have no idea why you said it...particularly your irrelevant statement about "rumors." The authors I have mentioned have an excellent chance of being on the list because they have astounding accomplishments, great recognition in academia in many countries, and have influenced many great writers who greatly praise their work. If you don't think those are qualifications that would get writers on the Nobel list, please argue against them.


.And you think nominations for Medicine, for example, would also not be somewhat politically motivated and only based on merit? Ahem. I'm not sure how long it will take for someone did research in embryo engineering to be awarded a Nobel Prize... Or someone involved with abortion, say?

The idea that anything can be judged solely on merit is a noble one but sadly idealist as well. Most people cannot judge on merit. Although they might proclaim they do, they judge according to their own ideas of what constitutes merit, and those are motivated by convictions, sometimes unconsciously, but mostly consciously. It's a bit Victorian: they set out with the noblest of intentions, but they fail because they have discounted the inherently human aspect in the whole process.
You need to read my posts better. I never said the awards should be based solely on merit; I said they should be primarily based on merit...big difference. Just because those presenting aesthetic awards are not free from human awards and bias, it doesn't mean they still can't privilege aesthetic values when making them. To think otherwise is sadly idealistic and a bit Victorian.



a) I wasn't even really taking up your argument. What made you think I did?
Because you attempted (but failed) to counter these following arguments I made:

1. The four American authors I mentioned were more deserving of the Nobel prize than the woman to whom it was awarded and others before her.
2. One of the main reasons those authors have been bypassed greatly seems to be the political reason that they are White male American authors.

However, since you are now saying you weren't arguing against those points, you must obviously agree with them. And since we know you also haven't countered them, we can move on.


b) What makes you think they exclude these writers solely because they are American? If they did this out of principle, they'd never have given Obama the Peace Prize (although that was a bit of a misguided decision, he hadn't even done anything [yet] apart from being the black guy everyone voted for).
I've already explained why in numerous posts in this thread. Your asking that question shows you haven't read my posts at all. So, go read them if you want your answer. And the Obama comparison is a poor one. As Aylinn pointed out, there is great political reason for making an American president happy, an American author and his fans...not nearly so much.

[JCamilo]

The nobel is unworth discussions and most likely unworth of Pynchon and McCarthy, but It is funny to read a claim about Pynchon lack of obscurity.

[nick mcglue]

The nobel is unworth discussions and most likely unworth of Pynchon and McCarthy, but It is funny to read a claim about Pynchon lack of obscurity.

The nobel is not "unworthy" of discussions or Pynchon and McCarthy. If you would like to support that unfounded supposition, please do. And there's nothing "funny" about the lack of obscurity of Pynchon's work; nobody was discussing the author himself. He is, however, one of the most influential, accomplished, and acclaimed Postmodern authors, and authors period, in the world, and his works are far from obscure.

[JCamilo]

Yes, the nobel as any prize given to something that is not a competition is unworth the discussion. It is their opinion and nothing but a promotion. Usually a promotion of their own self-importance, so McCarthy and Pynchon (Roth and Delillo never impressed me, but that is just my opinion, I am sure they have impressed someone) are bigger than the nobel. Just like Guimarães Rosa or Carlos Drummond de Andrade are bigger and the absence of a nobel have never done anything to diminish their worth.

As the funny part, yes, it is funny since few authors have tried as hard to remain obscure as Pynchon and yet you are arguing how he was more well-know or respected than an author you dont know. It seems obvious to you, that someone that avoid as much publicity would refuse the nobel, which reduces a lot any of his chance to be voted. You know, they do not want to be snobbed by another Sartre. As his influence, nice, You have been claimming a lot in this thread the same thing. But you know, unless you could provide any evidence, it is just your opinion, and giving your opinion about an author accomplishment that you never read is pretty much pointless. (not talking about the four white americans here).

[mortalterror]

Kiki, Aylin, you two had heard of Haruki Murakami thought, right? That's who I think is getting snubbed right now, not American writers.

[JCamilo]

Ironic like a John Clease, Mortal? :D

[nick mcglue]

Yes, the nobel as any prize given to something that is not a competition is unworth the discussion. It is their opinion and nothing but a promotion. Usually a promotion of their own self-importance, so McCarthy and Pynchon (Roth and Delillo never impressed me, but that is just my opinion, I am sure they have impressed someone) are bigger than the nobel. Just like Guimarães Rosa or Carlos Drummond de Andrade are bigger and the absence of a nobel have never done anything to diminish their worth.
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Using that logic, no awards--including the Oscars, Emmys, Pulitzers, or Nobel Peace Prize--are "worthy of discussion" because they're opinions. People care about Art, and people are interested in the recognition of Art; so discussion of those awards and their processes are logical and more than worthy of discussion. The fact the artists are bigger than those awards doesn't change that in the slightest. Politics is all about opinions, too. You must think it is "unworthy of discussion," too.


As the funny part, yes, it is funny since few authors have tried as hard to remain obscure as Pynchon and yet you are arguing how he was more well-know or respected than an author you dont know. It seems obvious to you, that someone that avoid as much publicity would refuse the nobel, which reduces a lot any of his chance to be voted. You know, they do not want to be snobbed by another Sartre. As his influence, nice, You have been claimming a lot in this thread the same thing. But you know, unless you could provide any evidence, it is just your opinion, and giving your opinion about an author accomplishment that you never read is pretty much pointless. (not talking about the four white americans here).
No, the funny part is you don't realize Pynchon keeping obscure himself has done nothing to make his writing obscure at all. As I noted above, He is one of the most influential, accomplished, and acclaimed Postmodern authors, and authors period, in the world, and his works are far from obscure. And you also forget they are not judging him, they are judging his very un-obscure works, so his personal obscurity is irrelevant.

