Jump to content

Myshkin

Members
  • Posts

    10,479
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Myshkin

  1. Ladbrokes basically said that the only reason they put odds on Dylan (and good odds at that) is to get suckers to throw their money away betting on him. Yeah, Roth really has no chance. But he's such a towering figure in American, and world, literature that he has to be discussed. The problem is that there are very few American writers that can be awarded the Prize while Roth is still alive, without the Academy looking like petty dicks. Thomas Pynchon, and maybe Joyce Carol Oates or Don Delillo. Even someone like Cormac McCarthy would be seen as a slap in the face to Roth. Erdrich seems like she'd be a good compromise choice for the Academy. I haven't read any of her works, so I can't comment on her worthiness as a writer, but as a Native American writer she is allowed to be more "insular" than Roth or Pynchon.
  2. Since the Swedish Academy has announced that 5 candidates (out of 195 nominated, 48 first-timers) have been selected for the shortlist for the 2013 Lit Prize I thought we could begin our speculation again. At the moment the board won't allow me to change the thread title, but once it does I'll update it. I'll start off by saying that I think all those I named in these two posts from 2012 are still viable candidates (with the exception of Carlos Fuentes). With that in mind I'll focus in this post on some other writers who I think have a chance. (A * by the name means I haven't read any of that author's work, so my speculation relies on their reputation) William Trevor: There was a lot of buzz around Trevor late last year. Primarily known for his short stories, he's been shortlisted for the Booker Prize four times, and won the Whitbread Prize three times. If the Academy was looking to recognize the short story Trevor would be a great choice. R.I.P Alice Munro: Another author primarily known for short stories. She won the Man Booker International Prize in 2009. I have the feeling that the Academy is looking to give the Prize to a female author this year, and Munro would be a great choice. She'd also be the first Canadian to win the Prize. 2013 winner Margaret Atwood: If the Academy is looking to award the Prize to a woman this year Atwood would be an obvious contender. And like Munro she is Canadian. She also has the added benefit of being well known as both a poet and a novelist. I'd love to see Atwood win, because unlike Saramago, Grass, or Garcia Marquez, the speculative aspects of her novels can't be hand waived away as "Magic Realism". Hwang Sok-yong*: Hwang is probably South Korea's premier novelist. In fact Kenzaburo Oe calls Hwang "undoubtedly the most powerful novelistic voice in East Asia today". And since Oe gets to nominate for the Nobel Prize there's a good chance Hwang has been nominated. However I don't much like his chances, because 1) his countryman Ko Un has a larger international reputation, and 2) because an East Asian writer, Mo Yan, won the Prize last year. Ben Okri: Since only one culturally African writer (as opposed to white or North African writers) has won the Prize, Okri would be a great choice if the Academy wants to become more globally inclusive. I think his chances this year have increased, sadly because of the death of Chinua Achebe and the backlash about him never being awarded the Prize. Peter Nadas*: There's been a lot of talk about Nadas for the Nobel over the last few years. Nadas is a stylist, and his themes, oppression and isolation set behind the Iron Curtain, are in line with what the Academy seems to like. However I have a feeling that the Academy is still very aware of its reputation for Eurocentrism, and I don't think they'll give the Nobel to another European man this year. Anita Desai: Desai is one of India's premier living authors, as well as one of the founders of Lyrical India, or the Indian Boom. She's won a slew of literary prizes, and has been shortlisted for the Booker three times. Desai has the added benefit of being probably the only Indian writer the Academy can give the Prize to without making it obvious that they were snubbing Rushdie. To add a few more names to the discussion, here's this year's shortlist for the Man Booker International Prize: U R Ananthamurthy, Aharon Appelfeld, Lydia Davis, Intizar Hussain, Yan Lianke, Marie NDiaye, Josip Novakovich, Marilynne Robinson, Vladimir Sorokin, Peter Stamm. I know last year I said I didn't think Adonis was likely to ever win the Prize, but I think recent events in Syria have changed that. If I were to bet right now I'd put my money either on him or Munro. Though I'm still hoping it's either Salman Rushdie or Milan Kundera.
  3. I was really kinda hoping it wouldn't be Mo Yan. All these articles talking about how the Chinese had never won a Nobel was really starting to piss me off. Apparently the Chinese government and media refuse to recognize Gao Xingjian or Liu Xiaobo as Chinese. Well I have Red Sorghum sitting on my shelf, I'll get around to it eventually. ETA: I should add that it's not the Chinese media's refusal to recognize past Chinese winners that pissed me off, that's expected since both are dissidents. It's that most western media outlets have been running with the story that pissed me off. ETA2: I should also add that I have nothing against Mo Yan and I plan to read his work. He is most likely a deserving Laureate, I just don't like the way he's being presnted as the first Chinese Laureate.
