Nobel Prize in Literature 2009 Speculation [Archive]

Bjorn

30-Jul-2009, 12:40

Since I've been discussing this online for a few years now, and the same questions keep coming up, I thought I'd collect them together in:

The Nobel Prize for Literature: A Slightly Irreverent FAQ

(Oh, and there's a proper one here (http://svenskaakademien.se/web/Nobel_Prize_in_Literature.aspx).)

What is it?

The Nobel Prize for Literature is one of 5 annual prizes awarded since 1901 according to the last will of industrialist Alfred Nobel (1833-1896), also known for inventing dynamite. (The others are chemistry, medicine, physics and peace; the Swedish National Bank invented an economics prize "in memory of Alfred Nobel" that sort of piggybacks on the others.) The money (currently about 10 million SEK or US$1.5 million) comes from Nobel’s will. Yes, still. Nobody ever lost money by inventing good ways of destroying things.

It's not awarded for any one piece of literature but for an author's collected works.

For some reason, it’s considered one of the most important literary awards. This is not an official title in any way.

Who gets it?

Well, first you have to be nominated. Here’s a list of who is allowed to nominate (http://svenskaakademien.se/web/How_Nobel_Laureates_in_Literature_are_chosen.aspx) ; basically, lots of people from all over the world. About 350 writers are nominated each year, including great and well-known novelists, poets you’ve never heard of, a couple of non-fiction writers, and Bob Dylan. The list of nominations, and the decision-making process itself, is confidential for 50 years. The Academy has no obligation to take all nominations seriously, there is no official short list, and all but 18 of the people doing the nominations have no say whatsoever in who gets it. In other words, being nominated is a bit like buying a lottery ticket; you can't win without it, but your chances are still pretty slim.

So who gets it?

The winner of the Literature prize is, in keeping with Nobel's will, chosen by the Swedish Academy, an organisation founded in 1786 to “further the purity, strength, and sublimity of the Swedish language,” which mostly means publishing dictionaries and critical studies of 19th century literature. In other words, the Nobel is a comparatively new hobby for them. The Swedish Academy has 18 members (on paper, see below), mostly writers and literature scholars, each of whom is elected for life by the other members.

Note that each of the Nobel prizes (literature, chemistry, medicine, physics and peace) is decided by a different organisation. Who gets the Literature prize doesn't (or at least shouldn’t) have anything to do with who gets the other ones, and vice versa.

Right, so stop waffling, who gets it?

"The person who has produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency."

…What the hell does that mean?

See, that's the thing: nobody really knows. That's what Nobel wrote in his will, and it’s up to the Swedish Academy to decide what he meant. The interpretation has changed several times over the last 100+ years.

Fine, fine. Who’s gotten it?

These guys. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Literature) (And occasional gal.)

Doesn’t it only go to authors nobody’s ever heard of?

It’s rarely awarded to the latest best-sellers, yes, and the Academy has a well-earned reputation for not picking the most obvious choices. It’s not intended to reflect popular taste.

Personally, I’d submit that if you’ve never heard of the likes of Steinbeck, Hemingway, Faulkner, Camus, Solzhenitsyn… or to take some of the more recent ones, Pamuk, Lessing, Pinter… are you sure you’re as interested in literature as you think you are, if these names are completely unfamiliar to you? And if they really do pick someone you’ve never heard of, hey, now you’ve heard of him/her. You have gained knowledge. Is this a bad thing?

Also, I’ve never heard of the guy who won the Nobel Prize for medicine last year. Boo! Hiss! Elitists! Give it to the guy who plays House!

Why isn't Author X on the shortlist?

As previously mentioned, there is no shortlist. Ladbroke's have no more idea than you or me who's actually being discussed.

Why didn’t/doesn’t Author X get it?

A lot of people claim to know exactly why certain authors get or don’t get the prize. Which is funny, considering the aforementioned confidentiality. Truth is, until 50 years have gone by, we usually have no way of knowing if they were even nominated.

Pick a reason:

There’s one award to give out each year, and on average, more than one deserving author. New books are published each year. Do the math.
The people who decide on it are a bunch of literary snobs. They’re not necessarily politically conservative (by US standards) or raging communist revolutionaries (by European standards). They’re just snobs, elected by other snobs for the specific task of being anal about language and literature.
See above re: changing interpretations of Nobel's will. Tolstoy was considered too radical, for instance.
Not everyone is a prophet in their own lifetime. See: Kafka, Franz; Proust, Marcel; and others.
People, on a whole, read an awful lot of crap and keep expecting the Academy to validate their reading habits. Not gonna happen (see above under snobs, literary).
The Academy has really boring taste sometimes. Fortunately, the older members are dying off.
People like to speculate, and they seem to think that the longer they speculate about an author, the better his/her chances of getting it. Whether the Academy gives a damn about how often a certain author has been mentioned by people who are not them is unknown.
Authors die. The Nobel can’t be given out posthumously. Good thing, or they’d have to start with Homer and Gilgamesh.
Authors live. Not getting it one year doesn’t disqualify you from getting it next year or 20 years from now. See: Lessing, Doris.

And so some writers, for various reasons, end up without a Nobel prize. Funnily enough, we keep reading them despite their non-Nobel status. Putting it succinctly: if Tolstoy, Woolf, Joyce and Twain didn’t get it, there can be no shame in NOT getting a Nobel prize.

It only goes to Scandinavian authors.

Except for how not one Scandinavian author has gotten it since 1974. And only 14 before then. Which is still more than the total number of African and Asian (or for that matter, female) winners, true.

