The unimportance of the Nobel Prize of Literature

[stlukesguild]

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!

Damn it man! Don't forget Montale... and Szymborska is certainly no slouch.

[stlukesguild]

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.

I agree that there is this bias. Walcott gets the Nobel in 1992 on the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage: a writer from the Americas... but not Anglo nor of Spanish/Portuguese heritage. We need a Black writer and a woman... bingo! Toni Morrison fits the bill. The next year we strive to look even more multi-cultural... let's go to Asia: Kenzaburo Oe. The war in Iraq is running on? Let's look like we're above such things. We'll select a writer from an Islamic nation: Orhan Pamuk. I somewhat suspect that Hermann Hesse was given the Nobel immediately after WWII partially to prove that the Nobel committee could see beyond the Nazis in looking at Germany's literary achievements while Gunter Grass was undoubtedly passed over for years due to his political leanings and would never have earned the award if they'd known about his Nazi past. On the other hand... what was political about Saramago? Szymborska? Milosz? Faulkner? Montale? and many others who certainly deserved recognition.

[stlukesguild]

All the writers you mentioned, with the possible exception of Juan Ramon Jimenez, are truly great and wonderful...

I personally like Jimenez... although if the goal was recognition of the great contribution of Spanish writers to the poetry of the 20th century there would have been better choices: Federico Garcia Lorca, Miguel Hernandez, Antonio Machado, Rafael Alberti, and Jorge Guillen, especially.

[stlukesguild]

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...

Yes he did... but literary merit does not lie solely with the impact upon the works of others and unfortunately Joyce is one of the most influential but seldom read writers... or rather, seldom read outside of academia and for pure pleasure. Personally, I like Joyce... but I will have to admit that even with a decent amount of experience in reading I find Joyce rough going... especially Finnegan's Wake... and I'm not certain that the reward is worth the effort. This was never true of Kafka or Proust... who it should be noted, are no less influential. I've always imagined Joyce as an equivalent to Arnold Schonberg (or even Stravinsky at times). You must certainly be in the right mood to listen to that stuff... especially when Richard Strauss or Duke Ellington are so much more pleasurable.

[Etienne]

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...

Admitting you subjectively find him boring, objectively, he had an immense impact on literature, which would be pretty futile to deny.

[JBI]

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.

I agree that there is this bias. Walcott gets the Nobel in 1992 on the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage: a writer from the Americas... but not Anglo nor of Spanish/Portuguese heritage. We need a Black writer and a woman... bingo! Toni Morrison fits the bill. The next year we strive to look even more multi-cultural... let's go to Asia: Kenzaburo Oe. The war in Iraq is running on? Let's look like we're above such things. We'll select a writer from an Islamic nation: Orhan Pamuk. I somewhat suspect that Hermann Hesse was given the Nobel immediately after WWII partially to prove that the Nobel committee could see beyond the Nazis in looking at Germany's literary achievements while Gunter Grass was undoubtedly passed over for years due to his political leanings and would never have earned the award if they'd known about his Nazi past. On the other hand... what was political about Saramago? Szymborska? Milosz? Faulkner? Montale? and many others who certainly deserved recognition.

Neither Walcott nor Morrison are mediocre writers. If you have not read these people in entirety, a) you can't accurately judge, and b) you cannot comment accurately.

Morrison's novels Song of Solomon and Beloved are both excellent examples of literature, and definitely worth the mention. If it was someone like Angelou who won the award, then I could agree with you, but Morrison's blend of Virginia Woolf with Faulkner has created a new, and lasting addition to literature.

Walcott's poetry, though some is mediocre, I'll admit, is very effective, and perhaps some of the best written by a living poet. Sure it is coincidental that he won the award at that time, but then again, better then than never. He clearly has talent, and I will argue that most of his work warrants reading and re-reading.

Lately people like Pamuk and Jelenik have won when it wasn't deserved (according to critics). Having not read those people in their original, I am unfit to give an accurate opinion, but I will say that they may be trash, or the awards weren't warranted.

Joyce only became James Joyce several years after Ulysses was published. By the time he was getting old, he fell in disrepute for publishing Finnegans Wake. I hardly can see a chance for the committee to award a prize to him. Kafka only achieved heightened fame posthumously, and Proust didn't complete his one and only real work. Tolstoy died 9 years in, and went a little crazy in his old age, making him a little bit radical/incorrect. If he had lived another 20 years I would argue he most certainly would have received an award, but one must consider the view on literature and social norms at the time; the world was still highly rooted in Victorian perceptions of society.