  4. Well it looks like Trevor has gained a lot of momentum lately. The odds-makers have him trailing only Murakami and Mo Yan now. I still don't see it happening this year though; I think the committee is very aware that it needs to get more global. I really want Kundera or Rushdie to win this year, or failing that Murakami or Pynchon, but if I were putting money on it I'd bet on Mo Yan or Ko Un.
  5. Mistry won the Neustadt this year, I love his work, and I think he'll be considered for a Nobel sooner or later, but I doubt it'll be this year. I haven't read Assia Djebar's work but there's been talk about her chances for a Nobel this year.
  6. Interesting article. Achebe is kind of like Rushdie, in that he has been snubbed by the Academy for so long I just don't see him winning it this year. Unlike Rushdie though, who I think will eventually win it, I don't think Achebe will ever get the prize. I've only read Things Fall Apart by him, and I didn't really love it, but that was years ago. I have heard of Mo Yan, but I've never read anything by him. I'm a little hesitant to believe his odds because (and I know this has nothing to do with literary merit) the last Asian writer to win the prize was also Chinese. And compare Mo Yan to Gao Xingjian politically and old Mo doesn't come off so hot; whereas Gao is an exiled dissident, Mo Yan, from what I've heard, is kind of a party hack. But then the same can be said of Solzhenitsyn and Sholokhov, and both men won the prize. I really think if the Swedes are making a point to award the prize to an Asian writer this year Murakami or Ko Un would be likelier choices.
  7. Ok, finished it, and it's one of the most profoundly affecting books I've ever read. Jelinek is a master of metaphor, and her prose is stunning. I've never read another author who was better able to portray the "inner life". The subject matter was disturbing, but also very real. The immediacy of being inside Erika's head allows you no distance from what's happening to her, and within her. If we accept that the Nobel can be won on the strength of one novel alone (Pasternak, Sholokhov, Xingjian), then Jelinek is a worthy winner.
  8. I thought about that as well. It's been some time since I gave up on McOndo, and maybe it has moved forward in that time. I've decided to give another McOndo writer a try, Laura Restrepo. Reading about her novel in the link you posted piqued my interest (and the Saramago blurb didn't hurt either).
  9. I'm gonna hedge a little on what I said yesterday about McOndo. It was unfair of me to so broadly criticize an entire literary movement when I have not read all that widely of it. Rather I'll say that what I have read of it seemed to me fairly empty and far too self-satisfied. It also seemed to rely more on pop-culture consumerism than literary merit; much like the pop-culture literary movement perpetrated by that slew of triple-named American writers. But there is every possibility that there are great authors and brilliant novels identified as McOndo, and I've just not read them yet. I'll also admit that my opinion has probably been colored by the arrogant and disrespectful attitudes of Fuguet and some of his contemporaries. If you need to shit on your forerunners in order to forge your path, maybe you just don't have the talent to do it on merit alone. Here's another problem I have with McOndo: The co-opting of anything and everything not of the Boom into McOndo. And if we're using Punk as the metaphor then Bolaño is Bowie or Reed; better, more relevant, and far more lasting ;). Yeah that stupid attention whore, getting a fatwa put on his head!
  10. Murakami is a Magical Realist, and the Academy has no problem giving the prize to Magical Realists. Garcia Marquez, Saramago, Grass. I see the McOndo movement as not much more than a pop-culture fad. That's not to say that I think Latin American literature should move backward toward the Boom; only that McOndo has no real lasting relevance, and Latin American lit should move forward past this self-absorbed, self-important phase. I can understand the need of the younger generation to break from the old guard (much like Indian writers are trying to put Lyrical India to bed), but McDonald's and Macintosh don't seem to have been quite as powerful as fascism and social inequality as far as muses go.
  11. A few more writers to consider (for real this time): Amos Oz: Oz has been mentioned as a frontrunner for the prize for the past few years. His works are both very human and very political. Being fairly well known in Europe, while being sufficiently non-European, probably helps his chances. As do his views on the two-state solution in the Israel/Palestine conflict. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he won this year. R.I.P. Ko Un: Ko is another writer who is a perennial frontrunner for the prize. No Korean has ever won the lit prize, so if the Academy is looking to get a little more global, he'd be a good choice. The fact that he's a political dissident, who's been imprisoned on several occasions, also helps his chances. The fact that he's a poet definitely hurts them though. But then again, Seamus Heaney and Wislawa Szymborska won back to back prizes as poets in '95-'96. John Banville: Bainville is something of a dark horse candidate. I'd like to see him win because I think the Irish are underrepresented in Nobel Laureates, considering the literary tradition of Ireland. The fact that he writes crime fiction under a pen name might hurt him though. But then it might not, since what he writes as Banville is so powerful. I don't see him winning this year, but I think his chances get better and better every year. Gabriel Garcia Marquez: Yeah I know, he's already won it. But there's no rule against winning it twice. Thomas Mann is the only author that we know of who's been nominated for a second lit prize, but since the records are sealed for 50 years, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Garcia Marquez has also been nominated to get another one. Since he's still alive and kicking we tend to forget that he won his prize nearly 30 years ago. And it can be argued that his literary career since winning the lit prize is every bit as good as his literary career was before he won the prize. If anyone is ever gonna win two lit prizes it's this guy. Unfortunately I don't think anyone is ever gonna win two lit prizes. R.I.P. Gabo Note: Unless otherwise indicated, I believe all the writers I've named deserve the prize on the literary merits alone. That's why I've chosen to focus more on the other aspects which might help determine who will win this year. But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in discussing the works of these authors.
