banjax451

The Academy giveth: Olga Tokarczuk is a wonderful and well deserved recipient. The Academy taketh away. Peter Handke is a disgrace. I'd rather a billion Bob Dylans get the award (and I'm on the record here as hating that) than an apologist for war criminals. He was a disgrace to most reasonable Austrians while I was living in Vienna in the mid-1990s. He's since been far worse. I'm pretty left wing...but even I can't defend this one.

I hope Roth's last action was a middle finger directed towards Sweden. He absolutely deserved the Nobel Prize, which was cruelly denied him due to circumstances he had no part in (international politics, committee politics, and the publishing strategies of American publishing houses - all of which the Nobel committee appeared to blame him for). He'll be a towering figure in the "didn't get the Nobel" pantheon.

Likewise, I've had trouble mustering interest this year after last year's middle-finger from the Academy towards an entire generation of American writers (I could make a case that it was a middle-finger towards ALL writers). I think Adonis's time has come and gone - with what's going on in Syria, I just don't think it'll happen (even if he deserves it). And I likewise think Atwood's chances of the award were killed by the three-prong assault of: - Munro won in 2013 - Handmaid's Tale is both popular and award winning, which the Academy doesn't like - writes genre fiction...even if she doesn't want to admit it But more than anything else...I just don't care. They could make up for last year's travesty, but they won't. They could give the award to deserving people - but they likely won't. This award has always been broken - it's just more noticable now.

Concur. Lions is an amazing tour de force. I sincerely believe it's Kay's masterpiece. Song is fine. I know it isn't for everyone, but he's trying to accomplish something fairly specific and if you can't buy into that, it isn't going to be your cup of tea. That said, the prose is still wonderful, even if it's a lesser story.

Fair enough, though Tagore also wrote poetry, drama, fiction as well as his work translating. He isn't known solely as a songwriter. I increasingly feel that Dylan's rejection (if that's what's happening) is the greatest thing that has happened to this prize in forever.

I saw that! And as Myshkin points out correctly, this is intended as a slap in the face of American publishing and American writers. I personally think their big problem is with American publishers but they've chosen to take it out on the authors. Engdahl said as much. We don't "translate enough," which is rich since as far as I know, Dylan has never been "published" in any language other than English. That's just one of the complaints he made. My only hope is that in the next 5 years, the Academy decides to also award an American writer/author as a way to appease folks. Not that I believe that will ever happen, mind. They honestly don't care what Americans think of them. If there was a Nobel Prize for Music, I wouldn't question this one bit. But I think I may be done with this award. It's broken - it's always been broken - it always will be broken.

This is exactly how I feel. I'm not opposed to thinking "outside the box" but this is a slap in the face of deserving American authors who will be essentially ignored. An entire generation, cast to the wastebin. Another American won't get his award for decades and they're all being thrown away to do some lame stunt to show how "relevant" they are. I like Dylan, I appreciate his impact to music. But the award is for literature. I'm not even certain his song lyrics could or should be considered literature. I'm not certain he's the best living songwriter. Or the best American songwriter. There were ways to go outside the box. The Academy chose a dumb one. You want to get the attention of the literary world? Give it to Pynchon or Ursula le Guin - show that genre and postmodernism are important. You want to honor the greatest living American author? Go with Roth or DeLillo, McCarthy or Ford. You want to draw attention to short fiction, which sometimes seems to be a dying art in this country? Joyce Carol Oates. You want to make a political statement and be "outside the box?" Give it to Tony Kushner. The fact that most of that list will never ever be considered for this award should be heartbreaking. But sure...Blood on the Tracks is great. *sigh*

I'm honestly shocked. I'm one of the people who has believed for awhile that Dylan was a ladbrokes con - a way of getting suckers to bet money on someone who was never going to win. My reaction on seeing it this morning was...go back in this thread and you'll find evidence to roast me on. Simple twist of fate, I guess.

