Nobel Literature Prize Speculation: Annie Ernaux

[Myshkin]

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.

[banjax451]

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 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.

[Rorschach - 2]

I've read one book by Mia Couto (Sleepwalking land). I liked that very much.

"It's a tragic, but lovely, book about war and what it means for society, seen through the eyes of a growing boy, and watched by History and Hope" is what I wrote about it.

Now, I'm not the best critic, not by a long shot, but it was a book well worth reading.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Rorshach

[Myshkin]

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.

[Angalin]

Alice Munro has announced she's retiring from writing. Time to give her an honourary Oscar, so to speak?

[SerStinger]

Alice Munro has announced she's retiring from writing. Time to give her an honourary Oscar, so to speak?

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

[Myshkin]

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.

[Myshkin]

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.

[SerStinger]

Have you guys looked at the website The Literary Saloon? The author speculates that Ngugi wa Thiong'o and Joyce Carol Oates are among the final five authors considered for the prize. This claim is based on the betting movements. Here's the link: http://www.complete-review.com/saloon/

Personally, I have a feeling that Ngugi is someone who just fits the bill for Nobel Prize, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he wins this year.

Edited September 7, 2013 by SerStinger

[Myshkin]

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.

[SerStinger]

Why are the odds on Ian McEwan so low? Doesn't he have much of a chance?

Edited September 13, 2013 by SerStinger

[Thomas Fruin]

deleted

Edited September 14, 2013 by Thomas Fruin

[Ormond]

Perhaps it's time to bump this thread up again as the Prize will probably be announced next week.

Here's an article saying the betting has seen a surge for a Norwegian author named Jon Fosse recently, though the top three still seem to be the same with the same odds (Murakami, Oates, and Nadas):

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/01/nobel-literature-bets-jon-fosse-odds-slashed

Anyone here read any Fosse (or attended any of his plays?)

[Schlimazl]

As far as I understand he's primarily valued as a playwright and I heard very good things about his plays, good time to check them myself I guess, good chance he's the next winner if you ask me, there whole ladbrokes business is very similar to what was happening with Hertha Muller a few years back.

Looking at the top 12 I think we can discard Murakami(obviously) Oates, Nadas and Ko Un(they're frontrunners every year for a while now, I highly doubt they are shortlisted for so long without winning), Ngugi's odds also make a jump every year so I think we can ignore him. Roth is well Roth, Oz I think there as a tribute to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Pynchon always jump at this stage(I expect McCarthy's odds to rise as well) so I think the candidates are Fosse, Djebar, Munro and Adonis(mainly because Syrian issue is in headlines).

[Myshkin]

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.

[Schlimazl]

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.

[Myshkin]

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.

[Larry.]

Oh, it'll be Bob Dylan. ;)

[Schlimazl]

Alexievich is now at 6/1, very rapid rise, also suspicious is that her name in the list is in Swedish transcription.It's been a while since the last Russian language winner and Belarussian never won, last woman who got the prize was Hertha Muller.Might be an interesting choice if she wins, I can guarantee a controversy .

[Papirolle]

Why a controversy? What is her books about?