There are those who deserved and weren't rewarded, and those who didn't deserve, now that we look back on it. All critics make mistakes/bad decisions. That doesn't mean the awards in general are useless. Many great writers have gained wider readerships, and more accessibility because of winning the award. I doubt as many translations of some of the great works of the 20th century would be available if not for the awards.

To say the awards are unimportant is to say that critics are unimportant. How would you be able to say these people are great or aren't great without the knowledge that their works exist.

P.S. You missed Nabokov, Arthur Miller, W.H. Auden, Graham Greene and a few more.

[ForzaSugar]

Admitting you subjectively find him boring, objectively, he had an immense impact on literature, which would be pretty futile to deny.

Think it like Larry Bird and Michael Jordan. Larry Bird was a really good scorer, but everyone prefers to watch Jordan on action. Right. It's like that. Joyce is simply boring. And as Stlukesguild said an author doesn't have to be boring to make a big impact on literature. Plus i am not an average reader, i always like to read complicated and good novels, and i should tell you, for example Proust is much deeper and complicated than Joyce, yet he's not boring, reading him is like a travel with a close friend. But Joyce... Nope... I am sorry he'll always have to be remembered as a boring intellectual more than an artist for me.

[Aiculík]

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?

Well, what were 'political considerations' behind Seifert? Canetti? Gide? Lagerkvist? And I could continue.
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.

Let me ask again - Have you read books by all laureates? Do you base your theory on your own experience with their work?

For example, what Morrison's books have you read? What was so unsatisfying about them that it convinced you that she didn't deserve the award and only won due to political reasons?

And as for the quote - no, I didn't know it's from Shakespeare. First, I only read some 4 or 5 of his plays and second, I read them in my language, not in English. But that's not what I asked.
I know you meant members of the forum. But why should we be "happy few"? Because we discuss literature? And so we are more intelligent, more aware of how things really are, than those that aren't members of "happy few"? And if we're "happy few", aware of what things really are, does it mean they're just "dumb masses"?
That's what I thought about when I saw the quotation. Maybe you didn't mean that. Maybe I'm just paranoid. But it sounded like that to me. That's why I said I hope I'm 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.

I agree that there is this bias. Walcott gets the Nobel in 1992 on the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage: a writer from the Americas... but not Anglo nor of Spanish/Portuguese heritage. We need a Black writer and a woman... bingo! Toni Morrison fits the bill. The next year we strive to look even more multi-cultural... let's go to Asia: Kenzaburo Oe. The war in Iraq is running on? Let's look like we're above such things. We'll select a writer from an Islamic nation: Orhan Pamuk. I somewhat suspect that Hermann Hesse was given the Nobel immediately after WWII partially to prove that the Nobel committee could see beyond the Nazis in looking at Germany's literary achievements while Gunter Grass was undoubtedly passed over for years due to his political leanings and would never have earned the award if they'd known about his Nazi past. On the other hand... what was political about Saramago? Szymborska? Milosz? Faulkner? Montale? and many others who certainly deserved recognition.

Well... you know I'm not sure if there's bias on the side of the Academy, or on the side of the readers.
"She only won because she's black and a woman and they needed someone like that." - yes, I heard that many times. All who said that - with only one exception - had never read anything by Morrison. And I have same experience with Pamuk.

Maybe they did choose Pamuk because he is from Islamic country. Does it mean he doesn't deserve recognition?
Does it mean he only won the prize because he's from Islamic country, while if they judged objectivelly and considered only literature, it is clear that the prize would go to... WHO?

Who should win the prize so that it would be clear that there's no political reaon for his winning?

From my own experience, when I discussed it with different people... they usually won't say it directly... becaue it doesn't sound nice. But usually, from what they say, it becomes clear that the winner should meet several conditions:
1. white
2. male
3. from USA or European country
4. some add that he should not be active in politics and should not prefere any religion (especially not Christianity)

Occasionally it may be female, black (or any other race), or different continent, because we're not racists, we're tolerant and democratic - but there should be even more strict requirements, they would have to prove they're real geniuses that truly deserve the prize, and they'd have to submit detailed CV (better biography) that they never had any religion, philosophy and were never active in politics. Of course, it's necessary to provide some real evidence of what they claim in their CVs. And of course, they shouldn't win too often - because, as everyone knows,, there aren't so many geniuses outside USA and Europe - and it's real rarity among woman and non-white people.

(Maybe I should add that the last paragraph is ironic and it's definitely not my opinion)

[liberal viewer]

"Well, what were 'political considerations' behind Seifert? Canetti? Gide? Lagerkvist? And I could continue."