Secondly, you have given no "evidence", so you are in no place to demand it. Many aesthetic and philosophical argument don't involve hard evidence but are supported by rationality and logical speculation. And I did provide the evidence no White American male author has won in over 50 years. I guess you missed that. And, no, giving your opinion about a writer one has never read is not pointless...although your saying it is is pointless. Using that logic, one couldn't take exception to Stephanie Meyer or another middle-brow popular writer winning. Believing that would be truly funny.

Anyway, since you feel all of this is unworthy of discussion, I don't expect a response from you. Good day.

[nick mcglue]

Kiki, Aylin, you two had heard of Haruki Murakami thought, right? That's who I think is getting snubbed right now, not American writers.
That's interesting. Why would you choose Murakami over McCarthy, Roth, Pynchon, and Delillo?

Murakami is a very good writer, but I wouldn't put him in the class of the others yet. He hasn't quite met the accomplishments of the others yet, nor has he been as influential.

[mortalterror]

Ironic like a John Clease, Mortal? :D

No, why do you say that? I just think he's the best living novelist. As for what Nick is saying, I think he's mistaken about the political nature of the award. It's not because McCarthy or Roth are white American men that they aren't getting the award. It's because they are not political enough. The way to get noticed for a Nobel is to protest an unpopular war, march for democracy or suffrage where there isn't any, campaign for women's rights, or nuclear disarmament, that sort of thing.

[nick mcglue]

No, why do you say that? I just think he's the best living novelist. As for what Nick is saying, I think he's mistaken about the political nature of the award. It's not because McCarthy or Roth are white American men that they aren't getting the award. It's because they are not political enough. The way to get noticed for a Nobel is to protest an unpopular war, march for democracy or suffrage where there isn't any, campaign for women's rights, or nuclear disarmament, that sort of thing.
I understand you think he's the best living novelist. However, since you said he deserves it more than those four writers, and you are a literature fan, you should be able to explain why he is better than those four and why he deserves it more than them. So, I'd like to hear why you find his works superior to theirs.

And while I completely agree with you that their lack of political expression has hurt them, being White American males has done so, too. White American males, as opposed to Black women like the very-deserving Toni Morrison, are correctly seen as the most privileged in the American power structure and the ones most responsible for America's national crimes. The fact no White American male author has won in over 50 years, particular with many so deserving, helps support this likelihood.

[mortalterror]

That's interesting. Why would you choose Murakami over McCarthy, Roth, Pynchon, and Delillo?

Murakami is a very good writer, but I wouldn't put him in the class of the others yet. He hasn't quite met the accomplishments of the others yet, nor has he been as influential.

Because I don't like them and I like him. I read Blood Meridian and I didn't see what everyone else saw in it. I saw a decent western, not Moby Dick. Lonesome Dove and certain Louis L'amour books moved me more.

Roth is too Jewy, neurotic, and New Yorky. He's like Woody Allen and gets on my nerves after a while. Living in a big city makes some people intensely parochial instead of metropolitan. In America there's this never ending flow of New York books, like it's the center of the world, the same way that a never ending series of L.A. movies comes tumbling out of Hollywood. They rub me the wrong way. You see the same kind of thing from the British. Sometimes their books are all about people in top hats and coat tales living in Victorian mansions, drinking tea, eating English muffins, hoisting the union jack and talking about how great it is to be English, while they stand on an Indian writing a sonnet. I guess I just don't like Roth's point of view.

Delillo is too much of an academic. He writes the kind of things that liberal academics appreciate, the sort of things a thoroughly educated and modern man ought to be writing. It should always be meta, or ironic, or reference Hitler, etc. It should be about consumerism, the nature of art, and play with concepts of time or identity, etc.

As for Pynchon, I guess his style and diction never grabbed me.

[nick mcglue]

First of all, those aren't criticisms, they are expressions of personal taste. Using that aesthetic principle, one could say Shakespeare is no good because they "don't like him." We both know that isn't sufficient criticism. As to the authors you didn't sufficiently address or show you actually well-read many of their works, I will address each one.


Because I don't like them and I like him. I read Blood Meridian and I didn't see what everyone else saw in it. I saw a decent western, not Moby Dick. Lonesome Dove and certain Louis L'amour books moved me more.
So, you've only read Blood Meridian--greatly considered one of the greatest American novels of all time--and all you can say is "I didn't see what everyone else saw in in. I saw a decent Western, not Moby Dick." That doesn't address anything about the novel at all, not it's language, style, structure, character development are story. And even if L'Amour "moved you more"--not a factor in the voting--you would have a very difficult job arguing he was a superior author in any way. You also forget McCarthy wrote many great non-Western novels like Suttree and Outer Dark. So, you haven't shown in any way how Murakami was better.