Why do they hate America?

So far, 11% of the winners have been from the US. Not too shabby for an international award. Feel free to compare it to the international spread of the Oscars.

But they said no American writer would ever get it!

They said no such thing. The former secretary of the Academy said that American literature as a whole was "insular" and "ignorant" regarding non-US literature, but that there is "powerful literature in all big cultures." (He's said similar things about literature in other countries too; see above re: snob, literary.) Stupid, perhaps, but that's what he said. A hundred angry US bloggers concluded the rest, then to prove him wrong, promptly responded to Le Cl?zio getting it with "Le who?"

Half the Academy quit in protest of Jelinek getting it!

One (1) member, Knut Ahnlund, quit. A year later. And he’d already quit the Academy ten years earlier and hadn’t taken part in its work since then (see above under life, elected for). At this point, it's a bit like George Lazenby announcing that he's leaving the James Bond franchise.

For the record, the other two vacant seats are Kerstin Ekman's (she, and two others, left the Academy in 1989 after they failed to condemn the fatwa against Rushdie as much as she wanted) and Sten Rudholm's (who died recently), bringing the total number of active members in this year's Nobel discussion to 15.

Everybody knows that it's just political.

Do they now? Well, it's apparently supposed to go to authors who deal with idea(l)s. Those tend to touch upon political subjects. And again, Tolstoy didn't get it because he was considered too politically controversial – does that seem right to you?

Shouldn’t we have a say in this?

Not unless you’re willing to contest Nobel’s will in a court of law, no. It's private money, handed out by a non-government organisation. It's really none of our business what they do with it.

Why should we care, then?

I don’t know. Who said you should? If you don't, don't.

saliotthomas

30-Jul-2009, 12:51

Not mentioning any names here but - Eco compared to Le Clezio

Well you do mention names and i don't think Eco and Le Clezio can't be compared at all.They are on completly different literary planets.
As a matter of fact i prefer Eco and writing,if complexe,is easier for me to grasp than the often onirique prose of le Clezio.
I notice in last thread on the nobel a lot of " ..he didn't get it but he was much better than ...." and a list of great writers who obviously deserved it.
I must say that from all the nobelized authors i read,i never thought that one didn't deserved it.Even if i did not like their work much(Coetzee,Naipaul) i can see the quality in them.
Which is not what i would say of a lot of literary prizes.

Clarissa

30-Jul-2009, 12:51

It?s rarely awarded to the latest best-sellers, yes, and the Academy has a well-earned reputation for not picking the most obvious choices. It?s not intended to reflect popular taste.That list has quite a few bestselling authors in their time... Hemingway, Pearl S. Buck, Thomas Mann, Wlliam Golding etc. They were hardly 'obscure' writers when they were awarded the Nobel Prize for Lit.

If Kertesz had not won the prize, I doubt if I would have read him. I did and found his writing less effective and less moving than Primo Levi (cf. above).

However, I must be honest, if Mahfouz had not won, I doubt if I would ever have read him. I did and was completely hooked!

Bjorn

30-Jul-2009, 13:12

That being said, I know he is European and very much so, but that other brilliant Italian, Umberto Eco, is as worthy as many other living writers who have received it.
Definitely agree, as if my avatar didn't already give it away. :cool: Though as much as I think Eco is deserving - partly because it's been ages since it went to an author who's just as accomplished in non-fiction as in fiction - it would be nice if it didn't go to yet another European post-modernist. Just like some people think Soyinka walked away with Achebe's prize, I'm pretty sure Pamuk snatched Eco's.

That list has quite a few bestselling authors in their time... Hemingway, Pearl S. Buck, Thomas Mann, Wlliam Golding etc. They were hardly 'obscure' writers when they were awarded the Nobel Prize for Lit.
Absolutely. Like I said, they do occasionally come up with very well-known winners where the Academy's taste matches the public's. I just don't think they give much of a damn whether a writer is well-known or not. (When Pinter got it, his two former Swedish publishers complained that they'd given it to an author who wasn't even in print in Sweden; the Academy secretary responded "Oh, really? And whose fault is that, eh?")

Mirabell

30-Jul-2009, 13:30

I was SO bummed out that Oriana Fallaci never got it while she was alive.

*snigger*
yes! give it to a racist. that should settle all accusations of political voting.
oh I love this idea. I want to drug the committee and then make them give the prize to some loony. just imagine the headlines: nobel prize in literature awarded to glenn beck!

Liam

30-Jul-2009, 13:38

yes! give it to a racist. that should settle all accusations of political voting.
Well, she wasn't really a racist. Not unless you think Muslims are a race unto themselves. She just hated Islam, period, and wrote about it. All in all, she was a brilliant journalist.

But obviously, I was kidding. I don't care who they give the Nobel to, but Fallaci didn't fit the bill in ANY way. I admired her guts though, almost as much as I admired her beauty. When she was young--my GOD--the woman looked like a goddess.

Mirabell

30-Jul-2009, 13:44

Not sure she would have deserved it more than Primo Levi. Never could make out why they gave it to Imr? Kertsz for lit. and Elie Wiesel for Peace, if you please. If they felt they had to give it to Holocaust lit., it should most definitely have gone to Primo Levi.

That does not make any sense. Do you think they planned for decades to give SOME shoah lit a nobel and planned to do it in the 00's, which is the reason why they snubbed Levi? Levi died in 87, around the time when Kertesz' work gained recognition. From reading the deliberations for some older prizes, I assume his name came up for the second or third time, and enough people were convinced he merited it then and there to give him the prize. Primo Levi can't of entered such a discussion.

