Myshkin

Since the nominees for the 2014 Prize are in (210 total, 36 first timers) I thought we'd start this up again. Here are links to some lists of possible candidates discussed earlier in the thread: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Here's a few more names to consider (once again, a * by the name means I haven't read the author):

Cees Nooteboom*: Primarily known as a novelist, Nooteboom is also a poet and travel writer, and has been mentioned as a viable Nobel candidate for years now. His novels deal with the themes of meaning and meaninglessness, displacement and acceptance. He won the Austrian State Prize in 2002. If he won the Nobel he'd be the first Dutch writer to be awarded the Prize (even though Mulisch totally deserved one).

Enrique Vila-Matas*: Vila-Matas is a Spanish writer known for exploring existential themes with sharp wit, and for combining disparate styles to create a unique narrative voice. He's won a slew of literary awards, including this year's Prix Formentor. Although I think the fact that he's Spanish will hurt his chances, since I feel that if the Academy goes to Spain they'll choose Javier Marias.

Marilynne Robinson: I actually don't think Robinson has much of a chance, but since she won was shortlisted for the 2013 Booker International, I felt I should mention her. I've only read one of her novels (Housekeeping, which I thought was great), but from that I can say I found her major strength was in building atmosphere. Her novel Gilead won both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award. I doubt her chances for two reasons: 1) she's American, and 2) her body of work is relatively slight.

Laszlo Krasznahorkai*: Krasznahorkai has been around for a long time, but it's only fairly recently that he's gained a large international following. It seems over the past few years that he's gone from relative obscurity to being everyone's favorite wirter, or at least critical darling. I undertand that his novels are dense, difficult, and beautiful. I'm not really sure what to think of Krasznahorkai's chances, but if everything I hear about his books is true I figure he's got a decent shot at it.

Once again this year the author I would most like to see win is Milan Kundera, and will reamain so for every year until he is no longer eligible.

I'm also gonna double down on Ngugi as who I think will win this year. If you consider the last four winners they came from South America, Europe, Asia, and North America respecively. It's Africa's turn.

Also worth considering is that the Academy might feel it's time for the first ever back-to-back female winners, in which case I'd say Assia Djebar and Anita Desai have good chances at it.

Correction: I don't know why I thought Marilynne Robinson won the 2013 Booker International; she was shortlisted for the prize, but Lydia Davis won it.

With Misima they weren't sure he was more deserving than other 4 Japanese nominees

Also I wonder who the other four Japanese nominees were in '63. Kawabata seems obvious, Jun'ichiro Tanizaki almost certainly as well, but the other two I can only guess at. Maybe Kobo Abe. And I can't come up with a fourth.

The Nobel archives for 1963 are now open.

The nomintons that year included: Giorgos Seferis, Vladimir Nabokov, Mikhail Sholokhov, Yukio Misima, WH Auden, Pablo Neruda, Samuel Beckett, Aksel Sandemose, Nelly Sachs and Charles de Gaulle.

A strong year, four of the candidates went to won the prize later, Auden, Nabokov and Misima probably should've won, but didn't. Seferis, Auden and Neruda chosen as the candidates, Neruda was passed (if google translate from Swedish can be believed)because he apparently was too Stalinist, so it came down to Austen and Seferis where Seferis was chosen as the representative of the Hellinic literature that wasn't rewarded with the prize yet, as opposed to English/American one.

Sholokhov wasn't selected because of similar concerns as Neruda, Nabokov's Lolita was found to be immoral and Becketts writings were found to be nihilistic, negativistic and depressing.Thankfully it appears that soon there was a generation change in the academy, as such thinks stopped being a hindrance for author to win the prize.With Misima they weren't sure he was more deserving than other 4 Japanese nominees, in that light 1968 archives would be interesting to read.

Mishima being only 38 years old at the time says a lot about what they thought of him. In '68 I'm betting Kawabata got the nod over Mishima by simple dint of him being 69 to Mishima's 43. Had Mishima won that year he'd be the second youngest to ever win the lit prize (Kipling was 42). I don't blame the Academy in any way for Mishima being passed over, he was only 45 years old at his death, and I believe that the final part of his masterpiece, The Sea of Fertility, had yet to be published.

Alice Munro commenting on Alice Munro's win.

Wow. I dare anyone to read that and still say Munro doesn't deserve the Nobel. She is an absolute master of wordplay, and it really shines through in that article.

Margaret Atwood on Munro's Nobel win.

Was it a forum full of David Gilmour and alts? It was probably insufficient white straight male for him.

