What is it that makes an author worthy of Nobel?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...usaolp00000003
Printable View
What is it that makes an author worthy of Nobel?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...usaolp00000003
I'd love to see Rowling win. What a Bugsbunny Curveball that would be!
What more can books do than that? What more can books do than that! Go read Dante, Shakespeare, Homer, Milton, Virgil, Tasso, Firdawsi, Rumi, Horace, Hafez, Nizami, Vyasa, Valmiki, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Herman Melville, Charles Dickens, Racine, Calderon, Goethe, etc. and then ask that question. They can lift you to another planet and make you proud to be a human being and somehow distantly related to the kind of beings who are capable of such magnificence. Blinding, unquestionable, world shaking talent, that should be the criterion for the Nobel Prize.Quote:
She doesn’t write great sentences, and it would be hard to argue that the subject matter is hugely important. But the questions, characters, stories, and values in her work have resonated with the world.
And what more can books do than that?
Since Gabriel Garcia Marquez already has one, I wouldn't mind if Tom Stoppard, Edward Albee, Adonis, or Haruki Murakami also got one to hang on their walls. At the moment, I can't think of anyone else who would be worthy. Getting people to read shouldn't be the goal of the Nobel Prize committee. If that's all literature was about then you could give the prize to Rupert Murdoch who put tits in newspapers and Amazon.com for inventing the Kindle.
The Huffington article isn't endorsing Rowling based on literary merit. In fact, it concedes that literary merit wise her writing falls far short of the ideal.
The endorsement is based on altruism which is a strong element in all the Nobel prizes. And altruism wise, one could argue Rowling is at the very forefront.
I wasn't in the least surprised to see that the poll registered 63.39% for and 36.61% against. It's what living in a declining civilisation is all about.
The Nobel awards... pfff... look who are all the fools they give the peace prize to...I wouldn't be surprised if the Nobel for literature took the same dive...
It would be tragic if Rowling and Steinbeck were in the same 'club.'
When I read the title of the article, "Should J.K. Rowling get the Nobel Prize," I literally thought, "for what." It took a few seconds to register that they actually meant the prize for literature.
It seems that the giving of the prize is more political than anything. No matter how you feel about Obama and his political viewpoints, consider the reasoning that he received his Nobel. He received it without actually accomplishing anything for it yet. I think that J.K. Rowling has entertained lots of people, but should the prize be awarded based on popularity?
Hope for freedom, evolution and globalization of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
The Freedom part is good...Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
While I agree with you, I can hear Jeff Bridges saying "yeah, well, you know that's just like uhh your opinion, man."Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
"They can lift you to another planet and make you proud to be human" - can't Harry Potter do that?
I'm just playing Devil's advocate here.
Despite his inclination for science, Nobel recognized Literature's importance as well and that is why is part of the legitimate awards....unlike Economics who slid under the wire and said "yeah, we're here too! We're important!" (not that economists aren't important.)Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
True. But Nobel-recognized literature does not cause antiscientific currents. And Economics is pretty much US Federal Reserve conducted when it wins. Which is a good thing and will remain so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
An interesting thing happened with Octavio Paz, for example. After receiving the Cervantes around 1980, he spend the next decade pretty much reconciling himself with Rivera and Neruda, and most important, criticizing the Catholic faith in Mexico, through critics of the most famous nun. Soon he received the Nobel around 1990. Spainish conservatives were totally disgusted.
As always Emil, Here Here!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
In our culturally declinding and technologically advancing society our Technology has exceeded our Humanity a long time ago.
We could go back to William James probably, but probably at least Henry Ford and his birdwatching friend. It's a good thing. We have come a long ways and moving on.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywalt
The masses have always been, are and shall always be ignorant. There was never a time when the common man was writing verse, philisophising and spent his entire nights in metaphisical debate. The common man is ignorant. The elite have always been the elite. Culture is theirs, not of the common man. The difference between now and the past is that the presentday common man is literate and has a basic grasp of culture. The common men before were not literate and had no grasp of culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
If you see literacy as decline...