Mirabell

30-Jul-2009, 13:45

Well, she wasn't really a racist. Not unless you think Muslims are a race unto themselves. She just hated Islam, period,

it's the how not the what that counts.

Liam

30-Jul-2009, 14:01

it's the how not the what that counts.
I think you ought to talk to my dad. In comparison to him, Fallaci was a Mother Theresa of journalism. (Let's just say, he wants to turn the Middle East into one big salt-lake, :o).

Still, she did a lot to be admired for. People accuse almost everybody these days of being a racist. Not cool. Perhaps I should open a thread on her so that we can take this elsewhere...

http://www.ivg.it/photogallery/albums/userpics/10002/thumb_Fallaci1.jpg

Mirabell

30-Jul-2009, 14:05

Yes, elsewhere.

To get back to the topic.Yes it's interesting to propose a journalist.

Eco should not get it as a writer of fiction but as a nonfiction writer. As much as I want a poet to get it, I also want a nonfiction writer to walk away with the prize. Magris, though he writes fiction, too, could get it for his largely essayistic books on teh Danube etc. He sounds as if he was made for the Nobel, really.

Liam

30-Jul-2009, 14:12

Eco should not get it as a writer of fiction but as a nonfiction writer.Why not both? :)

As much as I want a poet to get it, I also want a nonfiction writer to walk away with the prize.Yes, a poet!

Magris, though he writes fiction, too, could get it for his largely essayistic books on teh Danube etc. He sounds as if he was made for the Nobel, really.Never heard of him. Say more.

Mirabell

30-Jul-2009, 14:19

because the prize is usually memorized with one sentence and I want this sentence to emphasize the nonfiction. his fiction will always be read, it's just very readable and popular. the same applies to his nonfiction, too, but who knows what fashion might knock that from public consciousness.

which poet would you give it?

there are the usual suspects, of course. bei dao, john ashbery, paul muldoon, adonis, adam zagajewski, ko un.

magris? http://www.worldliteratureforum.com/forum/european-literature/2002-claudio-magris-microcosms.html

Bjorn

30-Jul-2009, 14:20

As much as I want a poet to get it, I also want a nonfiction writer to walk away with the prize.
To repeat another name I keep repeating every year, Gitta Sereny?

Clarissa

30-Jul-2009, 14:24

That does not make any sense. Do you think they planned for decades to give SOME shoah lit a nobel and planned to do it in the 00's, which is the reason why they snubbed Levi? Levi died in 87, around the time when Kertesz' work gained recognition. From reading the deliberations for some older prizes, I assume his name came up for the second or third time, and enough people were convinced he merited it then and there to give him the prize. Primo Levi can't of entered such a discussion.Of course I don't think they decided that they should have given the prize to some Shoah writer in the '00s. I do think Levi should have got it before he died in '87. And I still think his If Not Now, When? and If This Is A Man more important and more lasting books than Kertesz's Fateless.Read this in German and prefer the German title Mensch ohne Schicksal.

Levi is in good company with all the possibly greater writers than he was, writers who never got it. Proust, Kafka, James Joyce, Virginia Woolf (at her best when Pearl S. Buck was awarded it), just to name the first few that spring to mind.

Mirabell

30-Jul-2009, 14:24

To repeat another name I keep repeating every year, Gitta Sereny?

wow I don't know her-

odered a book a moment ago. bastard.

Clarissa

30-Jul-2009, 14:27

Not sure if I would put Gitta Sereny in the Nobel Prize for Literature heavyweight league... Interesting, well written but an important literary figure, not so sure.

Mirabell

30-Jul-2009, 14:31

Of course I don't think they decided that they should have given the prize to some Shoah writer in the '00s. I do think Levi should have got it before he died in '87. And I still think his If Not Now, When? and If This Is A Man more important and more lasting books than Kertesz's Fateless. Raed his in German and prefer the German title Mensch ohne Schicksal.

Levi died surprisingly. I can well imagine that they wanted to give it to him but then he died. And, again, in consideration of Kertesz' prize it makes no sense at all to compare him to Levi. Time is an important factor.

And Kertesz work is very different from Levi's, with other strengths. A kudarc, translated into German as Fiasko is a masterful meditation on writing about the shoah, writing under a dictatorship, political pressure in a socialist country etc. It's both vaguely jocean (the first third) and kafkaesque (the last two thirds). I jave read no other book like it and thank the academy for bringing this amazing writer to my attention.

Liam

30-Jul-2009, 14:42

It's a great, great, great book, wonderful, insightful (even though I dislike its politics)
What IS it with you and politics, M?

If I paid any attention to my favorite writers' "politics," I'd have to throw my entire library out the window.

Magris sounds positively captivating, however. Thanks for the info.

Mirabell

30-Jul-2009, 14:57

I read this on the heels of writing two papers on German conservativism (more precisely: the so-called Conservative Revolutionaries), 19th century, early 20th century and leading up to the Shoah and then the continuities in present day German literature (One of my papers was on Bernhard, another writer would be Botho Strauss), so I was heavily aware of tropes and figures and could not refrain from mentioning this.

My blog used to be full of all sorts of snide political remarks then, too.

and um, I am a huge, huge fan of Ezra Pound. Huge. And Paul de Man. Huge. Celine. etc. So, I do disregard that usually. This aside was just due to my preoccupation with Hofmannsthal and others at the time.

Daniel del Real

30-Jul-2009, 17:29

Good times coming! I really missed this speculation thread Stewart, thanks

What we all need to check are the longer droughts that walk aside the prize.
Le Clezio's award last year finished the 22 year drought for a frech writer to get the prize (not taking in consideration Gao Xingjian that for most of experts he is Chinese).