In their defense, while it may be true that this sort of thing went on, the Academy said this was simply because of the schedule and how the days landed this year with the desire to announce on a Thursday and the last Thursday of September (the first day they meet) landing on the 29th. Don DeLillo now at 12/1 - up from 66/1 just the other day. Often a sign of a winner, or at least of someone on a leaked shortlist. He'd be an interesting choice.

  I've found Roth at his best is incredible, but some of his work is hit and miss for me. I'd agree about Pynchon and DeLillo. Personally speaking, I think Cormac McCarrthy and Richard Ford are better than Roth as well...but Roth/Pynchon/DeLillo/Joyce Carol Oates are all much more popular worldwide than either of those...so I'd never mention them as serious candidates for the Nobel.   I've sometimes wondered if the Nobel folks might do an end around and award the Nobel to a playwright or screenwriter so they can simultaneously thumb their nose at the American publishing industry, and yet say: "Fine...here is your American! And look how progressive we're becoming!"  It'll never happen...but the ink spilled over it would be hilarious.

  Same - and yes, I think her odds are almost non-existent. I also think that, regardless of what she wants to call her writing, the "genre" label makes her even more unlikely.

If Adonis can't win this year...I don't know that he ever will.   I gave up on Roth several years ago. Not that I think he doesn't deserve it, but it's clear they have a beef with the American publishing industry and American tastes and until membership changes radically, I just don't see it. I think Atwood would be an inspired choice, but I wouldn't expect it.   Yeah...going with Ko Un.   I now get a yearly laugh at the Ladbrokes "sucker bets" - Dylan, Gaiman, Mantell.   Question...maybe I have the rules wrong, but aren't Doctorow and Djebar inelligible, having passed away? Is Ladbrokes actually taking bets on them?

I'm pleased Munro won - an excellent choice by the Academy and one that shouldn't have any controversy, really. I look forward to her stories in the New Yorker whenever they're there. Just an outstanding writer in every way/shape/form and an absolute master of the art of the short story.

I understand and agree that it's largely a product of history. I guess I mostly believe that at this particular point and time, the history/tradition argument isn't a winner for me. At least not on this particular award. I love the idea that the Booker, with a minor tweak, could become the most important English language award on the planet. I think it would get casual American readers talking and reading some additional/outstanding works and might even start to thaw the ice on the Nobel. Again - I'm probably in the minority. But I'm a big fan of the Booker (I used it's shortlists for several years to rediscover literature after I'd been burned out on fiction for a long time) and I'd love to see it bigger/better.

Sorry, didn't notice you'd asked for my opinion on what I'd said. Here goes: 1.) The Booker is given out to writers of every Commonwealth nation, plus Ireland and Zimbabwe. Effectively, that is every primary English speaking nation except the United States. If Ireland is eligible, there's no reason the United States shouldn't be, other than a fear that American authors might overwhelm the list at the expense of others. If Australia or NZ or Canada were to proclaim itself a republic tomorrow, leaving the Commonwealth...they would likely still be included in Booker consideration. And yet the United States isn't. That's why I call the Booker policy petty. I actually love the Booker Prize - I think it's actually one of the best prizes going that rewards real excellence. I just think it would be nice to include all English majority nations. And before the Man Booker International Prize is mentioned...it is only given out every other year and the Commonwealth nations are all eligible as well. Plus...it's given to a writer, not a specific work. 2.) As for the Pulitzer, my feelings are a bit more nuanced. I actually don't believe the Pulitzer, which is at it's root an award for journalism, should be handing out awards for fiction or poetry at all. Non-fiction I'm fine with, but I actually would be okay if they stopped giving out awards to books altogether. I feel too much attention gets paid to the book Pulitzers at the expense of what they're really for, which is awarding excellence in journalism. 3.) I don't have a problem with country-specific prizes. If you want to have a prize and only your nation is eligible to win, that's perfectly okay with me. I'm just not crazy about prizes where some countries are okay, but others are not.