Roth is too Jewy, neurotic, and New Yorky. He's like Woody Allen and gets on my nerves after a while. Living in a big city makes some people intensely parochial instead of metropolitan. In America there's this never ending flow of New York books, like it's the center of the world, the same way that a never ending series of L.A. movies comes tumbling out of Hollywood. They rub me the wrong way. You see the same kind of thing from the British. Sometimes their books are all about people in top hats and coat tales living in Victorian mansions, drinking tea, eating English muffins, hoisting the union jack and talking about how great it is to be English, while they stand on an Indian writing a sonnet. I guess I just don't like Roth's point of view.
Firstly, don't say "too Jewy" on a public forum. It's ugly and anti-semitic. And instead of addressing any of his deservedly acclaimed and brilliant novels or short stories, you just fault him from being from New York and writing about it. That not only isn't good criticism, it isn't criticism at all. it says nothing about the quality of Roth's works and in no way shows why Murakami is superior.


Delillo is too much of an academic. He writes the kind of things that liberal academics appreciate, the sort of things a thoroughly educated and modern man ought to be writing. It should always be meta, or ironic, or reference Hitler, etc. It should be about consumerism, the nature of art, and play with concepts of time or identity, etc.
Firstly, Delillo wasn't an academic, and what exactly does "too much of an academic mean?" That is so nebulous, it means nothing. Not only do you entirely misportray Delillo's work, you don't--as you didn't with Roth--address it in any way...not one single novel. And many great novels are meta, ironic, and talk about the nature, time or identity. If you have a problem with those, you might as well attack most of Modernist literature based on your personal preference. Good luck.

And, again, you don't show in any way how Murakami's works are superior to Delillo's.


As for Pynchon, I guess his style and diction never grabbed me.
And again, you don't address a single work. Someone could also say Joyce's style and diction never grabbed them, too. I'm sure you're aware that isn't sufficient to critique Joyce's work. And, once again, you don't show in any way why Murakami is more deserving than Pynchon. My daughter's favorite novels are the Twilight novels. Using your standards of criticism, she would be able to say Stephanie Meyer is more deserving than Murakami. So, I hope you see why your arguments and "critiques" have been insufficient.

[ennison]

No they voted for AS on the quality of his work despite being warned by the Swedish government that doing so would damage their country's relationship with Russia. You should really ask the committee why they favored writer x or writer y. If writer y wasn't on the list then they weren't going to vote for him. Unless you're claiming that all four of the fellows you mentioned we're on the list and you have insider knowledge about the decisions. If you have such knowledge how did you acquire it? The same people have not always remained on the committee and the implication that the committee are prejudiced against the white American male is a form of paranoia. Of course just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean the world isn't out to get him. Be that as it may, and I am a great admirer of McCarthy and an admirer of Pynchon (not of the others), I am happy that the committee look far and wide and I am happy with this year's winner as I was with last year's.

[nick mcglue]

No they voted for AS on the quality of his work despite being warned by the Swedish government that doing so would damage their country's relationship with Russia. You should really ask the committee why they favored writer x or writer y. If writer y wasn't on the list then they weren't going to vote for him. Unless you're claiming that all four of the fellows you mentioned we're on the list and you have insider knowledge about the decisions. If you have such knowledge how did you acquire it? The same people have not always remained on the committee and the implication that the committee are prejudiced against the white American male is a form of paranoia. Of course just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean the world isn't out to get him. Be that as it may, and I am a great admirer of McCarthy and an admirer of Pynchon (not of the others), I am happy that the committee look far and wide and I am happy with this year's winner as I was with last year's.
You have no idea that Solzhenytzen was only chosen for quality's sake. So stop making unfounded claims while irrationally saying I require evidence when I don't. The fact he was just as famous for his political situation makes it extremely likely that situation factored into his award.

And one doesn't have to know for a fact four of the most translated, accomplished, and celebrated authors in the world would be on the nominated list. It's just rational speculation of likelihood. I don't know who will be on the short list for the Grammy awards next year, but I can also logically surmise Taylor Swift will be on it. If you want to make a case that it is not likely those four authors would not be considered, go ahead.

And you can't complain about acerbic posts when you yourself keep making them. Erroneously and personally implying I am paranoid is acerbic and wrong. I made a very sound argument for why the Nobel Prize committee would reject those authors for being White American males, including the fact no White American male-including many deserved ones--have been given the award for over 50 years. That isn't "paranoia;" it is sound deduction. And if you personalize any of your posts against me again, instead of actually addressing my arguments, our discussion will be over.

And I have no problem with the committee looking far and wide either; that's what they should do. However, looking far and wide also includes looking to America as well and not excluding certain authors for extraneous political reasons.

[ennison]

So you don't require evidence. That's fine by me. I'm just acerbic by nature. I am happy with this year's award. I reckon the winner is too. She has done something with journalistic writing which no one else that I can think of at present has done and she deserved it.

[nick mcglue]

Very often I do, and that's the fourth time you've woefully misrepresented what I've said. You either have a hard time reading my posts or a difficult time countering them. I'm good with either. And being acerbic by nature is fine, but when you cry about acerbic posts as you did earlier, it makes you look like a sad hypocrite.

Anyway, your continued bad misrepresentations makes our future discussions impossible. So, I will let you join your friend on my ignore list.

Ciao.

[Aylinn]

Kiki, Aylin, you two had heard of Haruki Murakami thought, right? That's who I think is getting snubbed right now, not American writers.
Of course, I heard about Haruki Murakami. :) He is popular in Poland.

[ennison]

Seadh. Another whinging white man bites the dust. Good fer the Swedes!