I hate that this guy's name is David Gilmour! Not only is he a prick because of his insane, idiotic opinions, but also because he is sullying the name of a genuine rock god.

I too am glad that the Nobel committee endorsed the short story form with this award. They are much harder to write than people give them credit for.

Yeah, with a short story you can't really count on a plot to carry you through, and so have to be very precise with your themes. I don't think short story writers get enough credit for that.

Great choice in Munro, she completely deserves it, and awarding it to her highlights the short story as a still relevant literary form.

Unfortunately it seems that no matter how deserving they might be any woman being awarded the Nobel in literature will be met with at least some cries of outrage. A few weeks ago I joined a forum focused on world literature, and I was amazed today at the level of sexism I saw there after Munro was announced. Let me just say how much I appreciate you posters on this subforum.

ETA: I'd like to point out that even though I've been predicting Ngugi for the last few weeks, I did in fact predict that Munro would win it in my first post of the year :).

Yep, there's no way Murakami wins this years. My money's still on Ngugi at this point.

I really hope she doesn't win, mainly because she doesn't write fiction.

Alice Munroe odds jumped to 4/1, very interesting. Also interesting Svetlana Alexievich bypassed Ngugi and now is equal with Roth and Oz, might be my memory but I don't remember her in the first list of odds.

She wasn't listed at all until earlier today. Pynchon's odd have also dropped form 20/1 down to 12/1, and Eco went from 40/1 to 25/1. They announced earlier today that the prize would be handed out on Thursday, so I think most of the movement we're seeing can be attributed to an all around increase in betting. Svetlana Alexievich though is an interesting development.

I'm not buying Fosse's odds. I just don't see the prize going to yet another European man this year. The only European man they could give the prize to this year without causing a huge stink is Milan Kundera. My gut still tells me it's gonna be Ngugi though.

Javier Marias' odds have gone from 100/1 to 33/1. Like with Thiong'o this might be the result of leaked or insider information, but I feel it's more likely a simple market correction. Marias, a very well known and highly respected author, had no business being at 100/1, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if that alone is driving bets on him.

So I was right about Ngugi wa Thiong'o's odds; they've gone from 50/1 three days ago down to 20/1 today (tied with Pynchon for 10th best odds), and Ladbrokes actually briefly suspended betting on him. Now obviously Ladbrokes doesn't know much more than any of us on his actual chances, but generally when bets start pouring in on a certain author it's viewed as possibly a result of insider knowledge. Last year Mo Yan came out of basically nowhere in the odds, and the year before Transtromer's odds increase dramatically in the days leading up to the announcement. And, take it for what it's worth, Ladbrokes says one of the larger bets on Thiong'o came from a Swedish customer. This is all speculation of course, and may very well mean absolutely nothing, but I have a feeling that somebody somewhere has info that Thiong'o has made the shortlist.

My impression of Nobel is that retiring is a bad thing to do to get the prize. I might be wrong though.

That's my impression too. But then how many writers actually stay retired from writing? Vonnegut retired like 3 times.

Ladbrokes have released their odds. The list is frankly ridiculous right now, and is certainly going to change a lot in the coming weeks. Here's the top ten:

Haruki Murakami 3/1

Joyce Carol Oates 6/1

Peter Nadas 7/1

Ko Un 10/1

Alice Munro 12/1

Assia Djebar 14/1

Adonis 14/1

Philip Roth 16/1

Amos Oz 16/1

Thomas Pynchon 20/1

Others of note:

Milan Kundera 25/1

William Trevor 33/1

Margaret Atwood 40/1

Salman Rushdie 40/1

Bob Dylan 50/1

Ngugi wa Thiong'o 50/1

John Banville 50/1

Cees Nooteboom 50/1

Ismail Kadare 50/1

Mia Couto 100/1

Ben Okri 100/1

Javier Marias 100/1

Antonio Lobo Antunes 100/1

Murakami, Ko Un, and Oates are not going to hold at those odds, while I think the odds on Trevor, Thiong'o, and Couto are going to get 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.

The difference is that Zimbabwe and Ireland are both former members of the Commonwealth, while the US is not. If Australia or New Zealand or Canada left the Commonwealth they'd almost certainly still be eligible for the Booker, as the precedent has already been set by Ireland and Zimbabwe. Mainly what I'm saying is that I see no real gap in logic in the Booker considering Irish or Zimbabwean writers, while not considering American writers. I can understand the argument of the US being the only major English speaking country to not be eligible for the Booker, but I don't see it as petty exclusion, but rather as a product of history, as the US is also the only major English speaking country to never have been part of the Commonwealth.

