Do old Nobel prize winners fade into oblivion ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

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

---

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

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

Or, perhaps a better question, who cares?

So...

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Or, perhaps a better question, who cares?

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

I also note Mortal's comments:

Quote:

---

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

---

and those of St Lukes:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Modest Proposal

As I keep saying statistically English is very prevelant. Also, statistically, European languages tend to translate--somewhat--easily and quickly to other European languages. This means that the spectrum of Joyce's influence in some form or another would reach Spanish, Portugese, Italian, Russian and German audiences. I'm also sure that European and western hemisphere countries have a higher number of people whose secondary language at least affords them the reading of Joyce in some translation than most Eastern writers.

---

For the sake of argument, say that you are right and English is the most common language in the world. Furthermore, let's allow your supposition that Joyce is the most influential writer in the given time period. Your point seems to be that mathematically, Joyce influenced the most people. Correct? But what you fail to take into account is that most people who read English won't read Joyce. He has a large pool of possible readers but a small slice of actual audience share.

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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