[Eiseabhal]

Pinch ma glue is actually Roth in masquerade but don't ask me for evidence I don't need it. I think we should have a wee bet on who will be "snubbed" next year. My ten pence is on Murakami again. Bet he's crying already. No wait. He's Japanese; he's too tough for that.

[JCamilo]

No, why do you say that? I just think he's the best living novelist. As for what Nick is saying, I think he's mistaken about the political nature of the award. It's not because McCarthy or Roth are white American men that they aren't getting the award. It's because they are not political enough. The way to get noticed for a Nobel is to protest an unpopular war, march for democracy or suffrage where there isn't any, campaign for women's rights, or nuclear disarmament, that sort of thing.

Really? I said it because I found Murakami very limited. I have read a handful of his books and found them swallow, correct at best, well polished but lacking any deepth. Since I do not read japanese, I will leave some room for doubt, albeit this sensation was the same with more than one different translator. However Murakami havent done enough to convice me to keep trying, perhaps one day his short stories.

As the award, giving the award to an american would be as political than refusing to give to one. And really, it is funny how someone cannot understand a writers that craves for obscurity - which is shown in his writting style, obviously limited to a few - is not a good name for a prize that is basically a promotion of this guy career. As the others, I like McCarthy - he is a good narrator with a good action sense - but my opinion of Roth is kind similar to yours. A bit to do with why he is not such a favorite. The truth is that the impact of the 4 outside USA is nowhere as strong as it is being claimmed here.

Anyways, I have heard of Alexivíech once only, when a woman from estonia who digs non-fiction suggested me to read her Chernobyl book, but even so, it seems like there is some critical agreement on her worth. It is not like Pearl S.Buck winning a nobel while Joyce didnt.

[nick mcglue]

Really? I said it because I found Murakami very limited. I have read a handful of his books and found them swallow, correct at best, well polished but lacking any deepth. Since I do not read japanese, I will leave some room for doubt, albeit this sensation was the same with more than one different translator. However Murakami havent done enough to convice me to keep trying, perhaps one day his short stories.

As the award, giving the award to an american would be as political than refusing to give to one. And really, it is funny how someone cannot understand a writers that craves for obscurity - which is shown in his writting style, obviously limited to a few - is not a good name for a prize that is basically a promotion of this guy career. As the others, I like McCarthy - he is a good narrator with a good action sense - but my opinion of Roth is kind similar to yours. A bit to do with why he is not such a favorite. The truth is that the impact of the 4 outside USA is nowhere as strong as it is being claimmed here.

Anyways, I have heard of Alexivíech once only, when a woman from estonia who digs non-fiction suggested me to read her Chernobyl book, but even so, it seems like there is some critical agreement on her worth. It is not like Pearl S.Buck winning a nobel while Joyce didnt.
Firstly, you clearly lied when you said the Nobel Prize isn't worthy of discussion, since you clearly can't stop discussing it. However, since it is worthy of discussion, I understand you diffidculties.

And you need to read my (and others') posts better. Nobody said any decision wouldn't be political, I just said giving it to less qualified, accomplished, and influential authors over those four American authors for being White Male Americans is excessively political and wrong. And what is really funny is how you don't realize the award is primarily meant to acknowledge the writer's achievements, not just advance his or her career. So, it's really funny you still don't see how Pynchon's personal obscurity is irrelevant.

And your reason for disliking Roth is as terrible and anti-semitic as Mortal Terror's. To not like an author for being "too Jewy" is as terrible and irrelevant to the author's actual work as saying a Latin American writer's writing is too "Latin Americanny." I don't think you'd approve of that. And if you think my claims of those authors acclaim, translation, and influence is not as significant as I claim, then please show and explain why. The fact you haven't been able to do so helps show you can't.

And also, if you are going to knock Pearl Buck, please show how Alexxeevich is any more deserving than her, and how Alekeevich is any more deserving than the four authors I mentioned, then please explain why. You haven't done so yet, and I'm not surprised. Considering your repellent, anti-semitic reason for not liking Roth, I would be surprised if you could do so.

[Aylinn]

And you need to read my (and others') posts better. Nobody said any decision wouldn't be political, I just said giving it to less qualified, accomplished, and influential authors over those four American authors for being White Male Americans is excessively political and wrong.
Have you read any of the Alexivíech’s books, preferably in Russian, since it is the language in which she writes, to be so sure that she doesn’t deserve the prize more than the four authors?

[nick mcglue]

I don't need to do so. I never said she wasn't a good writer. I have, however, read of her accomplishments and her esteem in the national literary community and they don't match those of those four authors.

In the same way one doesn't have to read Stephanie Meyer and Alekeevich to know Alekeevich is more accomplished, one doesn,t have to read Alekeevich and those four authors to know they are more accomplished.