As to the topic at hand, looking back at 100 years of literature noble laureates, half of them are just about as good writers as Rowling anyways. So I hardly see a problem. The nobel prize has never been a prize given to the "best" writter, from the begining it it a heavily politicized prize.
\Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
I like our technological advancement, but it appears that so much entertainment and even the news is being dumbed down to something akin to a circus.
Maybe Dan Brown should get one too
Pfft the idea that either merit such a presitigious award is preposterous
Yes, but the thing is, the same sentiment was expressed in 1962, and is anyone here going to dispute the literary merit of John Steinbeck?
"C.S. Lewis nominated J.R.R. Tolkien for the Nobel Prize in Literature and that Tolkien was summarily dismissed by the committee."
Can I also nominate my pals down at the pub? :)
"Anders Osterling articulated the central objection to Tolkien, who he said “has not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality.”
Not daft these Norwegians.
Rowling and Tolkein aren't even top of the fantasy genre - I recently reread the first two books in Anne McCaffrey's Dragons of Pern series and they are better. Given that I mostly gave up reading fantasy in my teens I was surprised they held up so well ! You don't get the depth of characterisation found in, say, Forster or Dickens. But they are good, tight fantasy adventure stories with none of the stodgyness of Tolkein or the lack of imagination in Rowling. Dragons teleporting to the Red Planet to fight Thread beat Quidditch anyday! Actually in the next two dragon books McCaffrey slips into kids book mode - still better than Rowling, but the first two remind you that fantasy can be for adults looking for light adventure reading. So Tolkein is stodgy and Rowling is a kids author - hardly Nobel material...
Drivel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
If they're going to give it to a genre writer, they could at least give it to a good one with an extensive body of work, like Ursula K. LeGuin.
[QUOTE=Alexander III;1107217]The masses have always been, are and shall always be ignorant. There was never a time when the common man was writing verse, philisophising and spent his entire nights in metaphisical debate. The common man is ignorant. The elite have always been the elite. Culture is theirs, not of the common man. The difference between now and the past is that the presentday common man is literate and has a basic grasp of culture. The common men before were not literate and had no grasp of culture.
Let Them Eat Cake!
Ahh ... the rest of your post echoed my views perfectly, but to nitpick here, J.K. Rowling does have a talent. Very few people have shrewder business skills than she. You should keep in mind that the talent in question is what you spent the rest of your post defining as literary talent. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I don't know what you mean by "just about as good writers" as Rowling, but the fact is (take this from someone who spent years training to become a literary author via the road of the commercial author, and succeeded in the second goal but not the primary one) that there is a gulf between the difficulty (in terms of writing ability and the class of ideas and understanding of humanity) of writing commercial fantasy and writing philosophical poetry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
If you look at the list of nobel literature prize winners, then you might be able to see a pattern, but I didn't. I think that it is more a matter of what the Nobel committee wants to reward, rather than any particular matter of literature, its quality or whatever.
Not while Ray Bradbury is still alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
It's the kind of thing outside of letters, which is ironic. You can't talk about it. But you know it when you see it.
Not a chance would Harry Potter lady win. But that's not the greatest miracle of all, that she should get that kind of poll result. A miracle is that an author like Cormac McCarthy can be mainstream in the same age that Harry Potter lady is. Because McCarthy is the real deal, deserves this prize probably even over Pynchon, and is going to be well known to a pretty wide demographic.
J
Rowling is a fairly talented kid's author who deserves a lot of the acclaim she gets from scholars, critics, reviewers, librarians, and readers, but I don't really see her as noble prize material. On the other hand, if she did win it's not the end of the world. There also seem to be a lot of people here under the weird delusion that the noble prize in literature is given solely or primarily for literary merit.