  12. Naipaul is kind of a dick, but then he's a writer. I mean Rushdie said he doesn't like GRRM's TV show, and I still read his stuff. And Naipaul can fucking write man. Yeah, the Academy seems to see massive popularity as a negative, but I really haven't heard much about that as concerns Murakami. Not a chance for Meyer. Peter Englund is quoted as saying, "Vampires don't fucking sparkle!". And Kanye wouldn't have the balls to storm the stage while Bowie was giving his acceptance speech. I know that PEN Belarus nominated Uladzimir Nyaklyayew, but he's not being seriously considered. Nyaklyayew is a poet and political activist who's been beaten and arrested (on different occasions) by the Belarusian secret police. PEN Belarus nominated his in order to draw international attention to him, his cause, and his perilous situation.
  13. Well then, I guess I should have probably googled it. Still, I think he's got a pretty good chance anyway. Only one musician deserves a Nobel Prize.
  14. Hell yeah! And Slash shows up at the awards ceremony! It could be a Waters/Gilmour moment! ETA: Well shit, I intended this thread to be a serious discussion.
  15. Your 2019 Nobel Laureate in Literature is...... Bruce Springsteen! At least Jaime L will be happy about that.
  16. I was hoping Larry would have something to say about my take on Dylan. You've disappointed me DF! Anyway, a few more authors for consideration: George R.R. Martin: Another American, but this one's got a chance. GRRM is super hot right now, and he has the Rushdie bump. And no one can argue the impact ASoIaF has had on all aspects of life as we know it. Late last year Feodor Dostoevsky rose from the grave and said, "George R.R. Martin is better than Hugo, Mann, and me all rolled into one". If you need further proof of GRRM's greatness just read this thread. JK Rowling: She's English, which I think makes her European, so no problems there. And she's sold a shitload of books. I read last year that 57% of all books ever sold in the history of human civilization were written by Rowling. Plus she gets the all important 14 year old vote. If she doesn't get the prize this year we know it's only because the Academy members are jealous of her. Stieg Larsson: I've never read any of his books, but I saw one of his movies, I think. It was pretty good, but it was in some foreign language, so I couldn't really follow it. But anyway, he's had like four movies made from his books, in two different languages, and I keep hearing about dragon tattoos everywhere, so he's probably a frontrunner for the prize. The Hunger Games Lady: I haven't read anything by her either, but the movie based off of one of her books is like the biggest thing ever right now. It's probably gunna win a Golden Globe, or something. And if it's good enough for the Hollywood Foreign Press, then it should be good enough for those German dicks in Copenhagen, or wherever it is that they are.
  17. Don't give up hope just yet, Engdahl is no longer permanent secretary. Peter Englund is now permanent secretary, and he both rejects Engdahl's view on American lit, and recognizes that the Eurocentric nature of the prize is a problem.
  18. Um, you apparently. Evidenced by this: To answer though, 210 people are currently in the running, so it's quite possible. We won't know for 50 years. Former Swedish Academy permanent secretary Horace Engdahl had some bad things to say about American literature a few years ago. It basically boiled down to Americans being "too isolated, too insular". Some people think he was just trying to stir the pot, but considering the Eurocentric choices made during his time as permanent secretary it's hard to believe he's not biased against Americans. I gotta say that I never really believed that Ahnlund left due to Jelinek's selection. Two things to take into account: 1) You can't actually leave the Academy. Your seat remains empty until your death; and 2) Ahnlund "left" the Academy in 1996. Combine these two facts and you find the Ahnlund's 2005 "leaving" of the Academy was a completely empty gesture. I think he's used Jelinek as a stepping stone in a desperate bid to regain some relevancy. As for Jelinek, I'm still not done reading her book, so I don't feel qualified to comment on her. But barring a complete derailment in the next 100 pages, it's one hell of a book.