So it leave us the following

a) 18 years without a laureate in Spanish language.
b) 15 years no US writer have won it.
c) 12 years a poet does not receive it

These are the main trends that I identify for this 2009 Nobel.
Who could end them?
this is what is really interesting.

a) Mario Vargas Llosa, Carlos Fuentes, Javier Mar?as
b) Philip Roth, Don de Lillo, Joyce Carol Oates
c) Adonis, Ko Un, Tomas Transtromer.

As you can see always the same names.
There is also important to mention that Horace Engdahl is not Primary Secretary, and this could change things a lot.

I would love the curse for Spanish to end this year, but I don't think this is going to happen. So I'd have to go for option b, US writer.
Who?
Roth is finally going to get it.

Liam

30-Jul-2009, 18:00

a) 18 years without a laureate in Spanish language.
Would a Basque writer qualify? D'ya think Atxaga has a chance? He's political enough... It seems the ETA have bombed (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32196889/ns/world_news-europe) something yet again, more than 40 people were hurt including children. Why doesn't Spain just give the Basques their homeland? Because I'm telling you, the bombing will NOT stop until they get their country back.

Roth is finally going to get it.
Although personally I don't like him AT ALL, I wouldn't mind seeing Roth take it home. He's a good writer, by all measure, and if some consider him a giant, well then so be it, he's a giant.

Daniel del Real

30-Jul-2009, 18:07

Would a Basque writer qualify? D'ya think Atxaga has a chance? He's political enough... It seems the ETA have bombed something yet again, more than 40 people were hurt including children. Why doesn't Spain just give the Basques their homeland? Because I'm telling you, the bombing will NOT stop until they get their country back.

It's hard to see Atxaga as a contender for the prize. Of course he is not going to be proposed by the Spanish committee who always will prefer writers in Spanish and not in Basque or Catalan.
It seems good but I haven't read this guy's works. I don't know if he stands a chance against the heavyweight Spanish writers.
For example.
Miguel Delibes
Juan Goytisolo
Juan Mars?
Javier Mar?as
Enrique Vila-Matas

Daniel del Real

30-Jul-2009, 18:10

I'm not a big admirer of Roth's book myself. I've read a couple of them and I liked it but I gotta admit he is not of my favorites.

The ones that I'd jump of joy if they get the prize are:

Haruki Murakami
Mario Vargas Llosa
Carlos Fuentes
Ismail Kadar?
Ernesto S?bato

oh if only Bola?o would still be alive :(

saliotthomas

30-Jul-2009, 18:17

Ernesto S?bato

They should hurry up with him,he is close to a 100 years old.
It could be fatal.
I lost alejandra last year,i'll try to find it this summer.

Daniel del Real

30-Jul-2009, 18:23

They should hurry up with him,he is close to a 100 years old.
It could be fatal.
I lost alejandra last year,i'll try to find it this summer.

I know, he is way too old, he turned 98 this year and it is almost impossible for him to get it. But you know, hope is always there.
It would be fair because he is an amazing novelist and essayist and by the fact that Argentina deserves a Nobel laureate since long time ago. They already ditched Borges, Cort?zar and Bioy Casares and I wouldn't like Aira to be the first one.

P.S. Spanish writer and Cervantes Prize winner Franciso Ayala is still alive at 103. Wouldn't be amazing him to get it?

Omo

30-Jul-2009, 19:38

A Dutch writer should finally receive it, so my guess is either Nooteboom or Mulisch. But actually, I don't care much for the Nobel and cannot understand many of their decisions.

Liam

01-Aug-2009, 12:33

A Dutch writer should finally receive it
Why not a Basque writer, or a Galician writer, or an Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian writer?

I stand by Pentti Holappa. He's gay, he's Finnish, he's a poet, he's a novelist. Check out his thread (http://www.worldliteratureforum.com/forum/writers/15801-pentti-holappa.html), too.

[Not gonna happen, I know...]

My name is red

01-Aug-2009, 21:42

Amin Maalouf?

john h

02-Aug-2009, 02:24

Funhouse

02-Aug-2009, 02:58

Personally, I think Alice Munro deserves it. But she has only worked in the short story. I've yet to see anyone who works primarily in the short story rewarded with a major literary prize. Maybe there have been some but I'm not aware of them. Isn't it about time this novel bias was overturned?

Um, how about the very same Alice Munro who this year won the Man Booker International Prize? You're right, it is rare, but then so are writers who work primarily in the short story...

beelzebubbles

02-Aug-2009, 05:06

My name is red

02-Aug-2009, 13:23

I hesitate to share this, but I would choose Roth not for the literature prize but for the Nobel for medicine. I was in a deep depression and it disappeared after reading a Roth book with a strong Oedipal theme. I was surprised and gratified. Who knew catharsis was something more than a vocabulary word in high school literature courses.
And could you share which book was it?i'm curious

beelzebubbles

02-Aug-2009, 14:19

And could you share which book was it?i'm curious

Letting Go.

Daniel del Real

03-Aug-2009, 18:20

beelzebubbles

04-Aug-2009, 00:36

What about Paulo Coehlo for Physics? Everytime I've read him a sudden energy is generated from by body trying to annihilate all of his works. That's impressive too

If you find a way convert that energy into a weapon for the military-industrial complex, you could start your own prize.

