The unimportance of the Nobel Prize of Literature

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Well you read nonsense.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liberal viewer

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiculík

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liberal viewer

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForzaSugar

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiculík

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

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

---

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

Liberal Viewer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Morrison did win because she is black!"

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liberal viewer

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liberal viewer

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

---

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

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

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

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

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