  19. I did not "diss" the other guy for calling the Nobel Prize political; I "dissed" him for dropping a classic trolling line which added absolutely no substance to the thread. If SCO wants to come in here and post about why he dislikes the Nobel Prize, or how he thinks politics has made the prize worthless, I'm all for it. But if he just wants to drop a troll one-liner, he's fair game for being called out on it.
  20. I'm about halfway through The Piano Teacher. I'll give you my thoughts on Jelinek's Nobel Prize once I'm done.
  21. I've only read one Atwood, The Blind Assassin, but if it was any indication of the quality of the rest of her work I'd be happy to see her win as well. I haven't read anything by Munro. Another Canadian writer who might have a chance in the future is Rohinton Mistry. He won the Neustadt prize earlier this year. Though I would say the spirit of his work is more Indian than Canadian.
  22. My opening post was too long as it was. I fully intend to make the case for Mieville and Rothfuss, as well as Stephen King, GRRM, and JK Rowling later in the thread ;) .
  23. 2019 speculation starts on page 13 Well the nominees are in (210 in total, 46 first timers, according to Englund), so I thought we could have some fun speculating on the winner, and even more fun looking back after the prize is awarded to someone none of us ever considered. There are many worthy writers out there, and two in particular who I think the Academy needs to award the prize to. So here are my thoughts on some of the writers the Academy are hopefully considering: Milan Kundera: Kundera should have won the prize a decade ago. He's exactly the type of writer the Academy seems to love, so it's a mystery to me why they seem to be ignoring him. He's 83 years old, so the Academy needs to get its collective ass in gear. Unfortunately with Transtromer winning last year, it doesn't seem likely that they'll be giving the prize to another European man this year. As Cubs fans say: there's always next year. R.I.P. Salman Rushdie: Another author who should have won the prize a decade ago. After the strange choice of Dario Fo in 1997 Nobel organizers said Rushdie was "too predictable". Perhaps internal politics have played a role in his snubbing: in 1989 three members (Kerstin Ekman, Werner Aspenstrom, and Lars Gyllensten) left the Swedish Academy after the Academy failed to express support for Rushdie when the Ayatollah issued a fatwa against him. Rushdie at 64 is still fairly young, so I think he will eventually be awarded the prize, but I don't have high hopes that this year is his year. Carlos Fuentes: One of the foremost authors of the Latin American Boom, Fuentes is another deserving choice. I feel the Boom is underrepresented in Nobel Laureates, even though they already have two. Since another Boomer, Mario Vargas Llosa, won the prize in 2010, there is really very little chance that Fuentes will win the prize anytime soon. Unfortunately this means the 83 year old Fuentes will probably never win the prize. R.I.P. Sr. Fuentes Haruki Murakami: I love Murakami. He's been something of a frontrunner for the prize the last couple of years. And since it's been 17 years since a Japanese writer (Kenzaburo Oe) won the prize, and 11 years since an Asian writer (Gao Xingjian) won the prize, I give Murakami a pretty good chance this year. Philip Roth: Roth is another writer who should have won the prize a long time ago. He is perhaps America's premier living author. But since the Academy seems to be reluctant to award the prize to an American, I give him very little chance of winning this year, or ever. R.I.P. Thomas Pynchon: Probably the only person who can compete with Roth for the title of America's premier living author. Sadly he faces the same problems Roth does in winning the prize. Add to that the fact that he will almost certainly not show up if he did win, and there's little chance he'll win it. But then again, the Academy gave the prize to Sartre even knowing he'd turn it down. And how awesome would it be if Pynchon did show up to accept the prize in person? Assia Djebar: I've never read her works, but she seems to be a perennial favorite for the prize. Being a North African writer probably helps her cause, since it's been 23 years since someone from the part of the world won the prize (Naguib Mahfouz), while three authors from southern Africa have won the prize during that period. Being a member of the French Academy (one of the institutions which nominates for the Nobel prize) certainly doesn't hurt either. I give her a pretty good chance of winning this year, she may even be the frontrunner. R.I.P. Adonis: Adonis was the early frontrunner for last year's prize. Being Syrian helps his chances, but being a poet hurts since a poet (Tomas Transtromer) won last year. I don't see him winning it this year, or likely ever. Last year was his chance. Bob Dylan: I hate to even mention this, but since rumors were wildly flying around late last year about his chances, I guess I have to. I personally think it would be a travesty if Dylan won the prize. I don't have anything against him; he's a great musician, an important musician, but he does not rank in terms of world literature. Fortunately he has almost no chance of winning. Although the Academy does like to surprise us, so Dylan in not completely out of the question. Unbelievably this actually fucking happened So those are my thoughts on this year's Nobel Prize in Literature. Feel free to pick apart everything I've said, or add your own choices.
×
×
  • Create New...