[mortalterror]

Firstly, don't say "too Jewy" on a public forum. It's ugly and anti-semitic. And instead of addressing any of his deservedly acclaimed and brilliant novels or short stories, you just fault him from being from New York and writing about it. That not only isn't good criticism, it isn't criticism at all. it says nothing about the quality of Roth's works and in no way shows why Murakami is superior.
It's what I meant and I didn't feel like sugar coating it or beating around the bush. I think sometimes the ethnicity of an artist can overwhelm the aesthetics of his work. With a writer who is so self-conscious about his Jewish identity like Roth, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Saul Bellow, or Elie Wiesel it's an important part of the style. Sometimes there are artists whose work is entirely wrapped up in their cultural identity. Richard Wright, Toni Morrison, August Wilson, and Nella Larsen are obsessed with their own racial identity. Their characters are black Americans, who see the world from that point of view, and the narrators speak with that kind of cultural philosophy. Women don't like Hemingway because he's too macho. Guys might not like Doris Lessing's The Golden Notebook because it's too girly. I thought certain works like Revolutionary Road were too WASPy, and just another book about middle class white people with a disintegrating marriage, as if minorities marriages never break up, or never feel discontented leading lives of bourgeoisie normalcy. When I saw Black Fish, I thought this movie is more liberal than a Michael Moore movie. They turned the hippy up to eleven. Then again, some people think that Fox News is too conservative. I'm a Chistian but I thought that The Book of Eli laid the Christianity on a little too thick and spoiled things. Politics and culture can be central parts of a work of art or an author's oeuvre, and not acknowledging them, or the way they might turn off some readers is like not acknowledging aesthetic qualities such as diction being too prolix, plot elements like a book being too violent, or a painting being too dark. When I was sixteen The Three Musketeers was one of my favorite books. I thought, "Man, these guys are so cool." When I read the book again sixteen years later I thought, "Man, these guys are so French." Some behaviors are too specific to a time, a place, or a culture and risk being less relatable or lacking universal perennial appeal. That's the risk you run when all your books are thinly veiled semi-autobiographical prose, and characters are just reimaginings of yourself or people you know, set in a familiar environment.


Firstly, Delillo wasn't an academic, and what exactly does "too much of an academic mean?" That is so nebulous, it means nothing. Not only do you entirely misportray Delillo's work, you don't--as you didn't with Roth--address it in any way...not one single novel. And many great novels are meta, ironic, and talk about the nature, time or identity. If you have a problem with those, you might as well attack most of Modernist literature based on your personal preference. Good luck.
Actually, I think Delillo is more postmodern. Too academic means that he's not writing for a common audience. He's writing for ivory tower intellectuals using styles and subject matter that specifically appeal to a particular class of people. It means that he's a bit of an elitist and detached from the average person.


And, again, you don't show in any way how Murakami's works are superior to Delillo's.
It's been a decade since I read either, so I don't have a lot of specifics to offer. However, I did read the first chapter of Kafka On the Shore about a year ago in a library, and I thought it showed good prose style, excellent pacing, and characterization.


And again, you don't address a single work. Someone could also say Joyce's style and diction never grabbed them, too. I'm sure you're aware that isn't sufficient to critique Joyce's work. And, once again, you don't show in any way why Murakami is more deserving than Pynchon. My daughter's favorite novels are the Twilight novels. Using your standards of criticism, she would be able to say Stephanie Meyer is more deserving than Murakami. So, I hope you see why your arguments and "critiques" have been insufficient.
"I do not think that Joyce has been equally successful with all these technical devices in Ulysses(p.166)."

"It has always been characteristic of Joyce to neglect action, narrative, drama, of the usual kind, even the direct impact on one another of the characters as we get it in the ordinary novel, for a sort of psychological portraiture (p.166)."

"Ulysses suffers from an excess of design rather than from a lack of it (p.168)."

"If we pay attention to the parodies, we miss the story; and if we try to follow the story, we are unable to appreciate the parodies. The parodies have spoiled the story; and the necessity of telling the story through them has taken most of the life out of the parodies(p.171-2)."
-Edmund Wilson, Axel's Castle

[JCamilo]

Firstly, you clearly lied when you said the Nobel Prize isn't worthy of discussion, since you clearly can't stop discussing it. However, since it is worthy of discussion, I understand you diffidculties.

Well, listen. I would be lying if I have said I wouldnt talk about it, do you understand? It is still unworth, specially considering it is with someone agressive, prompt to attack and accuse others because they disagree with worldview, obviously biased towards the 'american masters' and accuse others of lying cheaply.


And you need to read my (and others') posts better. Nobody said any decision wouldn't be political,

If someone needs to read the other posters is you, before you go on with the repetive ranting about the holy quarted. I was repling to Mortal which mentions that they are not political enough. I have said nothing about the award having to be apolitical, in fact, I said it would always be political, no matter the winner. Here is the quote, to make easier to you: 'As the award, giving the award to an american would be as political than refusing to give to one.'


I just said giving it to less qualified, accomplished, and influential authors over those four American authors for being White Male Americans is excessively political and wrong.

Yes, everyone heard it and we still waiting for you to prove the winner to be less qualified, accomplished and influential. We also heard you claim you developed some argument, but so far, all you showed is that you have no idea about the winner and is a fan of the holy quartet. You can repeat all day and all you have is that they give a prize for someone you do not like. Big boo-hoo.


And what is really funny is how you don't realize the award is primarily meant to acknowledge the writers achievements, not just advance his or her career. So, it's really funny you still don't see how Pynchon's personal obscurity is irrelevant.

Where have I said anything about writer achivements? Well, I will try to explain to you again. Those dudes in the nobel have some rules. They want the winner to go there, make a speech, promote their institution, their prize, make public appearance. So, they will nott waste their bullet on someone who may go there with a paper bag on his head, for the same motive they avoid giving the prize to very old writers. They need the promotion and Pynchon obscurity obviously works against him. Got it? The other 3 have a lot more of chances than him. Got it?


And your reason for disliking Roth is as terrible and anti-semitic as Mortal Terror's.