Let me ask again - Have you read books by all laureates? Do you base your theory on your own experience with their work?
No, I don't think I've read all the prize winners, but I've read a lot of them, to see that some weren't prize worthy.

For example, what Morrison's books have you read? What was so unsatisfying about them that it convinced you that she didn't deserve the award and only won due to political reasons?

And as for the quote - no, I didn't know it's from Shakespeare. First, I only read some 4 or 5 of his plays and second, I read them in my language, not in English. But that's not what I asked.
I know you meant members of the forum. But why should we be "happy few"? Because we discuss literature? And so we are more intelligent, more aware of how things really are, than those that aren't members of "happy few"? And if we're "happy few", aware of what things really are, does it mean they're just "dumb masses"?
That's what I thought about when I saw the quotation. Maybe you didn't mean that. Maybe I'm just paranoid. But it sounded like that to me. That's why I said I hope I'm wrong.

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.

It is useless trying to explain the quote if you haven't read the play where it is taken from: Henry V. But, by all means. read it, try to undertand it, and maybe you won't even need to ask these questions, because it trully shows you have no idea what I'm referring to.

[Etienne]

Think it like Larry Bird and Michael Jordan. Larry Bird was a really good scorer, but everyone prefers to watch Jordan on action. Right. It's like that. Joyce is simply boring. And as Stlukesguild said an author doesn't have to be boring to make a big impact on literature. Plus i am not an average reader, i always like to read complicated and good novels, and i should tell you, for example Proust is much deeper and complicated than Joyce, yet he's not boring, reading him is like a travel with a close friend. But Joyce... Nope... I am sorry he'll always have to be remembered as a boring intellectual more than an artist for me.

I am not saying Joyce is better than Proust. Only I find that a Nobel Prize should be awarded more on someone who, let's not mince words, made a revolution in literature and is one of the most important writers of the century and is thoroughly enjoyed by many, than on someone who might be fun to read by the "common man" but has had no impact whatsoever on literature.

One can find Shakespeare boring, but would you disagree that he would have deserved a Nobel prize back then, if only for the impact he had on literature? Same for Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Rabelais, Sterne, Dante, Voltaire, Dostoevsky, etc. Whether many people find them boring or not, it really does not matter to the objective influence such writers had.

[Oomoo]

The problem with the Nobel Prize is that at the beginning writers had to be "idealistic" in order to win. That's one reason Tolstoy didn't win the prize - another is that he'd simply have declined it, because he became a loony at old age. Another reason why many authors, I think Kafka included, didn't win is that you need a vast amount of work to be recognized as a candidate; same for Joyce, too, I think.

[ForzaSugar]

I am not saying Joyce is better than Proust. Only I find that a Nobel Prize should be awarded more on someone who, let's not mince words, made a revolution in literature and is one of the most important writers of the century and is thoroughly enjoyed by many, than on someone who might be fun to read by the "common man" but has had no impact whatsoever on literature.

Agreed.

The problem with the Nobel Prize is that at the beginning writers had to be "idealistic" in order to win. That's one reason Tolstoy didn't win the prize - another is that he'd simply have declined it, because he became a loony at old age.

Who said Tolstoy wasn't idealistic. Do you know Gandhi's pacif resistance simply adopted from thoughts of Tolstoy (they were pen friends)? Well... Not sure about being loony (maybe he understood the world better) but i also read a theory about that he was became a Muslim at old age.

[Etienne]

but i also read a theory about that he was became a Muslim at old age.

Well you read nonsense.

[JBI]

Agreed.



Who said Tolstoy wasn't idealistic. Do you know Gandhi's pacif resistance simply adopted from thoughts of Tolstoy (they were pen friends)? Well... Not sure about being loony (maybe he understood the world better) but i also read a theory about that he was became a Muslim at old age.

Civil disobedience didn't start with Tolstoy; I know for a fact Thoreau wrote about it first, and coined the term. As for going loony, have you read the Kreutzer Sonata? It's an interesting book, but it is as loony as you get. The last stages of Tolstoy's life showed drastic change from his early works, and really would have destroyed his chances of winning any world renown prize, since the world was still, as I stated before, highly influenced by Victorian social mores. Besides which, he became a minimalist, which, especially around that time, was seen as a political blunder, especially with the October Revolution coming in just a few years. Elitists weren't about to give an award to someone who broke every social rule known to them. It didn't matter anyway, because as stated above, he probably would have rejected it.

He wrote a lot more than Anna Karenina and War and Peace you know.

[JBI]

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.