[ 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, 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4036899 No.4036899 [Reply] [Original]

Who do you think will win the Nobel Prize for Literature? I think it may be Alice Munro's year.

>> No.4038501

I really don't care. I dislike the Nobel people because of their obvious anti-American bias. The thing should have been Thomas Pynchon's like every year since Mason & Dixon came out. The fact that he still hasn't been awarded it is a sham.

>> No.4038510

>>4038501
Do you think he cares? Seriously?

I don't think he does. Why do you?

>> No.4038523

>>4038501
>anti-American bias
lol cry more amerifat. and you know nothing about literature if you think pynchon is nobel worthy.

>> No.4038646
File: 20 KB, 350x308, Ngugi_Wa_Thiong_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4038646

It's going to be Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o. They haven't given it to an African since Coetzee, and he was white, so it pretty much doesn't count. Thiong'o has built a career upon post-colonialism, which the Nobel committee eats up. He has also faced adversity from the Kenyan government, so he's a persecuted artist. I haven't actually read any of his work, but he sounds like the kind of guy who the committee will award.

I don't want an American to win, as the last one that the Nobel committee was seriously considering was Bob Dylan. Could you imagine who they would choose? Probably wouldn't be Tommy P., because he just would not show up and leave them with egg on their face.

>> No.4038675

Cormac will get it.

Just kidding. He has no chance, but that'd be something wouldn't it?

>> No.4038676

>>4038646
The betting rates do not reflect the actual sentiments of the Nobel committee. They were never going to award it to Dylan.

>> No.4038679

>>4038675
He deserves it though, the Road is easily the greatest book in the past 50 years.

>> No.4038681

>>4038679

All of his other books are better though.

>> No.4038695

>>4038681
Yeah but they're not.

>> No.4038706

>>4038679
The Road is one of his worst. Pure trash.

>> No.4038710

>>4038706
*tips fedora*

>> No.4038712

>>4038695
The only Mccarthy novels that I have read are Suttree, Blood Meridian, and The Road, and Suttree and Blood Meridian are both better than The Road. However, I do think that it's the kind of novel that appeals to the Nobel committee, and if McCarthy had a shot at nabbing it, it was then. I think that him doing a big Hollywood production with big Hollywood actors probably hurts him in the eyes of a committee that has, of late, preferred more obscure writers (Herta Muller, Tomas Transformer, Mo Yan).

>> No.4038718

>>4038712
I've written extensively on The Road, and my suspicion is that you are too uneducated to actually know how deep and well written The Road is.

You're opinion is worthless.

>> No.4038721

>>4038718
Please, enlighten me. I assume you have some excerpts of your work, and I have no issue changing my mind.

>> No.4038724

>>4038718
>You are opinion

>> No.4038725

>>4038718
The Road isn't that deep. It's his simplest book with the simplest themes. Stop trying to substitute this book for your lack of a father.

>> No.4038729

>>4038679
>the Road is easily the greatest book in the past 50 years.

?

Was this posted in all seriousness? It's not even the best book by McCarthy in the past 50 years. It's not even the greatest book published in that year by anyone. Probably not even the month.

Just. What the fuck?

>> No.4038735

>>4038729
>It's not even the greatest book published in that year by anyone

Theoretically, it could be said that it was the greatest book McCarthy published in that year.

>> No.4038740

>>4038706
>pure trash

Please leave this board.

>> No.4038743

>>4038735
McCarthy self-publishes?

>> No.4038749

>>4038743
Yeah, you haven't seen his Kickstarter pages?

>> No.4039358
File: 154 KB, 400x592, average american.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4039358

>>4038501
Uhh, USA has the second most laureates behind France. Do you expect them to pick an American winner every year or something? Pynchon hasn't won and won't win because he writes pulp fiction. Same reason they declined to give him a Pulitzer.

>> No.4039368

>>4038646
Could be. I also have my eye on Assia Djebar. She's a woman, she's African, and she's political. I think they want another woman this year, and probably an African or North American one. That makes Munro and Djebar the best bets.

>> No.4039742

>>4039358
Yeah, but an American author hasn't received one since Morrison in 1993. Plus, there was that one committee-member a few years ago who lambasted the US for being too provincial.

>> No.4040021

>>4039742
Because you haven't had any legit candidates since 1993. McCarthy might've had a chance if he hadn't sold out like a total bastard.

>> No.4041902

>>4036899
The Nobel is worthless now, you all know why.

>> No.4041996

>>4041902
Enlighten us.

I doubt anyone would claim it's a perfect system, but the winner is usually at least worth a read.

>> No.4042001

Streamlining and stereotyping virtue via monetary incentive and prestigious circlejerking seems like a really good idea

The Nobel Prize goes to Homogeneous Bourgeois Drone #89734712-B. Damn I thought #89734712-A had it this year.

>> No.4042013

>>4042001
>The Nobel Prize goes to Homogeneous Bourgeois Drone

wow what a gross mischaracterisation. if anything the nobel is most commonly criticised for its emphasis on 'anti-bourgeois' ideals; it's disproportionate rewarding of 'post-colonial' moralising etc.

it's almost as if you have no idea what you're talking about.

>> No.4042028

>>4042001
this is what /lit/ shills actually believe

>> No.4042030

>>4042013

>implying post-colonial moralising isn't Bourgeois

>> No.4042031

>>4041996
>at least worth a read

I laughed really hard. This is like saying "eh, the Oscars may not be a science, but at least the winners are always worth a dollar rental."

