The unimportance of the Nobel Prize of Literature

[liberal viewer]

In one of the threads someone (can't remember who or where) made a big deal about the Nobel and someone else answered that the prize "had become too politicized recently". Actually it has always been that way. The Nobel grants a writer instant recognition and best seller status as people will buy his works (although won't necessarily read them). I think the members of this forum, "we few, we happy few!", should be weary of this or any other award. Heck, after all, the greatest writers of the XX Century did NOT receive the award: Proust, Kafka, Borges, Tolstoy (granted he died in 1910, but damn!) Ibsen (1906), and specially the greatest of them all: James Joyce.
On the other hand, the list of very mediocre, but politically correct, writers who won this award is enormous: Sully Prudhomme, Rabindranath Tagore, Jacinto Benavente, Pearl Buck, Winston Churchill!, Isaac Singer!, Toni Morrison (hmm!) and a very long etcetera.

[Etienne]

I agree with practically all you said but...

...I'll tell you what's their importance. It's for the writers who win it, and for the publicity it brings to the literary world. That one agrees or not with the laureates it doesn't matter, the absence of the prize would be worse.

Following this reasoning, why the whining about their importance? I read Tolstoy, Kafka, Joyce, etc. and so, I do not care about the prizes they might have gotten.

[ForzaSugar]

I don't think Joyce is greater than Kafka or Proust and not even close to Tolstoy's quality.

On the other hand, i agree with your idea about Nobel Prize.

[stlukesguild]

Hmmm... T.S. Eliot, Andre Gide, W.B. Yeats, Hermann Hesse, Thomas mann, Luigi Pirandello, Juan Ramon Jimenez, Camus, Boris Pasternak, Steinbeck, Sartres, William Faulkner, Lagerkvist, Hemingway, Samuel Beckett, Pablo Neruda, Eugenio Montale, Vincente Aliexandre, Czeslaw Milosz, Gabriele Garcia Marquez, William Golding, Jaroslav Seifert, Joseph Brodsky, Octavio Paz, Seamus Heaney, Wislawa Szymborska, Jose Saramago, Gunter Grass, etc... quite a list of "mediocre but politically correct writers," eh? Of course all prizes in the arts are BS to a greater or lesser extent. On the other hand, I would have to say that the Nobel probably has a far better track record than most other awards. Certainly, it's completely unimportant that Borges, Kafka, Proust, Joyce, and Tolstoy did not win this award. I don't think anybody with half a brain imagines that the Nobel is consistently awarded to the greatest living author yet to have been acknowledged. It's merely is a recognition of writers who have made notable contributions to the field of literature. Many of the Nobel Laureates were indeed among the greatest living writers of their time (Eliot, Yeats, Montale, Beckett, and others ... see above). Some... undoubtedly... are but mediocre. I will note that beside recognizing a good number of truly gifted writers, the Nobel has also brought far wider attention to some worthy authors who were all but unknown (at least on the larger international scale) prior: Saramago, Seifert, Szymborska, etc...

I agree that it is something of a travesty that Borges, Tolstoy, Kafka, Proust, and Joyce were never awarded the prize. Of course Kafka was largely unknown until well after his death which would largely have disqualified him while Tolstoy died in 1910 and wrote little of great consequence during the 20th century... beside which I might note that the Nobel doesn't seem to get into the swing of things in recognizing the really important authors until after WWI.

I don't think Joyce is greater than Kafka or Proust and not even close to Tolstoy's quality.

I'm in complete agreement here.

[Simao]

You know whats funny? I have never heard of the ones that you mentioned who actually won the award except for Churchill lol but I know/read books for the ones that you mentioned who didn't win it.
The noble prize isn't an indication of how good a book is and alot of writers get ignored even though they contributed way more than alof of the writers who won it to the literature world.
And I agree that Tolstoy and Kafka are better writers than James Joyce.

[Aiculík]

The trouble with any award is, that there will always be people who will be disappointed and disatisfied with the winners and feel that someone else should have win it instead.