Mirabell

04-Aug-2009, 00:55

What about Paulo Coehlo for Physics? Everytime I've read him a sudden energy is generated from by body trying to annihilate all of his works. That's impressive too

A personal question. What sort of terrible personal tragedy keeps happening in your life that you can write the sentence "everytime I've read him...". Should it not be "That one time that I read him..."? Why do you keep coming back to him?

Daniel del Real

05-Aug-2009, 20:42

A personal question. What sort of terrible personal tragedy keeps happening in your life that you can write the sentence "everytime I've read him...". Should it not be "That one time that I read him..."? Why do you keep coming back to him?

Well I read three of his books when I was really young, had no big idea what was it. I guess now I get mad eveytime I think about it, but hey, we've all read trash, it's part of our literary formation.

promtbr

07-Aug-2009, 06:59

Stewart

07-Aug-2009, 07:37

I have been purposely reading (and reviewing) 2010 Nobel contendors
2010? If you wait to find out who gets it this year then you may save yourself a bit of reading.

Igu Soni

07-Aug-2009, 10:07

2010? If you wait to find out who gets it this year then you may save yourself a bit of reading.
You may need a better reason(you said 'save yourself reading' on World Literature Forum).

promtbr

07-Aug-2009, 15:30

OK, so I am being attacked for living a year in the future...
(as he just realized that he has posted the leapt year everywhere incl his blog...)

---

Clarissa

07-Aug-2009, 15:44

The Nobel Prize in Literature (http://www.svenskaakademien.se/web/Nobel_Prize_in_Literature.aspx)

Found this interesting - the way they choose the possible Nobel literature candidates.

Cormac McCarthy (IMHO way more ammo than Roth -I will get crucified saying that, and if I look at the list of Laureates, I can't visualize Pynchon's name with those guys, maybe only Gunter Grass)

Don't think Cormac McCarthy has a chance - not yet. And G?nther Grass is a definite no-no. He got it in 1999!

All Nobel Laureates in Literature (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/index.html)

e joseph

07-Aug-2009, 16:04

Well I see that while I have been away I missed all excitement of the hacked forum and this thread....(any connections lol )

I have been purposely reading (and reviewing) 2009 Nobel contenders (at least those working in fiction). Since I started late, I will undoubtedly miss the eventual winner (will anyway if its a poet).

My current short list (not necessarrily based on worthiness but as much on socio-political likelyhood is (in no particular order):

Amos Oz (I have it in my head he maybe the geo-social-political favorite)

Cees Nooteboom

Carlos Fuentes (this is hard between he and Vargas Llosa, just that Fuentes has taken more risks than Llosa from what I have read anyway, and dunno if Sabbato will last till Oct..what happens if he is chosen but perishes before they notify him?)

Juan Goytisolo (Marias is too young, and Goytisolo may cancel him out)

Cormac McCarthy (IMHO way more ammo than Roth -I will get crucified saying that, and if I look at the list of Laureates, I can't visualize Pynchon's name with those guys, maybe only Gunter Grass)

---

Being fabulously well underread, I can't really comment on this list (gasp, I've only read McCarthy!), but I'm curious to know who you'd most LIKE to see win. And I mean regardless of acclaim, credentials and geo-social-political concerns.

OK, so I am being attacked for living a year in the future...
(as he just realized that he has posted the leapt year everywhere incl his blog...)

---

First of all, let it be know that I finally figured out how to "multi-quote". Secondly, I was fine with the idea of getting an early jump on 2010. I'd have to hold off until maybe 2012 to do enough reading and research to make a valid guess. And is this like a college basketball pool? What's the prize?

Daniel del Real

07-Aug-2009, 18:30

Well I see that while I have been away I missed all excitement of the hacked forum and this thread....(any connections lol )

I have been purposely reading (and reviewing) 2009 Nobel contenders (at least those working in fiction). Since I started late, I will undoubtedly miss the eventual winner (will anyway if its a poet).

My current short list (not necessarrily based on worthiness but as much on socio-political likelyhood is (in no particular order):

Amos Oz (I have it in my head he maybe the geo-social-political favorite)

Cees Nooteboom

Carlos Fuentes (this is hard between he and Vargas Llosa, just that Fuentes has taken more risks than Llosa from what I have read anyway, and dunno if Sabbato will last till Oct..what happens if he is chosen but perishes before they notify him?)

Juan Goytisolo (Marias is too young, and Goytisolo may cancel him out)

Cormac McCarthy (IMHO way more ammo than Roth -I will get crucified saying that, and if I look at the list of Laureates, I can't visualize Pynchon's name with those guys, maybe only Gunter Grass)

---

* Well I have read all of them except Goytisolo, whose Count Julian is almost impassable. Of couse I would prefer Mar?as, but yes, he is too young. If it has to go to a Spanish writer I'd go with Miguel Delibes (I seems I have a predilection for really old guys since he is 88 years old)

* Oz is a favourite of mine too, not only because of political reasons but for his literary accomplishments. He is a very well balanced candidate in the literary-political sphere. I really hope he gets it.

* From Nooteboom I've only read The Following Story and though it's good it's not a great book. Maybe I have to read All Souls Day which they say is his masterpiece, a complex book. If anyone has read this one, please let me know your comments.

* The Fuentes and Vargas Llosa controversy of who is better, might depend a lot about taste. It is true that Fuentes has taken more risks than Vargas Llosa, but he has failed in many of them. Vargas Llosa is more constant and loyal to his stile and in my personal taste he has more good books than Fuentes. I'd still go to Vargas Llosa.