I don't think you understand what the Nobel pretends to be if you're saying dumb shit like "oh, well. the winners are worth a looksie, should you get bored".

>> No.4042033

>>4042030
so who do you want them to give it to? bukowski?

>> No.4042037

>>4042013
>it's disproportionate rewarding of 'post-colonial' moralising etc.

Word, like when they gave the peace prize to Henry Kissinger and Obama. Probably their most post-colonial moves.

>> No.4042042

>>4042037
different panels, m8.

>> No.4042050

>>4042013
Those ideals perfectly fit several definitions, both colloquial and intellectual, of "bourgeois". Arguably its dominant meanings.

And this is exactly the problem. The criticism is that by establishing an orthodoxy of cosmopolitan bourgeois "literary excellence", whether the bourgeois fashion du jour be imperialism, the white man's burden, neo-colonialism or anti-colonialism, you are conforming literary expression to the most conservative (ultimately speaking) class. What might have been radical and marginal thought is tugged into the orbit of superficially shifting, but ultimately conservative, bourgeois fashions.

>> No.4042056

>>4042031
Have you even read any of the laureates of the last decade? Coetzee, Pinter, Lessing, Le Clezio, Muller and Llosa are fantastic authors and will certainly endure as literary icons. Pamuk was a misfire, as far as I'm concerned, and I've yet to read any of the others, but 6 out of 10 is a fairly good track record for such a difficult task.

>> No.4042062

>>4042050
Just in the last 10 years, Jelinek, Pinter and Lessing are three laureates who clearly don't fit into your definition of the bourgeoisie. Last year's winner, Mo Yan, was also clearly chosen independently of any political considerations, since as an apologist for the Chinese state he clearly flies in the face of all the Nobel's ideological convictions.

>> No.4042079

>>4042050
so if you had to give a 'lifetime's achievement' award to one living literary figure this year, who would it be? what are some deceased ones that you feel went unrecognised in their lifetimes by the major institutions due to their not conforming to a bourgeois conception of 'literary excellence'?

i just want a solid idea of what you feel merits rewarding versus what currently gets rewarded by the institutions.

>> No.4042086

>>4040021
DeLillo?

>> No.4042107

>>4042079
Why reward anything via international committee? Why give stupid people the impression that "[Award Name]" means "Good", in the same way that "Best Seller" promotes lazy selection of books and herd instinct?

>In October 1964, Sartre was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature but he declined it. He was the first Nobel Laureate to voluntarily decline the prize,[34] and he had previously refused the Légion d'honneur, in 1945. The prize was announced on 22 October 1964; on 14 October, Sartre had written a letter to the Nobel Institute, asking to be removed from the list of nominees, and warning that he would not accept the prize if awarded, but the letter went unread;[35] on 23 October, Le Figaro published a statement by Sartre explaining his refusal. He said he did not wish to be "transformed" by such an award, and did not want to take sides in an East vs. West cultural struggle by accepting an award from a prominent Western cultural institution.

Whether East vs. West, Marxist vs. Liberal, NATO vs. Warsaw, colonial vs. anti-colonial, or even self-effacing progressive relativists who consciously try to consider all viewpoints and avow a lack of bias or ideology, you're still promoting the institutionalisation of thought and artistic production by rewarding specific kinds, and making artists pine for rewards and specific recognition. Avowedly cosmopolitan and non-ideological shit from a hundred or even fifty years ago seems quaint by modern standards, and anyone can think of a hundred examples of institutions like the Nobel Prize being commandeered for causes like opposition to Communism in "extreme circumstances". Things like the Nobel Prize can easily become de facto authorities and cultural facets, in the way Ivy League schools have, for example.

>> No.4042118

>>4042107
how else are we supposed to preserve important cultural artefacts for posterity? would you prefer if the only artists we were ever exposed to were those from our immediate locale?

>> No.4042133

>>4042062
I think his point was more about War Profiteer Alfred Nobel's literary mission to advance the benevolence of his name by authorizing a committee for selecting "the most outstanding work in the most ideal direction" to do that.

And that that, committee because of it's very nature, function, self-conception and endowment can never be, regardless of what 'radical' authors it selects, anything other than a 'conservative' bourgeois stamp of approval on an Alfred Nobel Million Dollar Canon.

>> No.4042889

>>4038724
no fuck you, YOU are opinion!

>> No.4042956

>>4038712
I'm don't know much about Herta Muller, but Tomas Transtromer and Mo Yan are probably the most famous living 'literary' authors in their respective countries

>> No.4042961

>>4039368
Why not Anne Carson?

>> No.4042965

>>4042028
i don't think you know waht the word shill means

>> No.4042968

>>4042033

Can't, no posthumous awards. Would be funny though

>> No.4043042

I wouldn't be surprised if it's Munro, but it could be Kadare or Muramaki or any of the other "perennial favorites." Muramaki is currently leading with the odds-makers, but they're not extraordinarily accurate historically.

I do think they'll go for a more internationally-recognized name this year though. Mario Vargas Llosa was their last, back in 2010.

>>4042086

No.

>> No.4044741

>>4043042
Murakami will never win it. He's only a perennial favourite because he's the only remotely 'literary' author most betters know.

>> No.4044744

I'd like to see Umberto Eco or Milan Kundera finally get it.