The Academy knows it is opening a can of words every time it gives the prize to a Swede, no matter how qualified, b/c of the criticism from other parts of the world that they are "underrepresented" while Sweden is overly so. I actually have no problem with Transtromer at all - I think he's a fine writer. But they are well aware that there is an appearance of bias. The 1974 decision was particularly controversial, since it has subsequently come out that the other nominees on the shortlist that year were Nabokov, Graham Greene and Saul Bellow...only to give the prize to two of the judges. Personally, I think the Academy's issues with the US publishing industry (which they've used as an excuse) are not only blown way out of proportion, but are a way of avoiding the other issue that they don't want to talk about. American writers sell. They're translated everywhere. I don't want to put words in people's mouths/brains, but it seems to me that they have issues giving the prize to an American because Americans win so many of the other prizes and so dominate world publishing that it's like rooting for the Yankees to win the World Series. This is short sighted, wrong and pig headedly arrogant, but...I don't think they care. I found Muller's issues to be exactly what you said - which politics were being used. But the Nobel is no stranger to snubbing people over politics on the right. It's pretty clear that Borges (confession: I believe Borges to be possibly the finest writer of the 20th Century) was excluded precisely because the Academy felt he was too buddy-buddy with the junta in Argentina. It's odd...they'll give it to right wing writers just as much as they will communists, but they have to be "their kind" of either. I feel it's pretty rich that Muller complained about Mo Yan not being deserving when I think Muller's writing is garbage...but again, personal preferences. Again, personally speaking...what I'd rather see than an American win the Nobel would be for the Booker Prize to open itself up to Americans. That exclusion seems even more petty to me. But that's a whole different argument. ;)

LOL - I hadn't heard that about Ladbrokes. Too funny. I absolutely agree about Roth (obviously). I do think that the only reasons he hasn't been given the prize have to do with the Academy's bias against American authors (and I do mean bias - the quotes that have come out over the past years indicate a clear lack of desire to give the prize to an American, for some awfully petty reasons that largely have nothing to do with American authors and much more to do with American readers and the American publishing industry). I'd agree that McCarthy would be a slap in the face to Roth, but I wouldn't put it past the Academy - they've gone that route before. There seems to be a clear bias against giving the award to anyone who is perceived as campaigning for it - or having a campaign on his behalf. I don't think he's really guilty of either, but often "quality of writing and contribution to literature" are only sideshows to the actual vote. I guess my point is, I could totally see the academy saying: "OK! Fine! We'll give it to a stupid American to shut you up about it. Here you go...but not Roth...we'll give it to Woody Allen for his screenplays!" At this point, almost nothing the Academy does would actually surprise me anymore. The one thing that I think would point away from Adonis (as well as several others) is that the Academy received a ton of bad press, mostly from Herta Muller, about the selection of Mo Yan last year and politics - the argument being that Mo Yan both did not deserve it from a quality of writing standpoint, that he's too casually okay with censorship by the government, and that they basically went in to "find somebody Chinese" to give the prize to. Mind you - I'm not agreeing with any of this...just repeating what others said. I do think the Academy may try and steer clear of all that this year, which would tend to rule out some of the more controversial choices - but I've been wrong on this before.

I would guess the shortlist would be Atwood, Adonis, Kundera, Munro and...Dylan. I think all the smoke around Dylan indicates that there's a faction on the academy that really really wants to shake things up and give it to Bob Dylan. My guess is that it's a minority, but a loud minority. Personally, I think Dylan would be an absolutely horrible decision - but my definition of literature doesn't include songwriting. I'd agree that given the events in Syria, Adonis has to be considered a front-runner. The Academy has wanted to take a more political tone at times, though that too is probably just a faction within the academy. The one candidate I think you can take off the list, even though his name will be fronted as always, is Philip Roth. Not having won by now, combined with his retirement from writing...and the academy's bizarre stance towards American authors...I just don't see it ever happening. At this point, I think that if the Academy were to give the prize to an American male, it would far more likely be to someone like Cormac McCarthy than Roth. I think there's another faction that just doesn't like how they feel Roth has campaigned for the prize (even if he really hasn't). Not that it matters. I can come up with a better list of authors who haven't won the Nobel Prize than the list of writers who have. Most have been excluded for incredibly petty reasons, or because of politics. This year will be no different. I'm not sure why I still care...and yet I do.