* I've read the Road and No Country for Old Men from McCarthy, very good both of them, but I think he is far away from the eternal candidates from the US, maybe not in his works but in fame and political spheres.

promtbr

08-Aug-2009, 00:06

The Nobel Prize in Literature (http://www.svenskaakademien.se/web/Nobel_Prize_in_Literature.aspx)

Found this interesting - the way they choose the possible Nobel literature candidates.

Don't think Cormac McCarthy has a chance - not yet. And G?nther Grass is a definite no-no. He got it in 1999!

All Nobel Laureates in Literature (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/index.html)

Without trying to sound snippy, my comment was that the only Nobel Laureate (ie Previous Winner) that Pynchon's name didn't seem incongruent in a list with, is Gunter Grass.

Dissagree about McCarthy. Tho it acknowledge it maybe too early. However, if the prize did go to another American, chances are pretty good it would be another 12 years before another American would get it, and there's no tellin' who (of the American authors) will be still kickin' then...

--

beelzebubbles

08-Aug-2009, 04:47

Cormac McCarthy (IMHO way more ammo than Roth -I will get crucified saying that, and if I look at the list of Laureates, I can't visualize Pynchon's name with those guys, maybe only Gunter Grass)

Are most Roth fan's really that rabid?

It's cool that everybody's so scared of us. Kind of like being a made man in the Mafia.

Lissen up. You better not say anything about my boy Philly. Capisce?

I haven't read anything by McCarthy but I did listen to an audiobook of The Road while driving alone the through mountains of New York state in the dead of night. These mountains are creepy even in the daylight. I have to say that was an experience that stays with me.

What about Don DeLillo? He rights a beautiful sentence; Mr DeLillo does.

e joseph

08-Aug-2009, 05:34

Roth vs McCarthy vs Pynchon vs DeLillo...It's on! Harold Bloom would be so proud.

Me likey McCarthy from this lot. He brings the creepy, the gory, and word after word that sends me to a dictionary. What's not to like? And seriously Daniel, when are you reading Blood Meridian? It crushes No Country for Old Men and The Road in my opinion.

Roth I'm not going to dis for fear of reprisal from his apparent Mafia backing. Also, I like him. Just not as much as McCarthy, though I've yet to read some of his heavier hitters like American Pastoral.

As for Pynchon, I've read only The Crying of Lot 49. There seems to be a good bit of Pynchonmania with his new novel, but I'm guessing that gets canceled out by the 99% assurance that he won't show up for the damn Prize anyway.

DeLillo - I've read only White Noise and wasn't thrilled.

Conclusion: I'm very unqualified to decide who of this lot of writers from the States is the best pick for a Nobel; however, should everyone more qualified than me perish in some sort of airborne toxic event or something, and I get called to decide, it's going to McCarthy.

beelzebubbles

08-Aug-2009, 06:14

For DeLillo, I like The Body Artist and Underworld. It just depends do you want to go for the short and bittersweet story that examines the consciousness of a grief stricken lover or the fabulous doorstop about detritus, trash, garbage, memorabilia, and waste, human or otherwise?

I wasn't so crazy about White Noise either.

e joseph

08-Aug-2009, 15:48

I wasn't so crazy about White Noise either.

Yeah, I thought I was missing something with DeLillo. Thanks for the recommendation of The Body Artist; I'm much more likely to try him again with a shorter novel than the doorstop that is Underworld. Color me lazy.

beelzebubbles

08-Aug-2009, 16:06

Yeah, I thought I was missing something with DeLillo. Thanks for the recommendation of The Body Artist; I'm much more likely to try him again with a shorter novel than the doorstop that is Underworld. Color me lazy.

The Body Artist is beautiful and more avant-garde.

Underworld is huge but the storytelling is more traditional and it can be approached as if it were alot of short stories; something to be dipped into at random until you decide you want to experience it as a whole.

Heteronym

08-Aug-2009, 19:31

Reading Milan Kundera at the moment, I can't help thinking it's due time he gets his Nobel.

Clarissa

08-Aug-2009, 19:38

I agree - I think Kundera is a possible contender.

I think it could be a good idea if they gave it to someone from Japan - Murakami?

My name is red

08-Aug-2009, 21:49

I agree on Amos OZ,pretty strog one for Nobel.

And if they give it to Kundera,i won't care about Nobels any more.

Noumenon

09-Aug-2009, 00:13

mimi

10-Aug-2009, 22:40

There is no writer on the planet more deserving than Chinua Achebe, a writer described by Nelson Mandela as: " The writer who brought Africa to the world... in whose company the prison walls fell down."

Can anyone explain to the more than one billion Africans and diaspora African-Americans (yours pleasantly) why:
A) Chinua Achebe whose novels Things Fall Apart, A Man of the People (one of my favorites); No longer at ease; Anthills of the Savannah; Poetry and essays - "vultures" is studied for British O/A levels; Children's books political treatises " The Trouble with Nigeria;" and his latest offering The Education of a British protected Child (2009) are some of the most widely studied and critically acclaimed books of the century has been overlooked so many times by the Nobel Committee?
B) Things Fall Apart has been translated into more than 50 languages and in 2008 was celebrated in conferences and readings all over the world. It is read in classrooms at the highest critical and academic centers from Sydney to Cairo, from Moscow to Berlin; from New York to Rio, from Lagos to Cairo and from Telaviv to Islamabad. Achebe's work more than satisfy all of the Nobel committee's requirements:
i) Criteria 1: the most outstanding work in an ideal direction".
ii) Criteria 2: "universal interest"
iii) Criteria 3: "the greatest benefit on mankind": the perfect candidate was the one who had provided world literature with new possibilities in outlook and language.
iv) Criteria 4: Being "one of the pioneers"
v) Criteria 5: Attention to literature of the whole world: "whether he be Scandinavian or not". And "the great figures of Continental literature".
vi) Criteria 6: uncompromising "integrity" in the depiction of the human predicament" No writer on the African continent has stood his ground on more moral issues -corruption, racism, political ineptitude; genocide, liberation struggles etc than Achebe. Nadine Gordimer (1991) has called him "our voice."
vii) Influence - Achebe is often called the "father of African literature" a title his dismisses because no one person can own "our literature." However, younger literary voices such as Chimamanda Adichie, Helon Habila, Chris Abani, Okey Ndibe, Uzo Iweala, EC Osondu, Binyavanga Wainaina etc have all spoken widely of his indelible influence on their own writing.