I am pretty sure Mortal wrote an entire paragraph why he dislikes Roth. I find funny how you missed that he also said the same about british.


To not like an author for being "too Jewy" is as terrible and irrelevant to the author's actual work as saying a Latin American writer's writing is too "Latin Americanny." I don't think you'd approve of that.

While I wouldnt be offended by it, anyone who does not identify the 'latin americanny' (if that is possible, we are talking about more than 20 countries, not just mexico) of my writings is insane. It is what I am. Oops, or better, braziliany, or you the defenders of political correctness, thinks that it is a single culture? Africanny too? I am not offended, I just find ironic that you use a comum prejudice to lump all that are not Canada and USA in latin america as if this represents a cultural identidity to complain about a supposed racism. On nextt round, try a brazilian writer with a brazlian writing.

I am sure you did it without malice, so just drop the horse.



And if you think my claims of those authors acclaim, translation, and influence is not as significant as I claim, then please show and explain why. The fact you haven't been able to do so helps show you can't.

As I said before, you did a claim, you prove. You refused to do such thing with some non sense. Dont be ridiculous to demand an evidence on this "aesthetic" and "philosophal" discussion.


And also, if you are going to knock Pearl Buck, please show how Alexxeevich is any more deserving than her, and how Alekeevich is any more deserving than the four authors I mentioned, then please explain why. You haven't done so yet, and I'm not surprised. Considering your repellent, anti-semitic reason for not liking Roth, I would be surprised if you could do so.

Wait to mention Pearl S.Buck I must prove something about Alexiviech and the holy quarted ? 2 + 2 = 13 now?

[nick mcglue]

It's what I meant and I didn't feel like sugar coating it or beating around the bush. I think sometimes the ethnicity of an artist can overwhelm the aesthetics of his work. With a writer who is so self-conscious about his Jewish identity like Roth, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Saul Bellow, or Elie Wiesel it's an important part of the style. Sometimes there are artists whose work is entirely wrapped up in their cultural identity. Richard Wright, Toni Morrison, August Wilson, and Nella Larsen are obsessed with their own racial identity. Their characters are black Americans, who see the world from that point of view, and the narrators speak with that kind of cultural philosophy. Women don't like Hemingway because he's too macho....
I'm sure it's what you meant, and it was still anti-semitic. Congratulations. And he fact you can't show what exactly makes him "Jewy" in any of his over 20 novels confirms that. Your racist and inaccurate summations of the African American authors doesn't help your case either. Writing about your own race doesn't make you "obsessed with your own racial identity." And many of the top Hemingway scholars of the past 20 years have been women, so you were off there, too.



Actually, I think Delillo is more postmodern. Too academic means that he's not writing for a common audience. He's writing for ivory tower intellectuals using styles and subject matter that specifically appeal to a particular class of people. It means that he's a bit of an elitist and detached from the average person.
Some of his novels--like White Noise--are Postmodern; some--like Underworld--are more traditionally Modern. However, that's irrelevant; Murakami is often seen as Postmodern as well.
And your definition of "too academic" is still too vague. Many great authors--including Faulkner, James, Joyce, and Beckett--didnt write for a common audience. That was no detraction to their greatness and its no detraction too Delillo's. It also doesn't make him an elitist, particularly since many "average people" have enjoyed his work, as both White Noise and Underworld were #1 bestsellers, and you have no idea for whom he writes. So, try again.


It's been a decade since I read either, so I don't have a lot of specifics to offer. However, I did read the first chapter of Kafka On the Shore about a year ago in a library, and I thought it showed good prose style, excellent pacing, and characterization.
In other words, you can't really make an argument that Murakami is the superior author. Duly noted.


"It has always been characteristic of Joyce to neglect action, narrative, drama, of the usual kind, even the direct impact on one another of the characters as we get it in the ordinary novel, for a sort of psychological portraiture (p.166)."
"If we pay attention to the parodies, we miss the story; and if we try to follow the story, we are unable to appreciate the parodies. The parodies have spoiled the story; and the necessity of telling the story through them has taken most of the life out of the parodies(p.171-2)."
-Edmund Wilson, Axel's Castle
And I have no idea why you included these quotes. They don't support your arguments in any way.

[mortalterror]

As the others, I like McCarthy - he is a good narrator with a good action sense
I've definitely got to read Suttre or something else by McCarthy to really make my mind up about him. But right now I'm doing a lot of rereading of my favorite authors, and then I want to do a good survey of the middle ages and the Eastern Canon so it may be several years before I ever get around to reading another McCarthy book.


The truth is that the impact of the 4 outside USA is nowhere as strong as it is being claimed here.
Yeah, I don't think several of them are even Nobel world class quality and are just regional domestic level talents. I'd rather see the Syrian poet Adunis get the prize before them.


Anyways, I have heard of Alexivíech once only, when a woman from estonia who digs non-fiction suggested me to read her Chernobyl book, but even so, it seems like there is some critical agreement on her worth. It is not like Pearl S.Buck winning a nobel while Joyce didnt.

Even though I loathe Joyce, I'll concede that he should have won. But that isn't a knock on Buck. While I haven't read The Good Earth, it's clear just from her translations and adaptations of Eastern texts that she's a master prose stylist. Here, check out an excerpt from her adaptation of The Ramayana:

Sauti answered, “That story is Ramayana, a tale of romance and love and of wild adventure, the very crest-jewel of poetry and a legend of the times and worlds of old. Arjuna the Pandava is gone, and Fire took away his bow, but somewhere Time waits to rearm him. So Time is beyond Fire, but Ramayana is beyond Time."

