Jump to content

Nobel Literature Prize Speculation: Jon Fosse


Myshkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by Myshkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

I second this. It's my impression that Margaret Atwood is an amazing writer who doesn't get enough love in the American academy (The Handmaid's Tale is sometimes assigned in themed English classes, but that's about it), and I suspect this has something to do with the facts that (a) she writes speculative fiction and (B) she doesn't aggressively self-identify as a "feminist" writer.

I'm a newcomer to this thread, and I just want to say that calculating odds of Nobel Prize winners is the most geeky and wonderful thing ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the Swedish Academy decides to start honoring more than one person a year, it's inevitable there will be many, many authors who "deserve" to win the Prize who die before doing so. One person a year out of a planet of 7 billion just can't end up including all the great contemporary authors.

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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

All in all I think the shortlist looks something like: Munro, Adunis, Nadas, Nooteboom, Trevor.I would probably take(not that someone asks me ) either Munro or Nooteboom from this list. I am pretty sure that Dylan's chances to get ever shortlisted approach zero.he's name, like Murakami's is always thrown around, but I'm pretty sure it's their huge following not at all indicative of the mood in the Academy.

The writers I am really rooting for to win would be Milan Kundera, Fazil Iskander, Salman Rushdie, Umberto Eco, Claudio Magris, E.L. Doctorow and Assia Djebar.Except for the latter I am pretty sure their chances to win are slim, so I guess Djebar will be my only realistic hope.

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 am familiar only with Sorokin, Appelfeld and Robinson from this list.Of those three i think Sorokin is the better writer, he should probably take the IBooker, but I think there better candidates for the Nobel even among Russian writers, and in any case the Academy has some weird relationship with Russian(and associated peoples) literature.

If we throwing names around there is Antonio Munoz Molina who might be a viable candidate in the future, he won the Jerusalem Prize and then Prince of Asturias prize this year, bought his novel Sephard couple of months back, but sadly didn't get around to reading yet.He seems to be gathering some attention this year

Unless the Swedish Academy decides to start honoring more than one person a year

The actually did it a couple of times, i am not sure it didn't take off, there are clearly great writers whose works touch on similar themes, poets that belong to certain schools' of poetry who contributed o it's developement.For example I think tha Muller and Kundera, would've mde sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Myshkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transtromer is a poet, that also must have factored in the delay since Academy historically prefers prosaics.The backlash against awarding him the prize I never understood, I guess some people will complain for the sake of complaining, no matter who wins :dunno: .

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.
I don't think Americans win that many other literature prizes, meaning I don't think the win many of them at all.Their popularity might be it though, I feel that Academy prefers giving the prize to a lesser known (outside of literary circles) author, all other thing being equal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just finished Terra Sonambula by Mia Couto and I am thoroughly impressed, might be a dark horse candidate if they want to pick someone relatively unknown, plus he is an African writer who writes in Latin magic realist vein, if they want to pick someone out of Africa I would rank him second to Djebar from those who hasn't won yet. Achebe unfortunately passed away before he was honored, he would be a great pick to had he lived longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philip Roth is one of my literary heroes, and nothing would make me happier than seeing him win (unless a "genre"writer wins, or even someone for something which expands the definition of literature, a songwriter, a blogger, a screenplay writer, whatever, but I'm not even hoping for that, I'm not that stupid).

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.

Edited by SerStinger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Myshkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Myshkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...