Finally, some say that there are a few Swedish Academy members upset at Achebe for his essay An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's Heart of Darkness- hugely influential, earthquake of an essay; and for not attending a conference in the mid 80's about African Literature.

One can only hope that in the age of OBAMA and racial reconciliation, these impediments can be brushed aside to honor one of the world greatest literary gems - Chinua Achebe.

e joseph

10-Aug-2009, 23:32

Well Mr. Achebe you have my vote!
Sorry Cormac.

beelzebubbles

11-Aug-2009, 00:27

For anyone interested, I posted a link to Chinua Achebe's essay in the Heart of Darkness thread.

Mirabell

11-Aug-2009, 00:33

Can anyone explain to the more than one billion Africans and diaspora African-Americans (yours pleasantly) why:
A) Chinua Achebe ... has been overlooked so many times by the Nobel Committee?

you don't get the principle of this thing eh? unless he's dead he has not been overlooked.

Liam

11-Aug-2009, 01:00

unless he's dead he has not been overlooked.
Yeah, the feminists almost gave up on Doris Lessing (some thought it was her science fiction that had "disqualified" her with the Swedish Academy) when she won it at 88!

Achebe is 10 years her junior. Perhaps he'll receive his Nobel in the foreseeable future.

Mirabell

11-Aug-2009, 01:02

yeah exactly.

liehtzu

11-Aug-2009, 03:28

My money's on one of these three:

Hwang Sok-yong. They definitely need another Asian laureate to not look out-of-touch (though Le Clezio is French, he's really an "international" writer, recall). It's the rising continent (so they say). Japan, with two, and China, with one, are have naturally been covered to the satisfaction of the academy. Korea's due, and last year's winner has not only taught in Korea but will promote this fellow (who's mentioned in his acceptance speech) to the academy.

Duong Thu Huong. Asian, female, "dissident." And third-world in the bargain! Why she never ends up high on the betting lists is beyond me.

Ismael Kadare. His star has been rising. Not too many winners from the Balkans.

My money is not on:

Murakami Haruki. Should anyone's be? I mean, the guy writes nice little books, I suppose, but... really? Nobel Prize? Not a prayer.

Bob Dylan.

Any American writer.

Any playwrights (with Pinter that area's been taken care of for the next decade).

I would also doubt the award to any poets. Three or four made it in the '90s, and that's good enough for the Swedes.

Liam

11-Aug-2009, 03:40

Murakami... writes nice little books
Nice, maybe. But little? I thought they were all, I don't know, doorstops. I still haven't touched The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, not since I gave myself a hernia hauling it home from the bookstore a coupla years back.

I really, really want Ray Bradbury to win, before he kicks the bucket. Color me silly.

promtbr

11-Aug-2009, 04:47

I agree with liehtzu that Hwang Sok-yong has an excellent chance (not having read him, but I too think he's favorably geo-politically situated. At 66 he's maybe too young.

I am more and more leaning to one of:

Fuentes, Oz, Goytisolo or Kundera...

---

Bjorn

11-Aug-2009, 06:58

Achebe is 10 years her junior. Perhaps he'll receive his Nobel in the foreseeable future.
True, but as I understand it, he's not in very good health.

I definitely agree that Achebe would be a deserving winner. Hwang Sok-yong too, though he doesn't have the cultural-political weight that Achebe has. (I don't think his age works against him; Pamuk was 54 when he got his, Jelinek 62, Coetzee 63...) On the other hand, Achebe has had that weight for decades without a Nobel.

And I shouldn't worry about Dylan getting it.

Daniel del Real

11-Aug-2009, 20:46

Roth vs McCarthy vs Pynchon vs DeLillo...It's on! Harold Bloom would be so proud.

Daniel, when are you reading Blood Meridian? It crushes No Country for Old Men and The Road in my opinion.

Well, let's go with these matches.

Roth vs McCarthy. McCarthy. I've read the same quantity of books, 2 from each one and although I liked both I'm more into McCarthy's style, more vivid and savage, less contemplative with more action.

Pynchon vs DeLillo. Well here it's a tie since it's one writer I've never read (DeLillo) against one I tried reading and didn't like it at all (Pynchon).

So I guess at the end I would go for McCarhy. I know I have to read Blood Meridian Joseph, and DeLillo also, but I'm kinda lazy reading in english and I don't want to read translations from english. Quite a dichotomy I have here!

Daniel del Real

11-Aug-2009, 20:49

I agree - I think Kundera is a possible contender.

I think it could be a good idea if they gave it to someone from Japan - Murakami?