Elitism, like all the other negative -isms basically says my people are better than your people. The logical conclusion of this is that they are worth less than individuals in the elite - and we all know where that thinking goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Given a good home, good parenting, ambition, vision, good teaching and schools, opportunities for higher ed, money, support, private tutors, work opportunities, family support - it's no wonder that there seems to be self fulfilling elite.
The greater wonder is that anyone from the masses could ever - by virtue of their own cleverness, intelligence, fortitude, endeavour, luck, resiliance etc make anything more of themselves than become one of the masses. But they do.
The masses are little better than sheep. Sterilize them all!Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
:iagree: And then they become one of the elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Very well, if you wish to play by this route - tell me of just a single time in historey, when art was controlled and cultivated by the masses...Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
It's all nice and fun to think of ourselves as all equall, but then when we look at history, the pretense of human eqallity is just a disillusion. There has always been slave and there has always been master.
Thats how it works. If one is clever/beautifull/charismatic enough - he rarley does not end up well. For those with not enough beauty/intelligence/charisma, they remain part of the masses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
I'm glad you said rarely, because it certainly doesn't apply across the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Adolf Hitler was easily the most charismatic leader of any country during the 20th century and nobody could say that he ended up well. Going to the opposite end of the political spectrum, George Orwell, who came from the governing class and was also an old Etonian, spent most of his adult life trying to identify with the masses to the extent of living like a tramp and seeking out the low life. He hated elitism and railed against it in his writing but he remains to this day one of the literary elite.
Equality - an unattainable dream. I never said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
The presumption that being born into a rich and priviledged class, with the right blood perhaps makes you altogether a better person - no. There's no level playing field with which to compare, and so those with the advantages always retain the advantage. So a self fulfilling prophecy is set in motion. I'm better because I'm cultured and educated as opposed to those who are relatively uneducated and uncultured and thus lesser.
I've seen this kind of argument before. Of course there won't be any masses contributing much to the culture - they're too busy earning a crust.
Except of course those individuals who always emerge against the odds - Blake for example.
Our own Royal family are a prime example. Andrew - sacked as economic envoy for lining his own pockets. Edward with his failed and censured media company that traded on it's own connections. Fergie facing prosecution for illegal filming. These are the true blue bloods who should exemplify the best qualities according to your ideas.
The Queen herself - never interviewed but why? Is it that it would show her up to be a mediocre speaker who can't handle a question? Prince Phillip - too much of a priviledged loose cannon. Prince Charles - well less said.
I never said being born rich makes you better - but being born rich gives one hugh advatnges to do with as one pleases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
But Elite, does not imply economic eilite soley.
I am not seeing what point if any your made with this post?
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The masses have always been, are and shall always be ignorant. There was never a time when the common man was writing verse, philisophising and spent his entire nights in metaphisical debate. The common man is ignorant. The elite have always been the elite. Culture is theirs, not of the common man. The difference between now and the past is that the presentday common man is literate and has a basic grasp of culture. The common men before were not literate and had no grasp of culture.[/COLORQuote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
The masses have always been, are and shall always be ignorant.
The common man is ignorant
The common men before were not literate
I always thought common meant ordinary, everyday and, in the main, poor. It's just a bit pejorative, and was a favourite insult of the common people where I lived. I'm only surprised you didn't call them the great unwashed.
You're right - being rich gives a person huge advantages.
But Elite, does not imply economic eilite soley.
Unarguably so, beause some of the common mass join them by the mere virtue of their own great merits.
Your post reminded me of an incident in my past when one of the rich elite - a young chap who I was in the Officer TA with- claimed I could not have got the degree I did. He said "you can't have got that. You don't know what culture is".
I'm always suspicious of claims about who has, understands, contributes to, or who hasn't got culture, as if it is possible to make accurate sweeping generalisations about the great diversity of the populace.
Like I said before, tell me anytime in history when culture was not dominated by the elite - art, literature, music ect..Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem