[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 377 KB, 500x492, Nobel_Prize.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16537537 No.16537537 [Reply] [Original]

Since you il/lit/erates will be sperging about the Nobel for the next few days, which prize winners do you think actually deserved it and which ones do you think will still be read and remembered centuries from now?

>> No.16537544

Watashi desu

>> No.16537546
File: 9 KB, 200x200, TDYJauxPDebGCnq-400x400-noPad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16537546

>>16537537
Only Daddy Q.

>> No.16537551

>>16537537
Honestly, I don't give it (an arbitrary award) much thought.

>> No.16537574

>>16537537
António Lobo Antunes should've won.

>> No.16537591

>>16537537
Vargas Llosa, but leftist will tell you otherwise. He deserved it more than Gabo actually.

>> No.16537707

>>16537537
In the 21st century:

Peter Handke, Mario Vargas Llosa, Orhan Pamuk, Coetzee, Kertesz. Perhaps Transtromer and Naipaul.
Llosa will certainly be read in 500 years: he's a main figure of the boom, and therefore immortal. I don't know about the others, but suppose all of them will be read too.

Authors I would have chosen instead (using more or less similar criteria):

Anne Carson > Louise Gluck
Zagajewski > Olga Tocarzuk
Thomas Pynchon > Ishiguro
Leonard Cohen > Bob Dylan
Ugresic > Alexievich
Houellebecq > Modiano (but Modiano is also OK)
Geoffrey Hill > Alice Munro (had to fit Hill somewhere, plus there's two Canadians above)
I don't know much Chinese literature, and haven't read anything by Mo Yan.
Hans Magnus Enszenberger > Hertha Muler
Yves Bonnefoy > Le Clezio
Cormac McCarthy > Doris Lessing
Tom Stoppard > Harold Pinter
Umberto Eco > Jellinek (after Fo, some real Italian writer would have to win it)

>>16537591
Also yes. Even from a purely formal perspective Pantaleón y las visitadoras is a masterpiece. It didn't even need to be so funny, but it is. His satire on official prose is the best thing of the sort that I have yet found. I laughed at almost every page.

>> No.16537721

>>16537537
Camus

>> No.16537728

>>16537537
>centuries from now
Ecological optmist, eh.

>> No.16537744

>>16537707
>Umberto Eco > Jelinek
How are they similar?

>> No.16537755

>>16537537
Pearl S Buck
Marquez
Ishiguro

Only read 100 years and good earth but both will stand the test of time, unless niggers get mad about pearl not being a chink

>> No.16537771

>>16537744
They're not. I put an Italian there, because it was needed. Which is why I said "more or less similar criteria".
In this case, both are novelists. This is the similarity.

>> No.16537821

In English: only Steinbeck and Hemingway because they are taught in schools. Also Beckett for being taught in college. And Eliot as a historical artifact of modernism. Everyone else will be forgotten because people aren't reading anymore.

>> No.16538244

>>16537821
>Eliot as a historical artifact of modernism

Eliot will still be read for his imagery, diction, metrical talent, and overall verbal power. Also, as long as there is conservatism there will be people interested in his philosophy.
Eliot is already read throughout the whole world. His complete works have been translated into my language. He won't just "disappear".
And, as you mentioned, there is also his historical importance. In 800 years people will still read Eliot, Pound and Joyce when studying modernism, much like we read Guido Guinizelli and Guido Cavalcanti when studying the "dolce stil nuovo".

>Steinbeck and Hemingway

They will cease being taught in schools, but will still survive as popular authors. The same way someone like Washington Irving survives today.

>Beckett

Very interesting writer. Will survive like T.S. Eliot, although most likely to a minor degree.
Also, great writers from small countries survive better, I think. In Ireland, there will be a smaller number of names to compete with him.

>> No.16539078

bump

>> No.16539129

>>16537537
H g wells was nominated four times
Aldous huxley was nominated seven times
They will be remembered longer than most of the actual winners

>> No.16540369

>>16537707
I second each and every one of the 39 statements presented in this post.

>> No.16540370

>>16539129
Wells absolutely did not deserve the nobel

>> No.16541785

Bump