With literature, it's even more difficult, because to judge objectivelly, it wold be necessary to read all books and then choose which one is the best. And that's not possible. Besides, there are no objective "criteria of quality". Which means it's dependent on the opinon of the people who are in the committee. So in order to make it less subjective, they have to accept some kind of "policy" what books they will consider, and based on which criteria they'll choose it. Inevitably some otherwise great authors, but that don't fit into this "policy" are ommitted.

Of course, you'd choose differently. Me, too, in some cases (though I'm afraid that if I were the judge, Joyce would still remain without prize. )But do you really think that in that case, nobody would protest? That people wouldn't wonder how is it possible you ignored such a great author as XY, while award someone as mediocre as YX? One of the solution would be to ignore all awards. But simply won't happen. People love to evaluate, judge, criticise, compare - especially someone else's work.

So the question is - should Nobel prize (or any other) give prizes only to publicly renown authors? Only to the authors expected by majority to win? Or should they try and discover authors and works, that are not so known and popular, but nevertheless of the same (or even higher) quality? And that's importance of Nobel prize. It gives the chance to authors that would be ignored and forgotten, just because people never heard of them.

I disagree with the statement that the Nobel prize makes authors "best sellers". My experience is quite opposite - most of people would not buy it, because it won Nobel prize and they expect it will be too difficult for them to understand. Many authors on the list, especially those who did not write in English, are still rather unknown for the public.

"We few, we very happy few" - sorry, but what's that supposed to mean? Who are those "happy few"? In opposition to who? And what exactly should they be aware of?
Not that I didn't understand, I just hope I understood it wrong.

[johann cruyff]

As for Kafka,it is completely understandable,since he was practically anonymous,and would have stayed that way if it weren't for Brod who posthumously published pretty much all the works by which the people know Kafka today.

I remember reading some sort of an explanation(Wikipedia,I think) as to why Tolstoy was not awarded with the Prize.Basically,it was Alfred Nobel who stated that the winners should be promoters of "sound idealism" or something similar,so Tolstoy didn't exactly qualify.Later,of course,the committee abandoned that policy.

[nebish]

Toni Morrison mediocre ? - Put her in a head-to-head against any of the winners since Samuel Beckett, she wins 32 by ko, several points victories and 4 draws..

[liberal viewer]

Toni Morrison mediocre ? - Put her in a head-to-head against any of the winners since Samuel Beckett, she wins 32 by ko, several points victories and 4 draws..

Ha! Ha! That was a good one, but, of course, you can't mean it, can you? I mean, just of the top of my head, since Mr. Beckett won the award you have:
Neruda, Canetti, Golding, Pinter, García Márquez, Heaney, Solzhenitysn, Saramago, Paz, Milosz, Grass, Coetzee, who are, I think vastly superior to Ms. Morrison... I mean, come on!

[liberal viewer]

The trouble with any award is, that there will always be people who will be disappointed and disatisfied with the winners and feel that someone else should have win it instead.

With literature, it's even more difficult, because to judge objectivelly, it wold be necessary to read all books and then choose which one is the best. And that's not possible. Besides, there are no objective "criteria of quality". Which means it's dependent on the opinon of the people who are in the committee. So in order to make it less subjective, they have to accept some kind of "policy" what books they will consider, and based on which criteria they'll choose it. Inevitably some otherwise great authors, but that don't fit into this "policy" are ommitted.

Of course, you'd choose differently. Me, too, in some cases (though I'm afraid that if I were the judge, Joyce would still remain without prize. )But do you really think that in that case, nobody would protest? That people wouldn't wonder how is it possible you ignored such a great author as XY, while award someone as mediocre as YX? One of the solution would be to ignore all awards. But simply won't happen. People love to evaluate, judge, criticise, compare - especially someone else's work.

So the question is - should Nobel prize (or any other) give prizes only to publicly renown authors? Only to the authors expected by majority to win? Or should they try and discover authors and works, that are not so known and popular, but nevertheless of the same (or even higher) quality? And that's importance of Nobel prize. It gives the chance to authors that would be ignored and forgotten, just because people never heard of them.

I disagree with the statement that the Nobel prize makes authors "best sellers". My experience is quite opposite - most of people would not buy it, because it won Nobel prize and they expect it will be too difficult for them to understand. Many authors on the list, especially those who did not write in English, are still rather unknown for the public.