Interestingly the Booker announced their longlist a few weeks ago, and one of the novels on the longlist was authored by Jhumpa Lahiri, who won the Pulitzer for fiction in 2000. If she were to win the Booker this year she'd be the first author to win both.

I thought I'd add a few more names to the speculation. Looking around I'm starting to hear some buzz about authors out of Africa, one of whom we've been discussing here in the last few I days.

Mia Couto*: A Magic Realist out of Mozambique, Couto's writing is being compared to that of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, not only in style but also in how it has helped to define his time and place, post-colonial Africa. The fact that he's a white writer of European descent probably hurts him, as I feel that if the Academy is going to go to Africa, they're going to choose a North African or culturally African writer. Although (I'm told) his writing has more of an African feel to it than the works of say J. M. Coetzee or Nadine Gordimer. It probably also helps that he writes in Portuguese rather than English. Couto won the Latin Union Literary Prize in 2007, and earlier this year was awarded the Camoes Prize. As mentioned above, he's also been shortlisted for the 2014 Neustadt Prize.

Ngugi wa Thiong'o*: Thiong'o is a Kenyan novelist and playwright. He's credited with writing the first modern novel in Gikuyu (a Bantu language spoken mainly in Kenya), on prison issue toilet paper no less. Although his earlier works were written in English, the fact that he now writes in Gikuyu probably helps his chances. As does his history as a political dissident. Thiong'o won the Lotus Prize (awarded to African or Asian writers) in 1973 (two years before Achebe), and was shortlisted for the International Booker Prize in 2009. Though not as big a name as Ben Okri, Thiong'o seems to be taken more seriously than Okri.

Antonio Lobo Antunes*: Lobo Antunes is a giant of Portuguese literature, and was chief rival to Jose Saramago. The two are known to have not liked each other, and Lobo Antunes is said to have been outraged when Saramago won his Nobel. Many fans thought Lobo Antunes' chances at the Prize went down the drain after Saramago won (much like many thought no other Boom writer would win after Garcia Marquez), but lately he's been picking up steam. In 2000 he won the European Literary Award, in 2003 he won the Latin Union Literary Prize, in 2005 he won the Jerusalem Prize, and in 2002 he was shortlisted for the Neustadt Prize.

Javier Marias: King Xavier of Redonda. Not as well known as he probably should be in the US, Marias is a pretty huge name in the Spanish speaking world. Marias' novels often deal with the themes of identity and death. He sits on the Royal Spanish Academy, an organization that often nominates for the Nobel, so that can't hurt his chances. Like many people I think Marias has a good chance to eventually win the Nobel, but I think it's a little way off yet.

A few things to consider:

We've had five winners since the last English language Laureate (Doris Lessing, 2007); historically it doesn't generally go much longer than that between English language Laureates. We've only had two winners since the last Spanish language Laureate (Mario Vargas Llosa, 2010); only once have two Spanish language writers been awarded the Prize so close to each other (Camilo José Cela, 1989; Octavio Paz, 1990). Only one Portuguese language writer has won the Prize (Jose Saramago, 1998).

Also worth considering is the fact that the last three winners (Mario Vargas Llosa, Tomas Transtromer, Mo Yan) have all been fairly big (or very big) names. If the Academy is in the mood to give us another Le Clezio moment, we could be seeing the Nobel going to someone with little name recognition.

And finally, to continue the theme of looking at other major awards for clues, the Franz Kafka Prize was awarded in May. The Kafka Prize has twice in its short history managed to predict the Nobel winner (Elfriede Jelinek, 2004; Harold Pinter, 2005). This year's Kafka Prize winner was Amos Oz.

I'm not saying the controversy is stopping them, I'm saying they agree with it. It's not really snubbing if they think it's true. Pinter was controversial too. Although I believe Pinter is so great that his name honors Nobel more than the other way around, I'm sure the academy welcomes the kind of controversy he brought with him. No, it's not the controversy, it's that they hate Roth. Like the man-booker prize judge who resigned out of anger when Roth won in 2011.

Ok, I see where you're coming from. I still don't think it factors though :).

So the Man Booker International Prize winner has been announced: Lydia Davis. I don't know much about Davis, haven't read anything by her.

Also the nominees for the 2014 Neustadt Prize have been announced: César Aira, Mia Couto, Duong Thu Huong, Edward P. Jones, Ilya Kaminsky, Chang-rae Lee, Edouard Maunick, Haruki Murakami, and Ghassan Zaqtan. The name that really interests me on this list is Vietnamese author Duong Thu Huong (also Mia Couto after Schlimazl's post the other day). I haven't read anything by her, but I have Paradise of the Blind on my shelf.

