The unimportance of the Nobel Prize of Literature

I still haven't even heard one good line criticizing Walcott's poetry, so I am going to assume that you give up that fight since you probably haven't even read his work.

P.S. If you say Morrison won the Nobel for just being a black woman, than you also accuse the Pulitzer prize for doing the same thing.

I could understand if you made the argument against Alice Walker, had she won a nobel, but seriously, Morrison is highly acclaimed among almost all critics, from every side of the spectrum. Even Harold Bloom, a critic known for his anti-political approach to literature has gone as far as to canonize her work in his "The Western Canon".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liberal viewer

Y The Nobel doesn´t really judge quality or artistic merit, but it is given due to political considerations. That's what I find so objectionable.

---

It is a misunderstanding, that the Nobel price is given due to artistic quality. Nobel's will said clearly: The price for literature shall be given to a writer who did something for the idealist progress of mankind. There is no talk about artistic merits!

You might find this link interesting:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/l...ark/index.html

It explores the history of the Nobel Prize in Literature and what policies influenced the choices involved. Especially relevant to the discussion here would be the sections on the policies of "Attention to Unknown Masters" and "the Literature of the Whole World".

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Some posts have been removed from the thread because of their offensive/off-topic nature.

I'm afraid the "Morrison fraction", in all their rightoues indignation, fail to see my point. I am saying that the Nobel is given due to political reasons, regardless of the greatness or not of the awardees. One of the fellas asked me for facts (to be objective and not to express my opinion, I think he wrote), I did, and still he is confused because I said that she is black, a woman and an American (how more objective can one be?, but, alas! The Morrison crew feel offended I dared attack their heroine). Another guy tried to take me to task and mentioned the things he likes of the old woman. While admirable, it was not the point of this thread! If people want to discuss the perceived greatness of Morrison, maybe they should start a thread. Another guy even included Dereck Walcott and added him to the discussion. I had only said that he won the Prize a year or so earlier than Morrison. I don't think I said if I thought he was great or not, but those are the dangers we face in this PC era. More important for the discussion were 2 replies, one stating the mission statement of the Nobel Prize of Lit and another that took care in even offering links to what I had stated. It is moving that some still think the Nobel Prize is fair and just and that the ugly shadow of politics hasn't covered it, but they are wrong.
I don't want to leave out, as a favor for the guy who explained to us Morrison's greatness, my qualms with her as a writer. I think she is extremely self-indulgent, her devices seem to contrived and actually she is one of those writers where you can see the "seams" of the dress she is creating. I'm no expert on the woman, by any means, but I think her 2 main influences are Faulkner and García Márquez. But her voice is much smaller and less challenging, at least for me, than of those two giants.
We could continue, but, I think it has to be in another thread.
Cheers
:crash:

I think and agree that the prize sometimes and somehow is political. But It is not the main criteria. As Mr. SIMAO states above "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 agree, but not that little, but a bit more effectual.
I want to add something more :
1. Joyce today (MAY not) recieve the awards, but not because of he is 'over-rated' because his literary uncorrect style. Academy, is existing from 'people'. They can easily make mistakes.
What kind of? My humble explain; As you can see from Nobel winners list, their success is somewhere between % 50 - % 70. Of course they did mistakes, sometimes from politics, sometimes just literary wrong ‘preference’.
If I was a jury, give me the nominees as Joyce, Marquez, Grass, Coetzee… I can easily see that; Joyce ? .. hmmm? err? yes he is different but? hmmm.. Hops, here is Marquez, he has more stable style including fun, love, death, traditions, politics… There are big themes. Magical Realism, is a well known, and stil populer style. So here is my choice, instead of an experimental man which i can not judge regularly and who never had a main theme, or at least touchy stories, plots etc.
Are the academists simple people like me ? Not literary ‘ordinary’ people like me, but you can understand me if i choose Marquez or someone equal, which wont give me a later headache. We can say that academy is “conservative” somehow.

politics probably is a key criterion..I wonder whether the overall slant would be towards Reactionaries (Kipling, Hamsun, Yeats, SInclair Lewis,Churchill, Pasternak, Solzhenitsyn, etc) or Radicals (Hauptmann,Bergson, Russell, Camus, Sartre, Neruda, Pinter,etc) ?..and a World Cup Final between the two teams would be refereed on merit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liberal viewer

I'm afraid the "Morrison fraction", in all their rightoues indignation, fail to see my point. I am saying that the Nobel is given due to political reasons, regardless of the greatness or not of the awardees. One of the fellas asked me for facts (to be objective and not to express my opinion, I think he wrote), I did, and still he is confused because I said that she is black, a woman and an American (how more objective can one be?, but, alas! The Morrison crew feel offended I dared attack their heroine).

---

Bah. I know that Tony Morrison is black, woman, and American (after all, that's about everything you've been able to say about her and you keep repeating it over and over again :rolleyes: ). What I can't understand - and you, obviously, can't explain- is, what that says about her work. Because you say, she woudn't won the Nobel prize if she wasn't black, woman and American. All I ask again and again is: prove that she wouldn't win it if she didn't meet these three conditions. Prove that her work doesn't have sufficient quality.

She's not my heroine, she's not even my favourite author. I'm just mature enough to distinguish between my personal liking of a book and its quality.
I used Morrison only as an example, but same could be said about any Nobel prize winner.

But as you failed to give some real, literary arguments - not just plain statement "I didn't like her so she doesn't deserve the price" with only one author, I really doubt you could support your theory with any other. Which decreases your theory to the level of angry kid's reactions "They didn't give prize to the author I like but to the the one I don't so they must be corrupted, politicized, and therefore it doesn't have any importance. There, now I showed them!" Sorry, but that's about all you've said by now. And when people objected, you tried avoided the answer, covering your unability to provide serious argument with mocking irony... how cool.

No, I don't think that Nobel prize is "fair and just" - because I don't think any man can ever be fair and just. And Nobel prize is given by people. But that doesn't have to automatically mean that people in Academy don't really care for literary and artistic achievements of the winner or the value of his/her work and give prize only because of politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiculík

Bah. I know that Tony Morrison is black, woman, and American (after all, that's about everything you've been able to say about her and you keep repeating it over and over again :rolleyes: ). What I can't understand - and you, obviously, can't explain- is, what that says about her work. Because you say, she woudn't won the Nobel prize if she wasn't black, woman and American. All I ask again and again is: prove that she wouldn't win it if she didn't meet these three conditions. Prove that her work doesn't have sufficient quality.

She's not my heroine, she's not even my favourite author. I'm just mature enough to distinguish between my personal liking of a book and its quality.
I used Morrison only as an example, but same could be said about any Nobel prize winner.

But as you failed to give some real, literary arguments - not just plain statement "I didn't like her so she doesn't deserve the price" with only one author, I really doubt you could support your theory with any other. Which decreases your theory to the level of angry kid's reactions "They didn't give prize to the author I like but to the the one I don't so they must be corrupted, politicized, and therefore it doesn't have any importance. There, now I showed them!" Sorry, but that's about all you've said by now. And when people objected, you tried avoided the answer, covering your unability to provide serious argument with mocking irony... how cool.

No, I don't think that Nobel prize is "fair and just" - because I don't think any man can ever be fair and just. And Nobel prize is given by people. But that doesn't have to automatically mean that people in Academy don't really care for literary and artistic achievements of the winner or the value of his/her work and give prize only because of politics.

---

Ah, you are pulling a funny! On the other hand you are showing intellectual dishonesty, because at the end of my post I included the problems I see with her literature. Didn't read that far, or you just can't read more than a few sentences at a time? You couldn't be more wrong, but heck, you've been wrong all the time in this thread, when you made the "angry kid" quip. Why would I care if this or that writer got the award, when I clearly stated that it has little to do with artistic merit? Wouldn't I be contradicting myself? Of course, these subtleties escape you, unsurprising. I just don't take the Nobel seriously because it is the most politicized prize around. Live with it.
As for your moving last paragraph, you are clearly a nice, naive, person who thinks the world is a wonderful place. Good for you. As I told you before, I guess you like to believe there is a Santa Claus as well.
:p

This is the reason given by the academy for Morrison getting the award:

Quote:

---

1993

TONI MORRISON who in novels characterized by visionary force and poetic import, gives life to an essential aspect of American reality.

---

(taken from here)

Perhaps it might move the discussion on from the circular rut it is currently stuck in, if proponents of the only winning because she was a black american woman position could show that her novels are not:

1) Characterized by visionary force & poetic import

2) Giving life to an essential aspect of American reality.

Personally, I have never read Morrison.