Her translation of the Chinese classic Water Margin or All Men Are Brothers is pretty nice too. I'm not saying that there weren't other writers who might have deserved the accolades more but she was pretty good in her own right. Same goes for Upton Sinclair. People almost never read him anymore but you read a couple pages of Main Street and you can see why he won. Some of the other obscure writers like Par Lagerkvist or Knut Hamsun totally deserved the award. We just never got a lot of Scandinavian books in the states, otherwise writers like Karen Blixen would be more popular too.

Anyway, I'll give Alexiviech a look, though I've been pretty disappointed with the last few prize winners. You'd have to go back to Orhan Pamuk to find one I had no misgivings about.

[nick mcglue]

Well, listen. I would be lying if I have said I wouldnt talk about it, do you understand? It is still unworth, specially considering it is with someone agressive, prompt to attack and accuse others because they disagree with worldview, obviously biased towards the 'american masters' and accuse others of lying cheaply.
No, you're lying about it now, do you understand? I didn't accuse you cheaply at all. If you truly didn't think it was worth discussing, you wouldn't discuss it. However, you are still discussing it, so you were clearly lying. And I accused nobody for "disagreeing with my worldvies," so try to read my posts better.


If someone needs to read the other posters is you, before you go on with the repetive ranting about the holy quarted. I was repling to Mortal which mentions that they are not political enough. I have said nothing about the award having to be apolitical, in fact, I said it would always be political, no matter the winner. Here is the quote, to make easier to you: 'As the award, giving the award to an american would be as political than refusing to give to one.'
Not at all. I've read and addressed and/or countered everyone's arguments very well, including the quote you provided. If you think I didn't, show me where. So, the one (among others) who has been ranting is you. I didn't say you said the award had to be apolitical, in fact. So, you are still misreading my posts.


Yes, everyone heard it and we still waiting for you to prove the winner to be less qualified, accomplished and influential. We also heard you claim you developed some argument, but so far, all you showed is that you have no idea about the winner and is a fan of the holy quartet. You can repeat all day and all you have is that they give a prize for someone you do not like. Big boo-hoo.
And as I noted and showed earlier, my argument isn't predicated on proof. Only an idiot would think discussions of aesthetics are solved by proof. Nobody can prove Shakespeare was a great playwright; that doesn't mean one can't make a solid argument he was. And only children should say childish phrases like "Big Boo-hoo." The fact you're probably not one makes your saying it truly pathetic.


Where have I said anything about writer achivements? Well, I will try to explain to you again. Those dudes in the nobel have some rules. They want the winner to go there, make a speech, promote their institution, their prize, make public appearance. So, they will nott waste their bullet on someone who may go there with a paper bag on his head, for the same motive they avoid giving the prize to very old writers. They need the promotion and Pynchon obscurity obviously works against him. Got it? The other 3 have a lot more of chances than him. Got it?
Can you read? I said you you don't realize the award is primarily meant to acknowledge the writers achievements, not just advance his or her career... which means you have FAILED to write about them. And I will try to explain to you again, they have given the award many times to people who would not likely pick it up. So, they would have no problem giving it to a master writer of Pynchon's caliber, even if he wouldn't likely pick it up. Got it?



I am pretty sure Mortal wrote an entire paragraph why he dislikes Roth. I find funny how you missed that he also said the same about british.
While I wouldnt be offended by it, anyone who does not identify the 'latin americanny' (if that is possible, we are talking about more than 20 countries, not just mexico) of my writings is insane. It is what I am. Oops, or better, braziliany, or you the defenders of political correctness, thinks that it is a single culture? Africanny too? I am not offended, I just find ironic that you use a comum prejudice to lump all that are not Canada and USA in latin america as if this represents a cultural identidity to complain about a supposed racism. On nextt round, try a brazilian writer with a brazlian writing.
I am sure you did it without malice, so just drop the horse.
Yes, I read Mortal's terrible defense, and if you don't get the difference between using a slur about a marginalized group and a slur about a mostly White nation, I won't waste my time on you. And it's hilarious you think it's ironic I used a prejudicial term when I was trying to show you how prejudicial "Jewy" is. It's also hilarious you try to say such terms are no big deal, but then you get your feelings hurt when I use it. Thank you for proving my argument. And I lumped in all the countries to show how prejudicial it is. That clearly went over your head.

And I'm sure you didn't mean any malice when you used it by referring to Mortal's post, so drop the horse.



As I said before, you did a claim, you prove. You refused to do such thing with some non sense. Dont be ridiculous to demand an evidence on this "aesthetic" and "philosophal" discussion.
And you were wrong before, and you're wrong now. Firstly, I have made my cogent argument many times in support of my position, and you (and others) have still failed to counter it. Secondly, as I showed above, not all arguments need to be proven. Some just need rational explanation and logic, and I have given both. So, the only nonsense is yours, and the only one being ridiculous is you.


Wait to mention Pearl S.Buck I must prove something about Alexiviech and the holy quarted ? 2 + 2 = 13 now?
This is what I said about Pearl Buck:

"And also, if you are going to knock Pearl Buck, please show how Alexxeevich is any more deserving than her, and how Alekeevich is any more deserving than the four authors I mentioned, then please explain why. You haven't done so yet, and I'm not surprised."