However, I think the reason for the academy not giving him the price is simple. They don't like his works. I don't think it's bias. In the recent years I don't know of any politically incorrect writers to have won recently, Roth is very controversial, and not in the way the academy welcomes it. He's been called a self-hating Jew, a misogynist, hater, things like that.

Although I strongly disagree with all of these criticisms, I feel that the academy judges are just the type of the snobbish intellectuals who would agree with these criticisms.

I hope I'm proven wrong though.

Eh, I'm not sure that controversy comes into it with regards to Roth. They gave the prize to Jelinek in 2004 and Naipaul in 2001, and both are more controversial than Roth. Orhan Pamuk, who won in 2006, is probably more controversial than Roth. Roth is no Rushdie, to be snubbed for being controversial.

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. ;)

I'd like to expand on this. Why do you see the Booker not being open to Americans as petty? Do you also see the Pulitzer being only open to Americans as petty? If you want to see Americans and Brits (and everyone else) pitted against each other for a literary prize you've got the National Book Critics Circle Award and the IMPAC Dublin Award.

On the other hand, they actually did give the prize to Tranströmer last year, long after people had given up on him ever getting it. The campaign for Tranströmer in Sweden was beyond ridiculous. Every October on a certain Thursday the journalists would gather outside his home at lunchtime to be first in place if he was awarded the prize. I wouldn't be surprized if they eventually gave the prize to Roth, just to spite everyone who thought they'd never do it.

Yes, but their reasons for holding off giving the Prize to Transtromer were very different than their reasons for snubbing Roth. Prior to Transtromer winning the Lit Prize the Swedish Academy had awarded it to six other Swedes, a number that seems a little out of proportion (Russia/Soviet Union has five winners). To make matters worse all six of those Swedish winners were members of the Swedish Academy. The last time they'd awarded the Prize to Swedes was in 1974 when they awarded it jointly to Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson. This was such an unexpected choice that many believe it basically amounted to embezzlement. All this to say that the reason they took so long to give the Prize to Transtromer was because they were trying to avoid an appearance of impropriety. Whereas the reason they've been snubbing Roth is because they have a problem with the US publishing industry (which I believe they have blown out of proportion).

If recall correctly besides Nadas and Trevor, Cees Nooteboom was favored by the bookies (all after Mo Yan of course, whom they predicted correctly), personally something in his writing rubs me the wrong way, but he is undeniably a very talented writer and probably would be a better choice for the prize that some of the names that are flounced around as potential winners.Also, I don't think there was a Dutch winner before, so may be it'll give him extra-edge with the academy.

I'd actually planned on mentioning Nooteboom in my first post, but then I guess I forgot. I haven't read anything by him, but his name keeps popping up as a contender for the Nobel. I don't think being Dutch is gonna help him this year (though it may in the future); I just feel that the Academy isn't trying to give the Prize to a European man this year. And if they do give the Prize to a European man the only one I can think of who wouldn't create a huge uproar would be Milan Kundera.

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.

Well I think Muller's problem really wasn't that politics were involved in giving the Prize to Mo Yan, but rather which politics were involved. Muller, who has spent her career writing about communist oppression, wasn't happy to see the Prize go to a Party hack. I still haven't read anything by Mo Yan, but he really does seem like a poor choice.

Although looking into Adonis today I came across something that makes me rethink his chances. After people were upset that the 2011 Prize (the year of the Arab Spring) went to Transtromer instead of Adonis permanent secretary Peter Englund said that politics didn't play a part in awarding the prize, and called the idea of it "literature for dummies". We all know that's bullshit, but to give Adonis the Prize this year for what we know would be political reasons, after shooting down the idea two years ago, would look bad.

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.

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.

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).

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.

I'm not at all an expert on this -- I really hope either Munro or Atwood win. However, if the Academy is less prejudiced against women authors from the USA than male ones, It seems to me there's always Joyce Carol Oates and Louise Erdrich to consider. Oates seems to maintain both an incredible rate of productivity along with high quality better than any other author I know, and some of her work is definitely fantasy or horror. From my limited knowledge, Erdrich seems to be the living Native American identified novelist with the best reputation, and perhaps giving the prize to a Native American would somewhat overcome any prejudices the Academy might have toward U. S. citizens. :)

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.

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.

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.

If we're talking about Ireland, I would love to see William Trevor and his dark, bleak, funny-strange literary world, in contention.

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.