"We few, we very happy few" - sorry, but what's that supposed to mean? Who are those "happy few"? In opposition to who? And what exactly should they be aware of?
Not that I didn't understand, I just hope I understood it wrong.

You make some interesting points, my friend, but I don't think you understood my main concern: 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.
As for the quote, I'm sure you know it is from Shakespeare, don't you? I was simply referring to the members here. What is the beef there?

[liberal viewer]

Hmmm... T.S. Eliot, Andre Gide, W.B. Yeats, Hermann Hesse, Thomas mann, Luigi Pirandello, Juan Ramon Jimenez, Camus, Boris Pasternak, Steinbeck, Sartres, William Faulkner, Lagerkvist, Hemingway, Samuel Beckett, Pablo Neruda, Eugenio Montale, Vincente Aliexandre, Czeslaw Milosz, Gabriele Garcia Marquez, William Golding, Jaroslav Seifert, Joseph Brodsky, Octavio Paz, Seamus Heaney, Wislawa Szymborska, Jose Saramago, Gunter Grass, etc... quite a list of "mediocre but politically correct writers," eh? Of course all prizes in the arts are BS to a greater or lesser extent. On the other hand, I would have to say that the Nobel probably has a far better track record than most other awards. Certainly, it completely unimportant that Borges, Kafka, Proust, Joyce, and Tolstoy did not win this award. I don't think anybody with half a brain imagines that the Nobel is consistently awarded to the greatest living author yet to have been acknowledged. It merely is a recognition of writers who have made notable contributions to the field of literature. Many of the Nobel Laureates were indeed among the greatest living writers of their time (Eliot, Yeats, Montale, Beckett, and others ... see above). Some... undoubtedly... are but mediocre. I will note that beside recognizing a good number of truly gifted writers, the Nobel has also brought far wider attention to some worthy authors who were all but unknown (at least on the larger international scale) prior: Saramago, Seifert, Szymborska, etc...

I agree that it is something of a travesty that Borges, Tolstoy, Kafka, Proust, and Joyce were never awarded the prize. Of course Kafka was largely unknown until well after his death which would largely have disqualified him while Tolstoy died in 1910 and wrote little of great consequence during the 20th century... beside which I might note that the Nobel doesn't seem to get into the swing of things in recognizing the really important authors until after WWI.

I don't think Joyce is greater than Kafka or Proust and not even close to Tolstoy's quality.

I'm in complete agreement here.

All the writers you mentioned, with the possible exception of Juan Ramon Jimenez, are truly great and wonderful, but that was not the point I was making! I was referring to the "political stench" that comes out from the nominations. How can we take seriously an institution that awarded a prize to Pearl Buck, or the others I mentioned?
As for Joyce not being as great as Kafka or Proust, like they said in the Big Lewoski: "Well, that's like... your opinion, dude!"

[liberal viewer]

I don't think Joyce is greater than Kafka or Proust and not even close to Tolstoy's quality.

On the other hand, i agree with your idea about Nobel Prize.

Interesting, isn't it?
On the other hand, I've noticed that there is some sort of anti-Joyce bias in the thread! I wonder why; I mean Joyce changed literature, just like Shakespeare, Cervantes, Homer, Dante...

[ForzaSugar]

Interesting, isn't it?
On the other hand, I've noticed that there is some sort of anti-Joyce bias in the thread! I wonder why; I mean Joyce changed literature, just like Shakespeare, Cervantes, Homer, Dante...

Because he's probably the most over-rated author of 20th century. I personally never got bored while i read Kafka, Proust, Tolstoy, Faulkner or even Maxim Gorky. But i found Joyce really boring...

[aeroport]

Interesting, isn't it?
On the other hand, I've noticed that there is some sort of anti-Joyce bias in the thread! I wonder why; I mean Joyce changed literature, just like Shakespeare, Cervantes, Homer, Dante...

A change for the worse, to be sure...
Well, okay, not entirely. But having read a little bit of the Wake, and maybe half of Ulysses, all told (plus Portrait and a few stories), I find it pretty easy to side with Joycians and haters alike... Is there an award for that kind of writer?

[ForzaSugar]

Pulitzer?