If you can't grasp that, then either your English or your reading is insufficient. I'm good with either.

[JCamilo]

Oh, man, I thougth Fear the Walking Dead wouldn't be worth of my time. I still watched it, but to make clear, your rage and insults are not worth of my time, therefore I will not reply to you any longer. If I do, I will be lying, ok?

[nick mcglue]

The only rage and insults have been yours. I've just hit you with the truth. I do, however, look forward to your silence.

[HCabret]

Can this thread please be closed?

[stlukesguild]

1. The four American authors I mentioned were more deserving of the Nobel prize than the woman to whom it was awarded and others before her.
2. One of the main reasons those authors have been bypassed greatly seems to be the political reason that they are White male American authors.

Have you read the work of the woman awarded the prize? If not, that would largely undermine your assertion. Pynchon, DeLillo, McCarthy, and Roth are all worthy writers... but are they the best? That is always open to debate. I have no doubt that the Nobel Prize is in part political. Walcott was awarded the prize in 1992 as a nod to non-European Americans on the 500th anniversary of Columbus' landing. But he was also a deserving poet. I would also assume that the Nobel Committee doesn't believe that the United States and its culture is the center of the universe. There are great writers across the globe and the Nobel Committee makes some effort to recognize this.

While all four of the authors you mention would be worthy of the award if I look at the winners back to 1980 I find most of them truly deserving:

Alice Munro- 2013
Tomas Tranströmer- 2011
Mario Varga Llosa- 2010
Doris Lessing- 2007
Orhan Pamuk- 2006
Harold Pinter- 2005
J.M. Coetzee- 2003
Günter Grass- 1999
José Saramago- 1998
Wislawa Szymborska- 1996
Seamus Heaney- 1995
Kenzaburo Oe- 1994
Toni Morrison- 1993
Derek Walcott- 1992
Octavio Paz- 1990
Naguib Mahfouz- 1988
Joseph Brodsky- 1987
Jaroslav Seifert- 1984
William Golding- 1983
Gabriel García Márquez- 1982
Elias Canetti- 1981
Czeslaw Milosz- 1980

I don't know about any anti-Amerfican bias considering at least 12 laureates are American... and a number more if we consider those who were living in the US or had even become US citizens by the time of the award (such as Czeslaw Milosz and I.B. Singer).

In a good many instances the award drew attention to writers deserving of greater recognition. Do Pynchon and Roth really NEED the award? Did Borges, Joyce, or Tolstoy?

[nick mcglue]

1. The four American authors I mentioned were more deserving of the Nobel prize than the woman to whom it was awarded and others before her.
2. One of the main reasons those authors have been bypassed greatly seems to be the political reason that they are White male American authors.

Have you read the work of the woman awarded the prize? If not, that would largely undermine your assertion.
No it doesn't, not in any way. If you read my previous posts, I made it clear I was basing my judgment on my knowledge of her accomplishments and esteem in the world literary community and the fact they don't measure up to those of the four authors I mentioned. That is enough. Using your logic, one would have to read Jackie Collins to make the logical statement Shakespeare was a better writer than Jackie Collins, and that is ridiculous.


Pynchon, DeLillo, McCarthy, and Roth are all worthy writers... but are they the best? That is always open to debate. I have no doubt that the Nobel Prize is in part political. Walcott was awarded the prize in 1992 as a nod to non-European Americans on the 500th anniversary of Columbus' landing. But he was also a deserving poet. I would also assume that the Nobel Committee doesn't believe that the United States and its culture is the center of the universe. There are great writers across the globe and the Nobel Committee makes some effort to recognize this.
If you are going to address my arguments than address what I actually said. I never said they were definitely the best. I correctly said they were among the most deserving and more deserving than the current winner. I also correctly said the committee has shown it politicizes its decisions and haven't given the award to an American male author for over 50 years. That also supports my position. I also never said the "United States and its culture is the center of the universe," nor did I say the committee should think it is. Again, read my posts better. That being said, American authors, including White male American authors, shouldn't be punished for being American (or White and male) since America is part of the "universe" as well.



[COLOR="#B22222"]While all four of the authors you mention would be worthy of the award if I look at the winners back to 1980 I find most of them truly deserving:
Alice Munro- 2013
Tomas Tranströmer- 2011

I don't know about any anti-Amerfican bias considering at least 12 laureates are American... and a number more if we consider those who were living in the US or had even become US citizens by the time of the award (such as Czeslaw Milosz and I.B. Singer).
Firstly, all you did here was list a lot of winners and say they were "more deserving." You didn't back up that unfounded claim in any way. You have to know that insufficient support fails to back up your claim. Secondly, you again failed to read my arguments. I never said Americans were being snubbed. I said White male American authors were being snubbed, and they are. As I noted, they haven't given one the award in over 50 years, despite the clear deserving candidates.


[COLOR="#B22222"]In a good many instances the award drew attention to writers deserving of greater recognition. Do Pynchon and Roth really NEED the award? Did Borges, Joyce, or Tolstoy?
So, what? That doesn't mean they give the award for that reason, and they don't. If they did, they never would have given it to Faulkner, Sartre, Coetzee, Morrison, and Lessing, who were all very famous when they got the award. So, it doesn't matter if Pynchon and Roth really NEED the award. That is entirely relevant to their deserving it, and it has clearly been irrelevant to the committee in many of their votings.