Huge Murakami Fan here, I'd love to see him awarded with the Prize. Too young maybe? that's his only handicap

Daniel del Real

11-Aug-2009, 20:56

My money's on one of these three:

Hwang Sok-yong. They definitely need another Asian laureate to not look out-of-touch (though Le Clezio is French, he's really an "international" writer, recall). It's the rising continent (so they say). Japan, with two, and China, with one, are have naturally been covered to the satisfaction of the academy. Korea's due, and last year's winner has not only taught in Korea but will promote this fellow (who's mentioned in his acceptance speech) to the academy.

Ismael Kadare. His star has been rising. Not too many winners from the Balkans.

I agree with those two candidates, both of them are incredibly good.
Hwang Sok-yong's The Guest it's an amazing novel that puts together a very detailed description of the Korean war blended with a look a liked ghosts book like Pedro Paramo. I haven't been able to get more translations of his works but let's hope he gets the prize so more of this works could be available.

Kadar?, well, he is a great writer with the most coveted prices in his pocket, he's just missing the big one. One of my favorites also.

promtbr

14-Aug-2009, 04:50

Of the Czech's is it only Kundera? or is Arno?t Lustig and Josef ?kvoreck? worth discussing?

---

liehtzu

14-Aug-2009, 06:05

Lustig has a shot, but I think that after Kertesz it becomes more of a long shot. The academy strikes me as being very self-conscious, and two Eastern European Holocaust-focused Jewish writers in less than ten years may upset their sense of order. I doubt, too, that you'll see an Israeli writer win.

Skvorecky has the misfortune of not having written anything truly great for decades, but then again that didn't stop them from awarding Pinter or Lessing.

Murakami hasn't got a sliver of a hope and he never will. If you look at the kind of writers the Swedish academy has awarded throughout their history you'll see why. He just isn't "important" enough, and if anything his popularity is a slight in their minds. To be honest, I agree with them on both points. It's my tendency to give Murakami a hard time, but I have liked a number of his books. I just don't think he shoots very high (this isn't to say he needs to), and as a matter of personal taste I dislike any kind of writing that's loaded with pop culture references. Murakami sells a lot of books, he has popular success, and better him than John Grisham, but let's let him rest on that. I actually agree with the Academy's tendency to award "obscure" authors who've been quietly toiling away in the shadows, unloved and little-known, as it often means a new revelation for me on top of, perhaps, a vindication of that author's life work. A Nobel Prize doesn't automatically guarantee immortality, as has been proven time and again - even recent winners, like Kertesz and Gao Xinjiang, have fallen back into the rabbitholes from which the Academy so briefly pulled them out of - but if not for the prize I certainly wouldn't have read Gao or Le Clezio or Andric or Seferis (to name a few), and it's likely that even some others, like Patrick White, would not have come to my attention either.

So no Philip Roth, no Murakami, let some weird one in. As always, I await their decision and hope it surprises.

Daniel del Real

14-Aug-2009, 17:45

The Nobel Prize should be awared based only on the quality of the works by the writer. It shouldn't matter that the author is already worldwide known, very popular or even a big time seller. The prize main goals shouldn't be to enlighten the career of a writer but to award the life of someone who deserves by literary merits. If it can englobe the other situation and bring back to the world overview to an amazing writer that was overlooked time ago, then magnificent. But don't tell me just because Murakami is world wide sales lead, he does not deserve the prize. Same situation applies to writers like Saramago who is a best seller but a very well deserved Nobel Prize. As you say, the Nobel proves nothing, only the time will tell.

Omo

14-Aug-2009, 21:10

I think if they give it to a Korean writer Yi Munyol would receive it. But actually I doubt that either Hwang Sok-yong or Yi Munyol will win, at least not now.

My guess is still Nooteboom or Mulisch though.

Elie

15-Aug-2009, 19:29

I would love to see Milan Kundera win. I think his works are outstanding. However, I've not read a lot of the writers the rest of you are talking about so maybe it would be best in selfish terms for me to get introduced to someone new!

venichka

17-Aug-2009, 02:29

I know it isnt based on works, ability or even talent---Nabokov, Joyce, Borges never recieved it---so I hear Achebe, but , Leslie Marmon Silko is much better.Updike and Roth bore the hell out of me. Fuentes and Lhosa, Can Xue will win one day
Can Xue (http://www.china.org.cn/english/NM-e/150961.htm)

venichka

17-Aug-2009, 02:36

Liam

17-Aug-2009, 04:31

Roth, Updike, Delillio, Pynchon? Nyet. Boring.Stated clearly and succinctly. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/images/smilies/rofl.gifhttp://www.stormfront.org/forum/images/smilies/eek.gifhttp://www.stormfront.org/forum/images/smilies/redface.gifhttp://www.stormfront.org/forum/images/smilies/rofl.gif

Incidentally, I agree, but I do believe all four are important. In case you've been living under a rock or something, you ought to know (better sit down for this) that--gasp!--Updike CAN'T win because he's no longer with us. Of the other three, I'd say Roth has the best chance to get it.

Daniel del Real

17-Aug-2009, 16:29

I guess that is a huge rock. I don't know why why she writes Vargas Llosa like that either.
Although I have to admit there is another rock above since I had no clue who this Chinese writer was. Thanks a lot for your contribution.

promtbr

18-Aug-2009, 01:04

americans: silko or momaday
latin americans: fuentes or lhosa
africans: achebe
europeans: Kundera
asians:Can xue
personal favorite for 15 years: Kundera.
Roth, Updike, Delillio, Pynchon? Nyet. Boring.

Though personally a huge fan of Native American literature and would love to see such an author awarded the Nobel. I don't see that happening. I would have loved to see James Welch get it before he died, though his oevre was small. But of those you mentioned, I would say Louise Erdrich is the better writer (tho I like Momaday).

Fuentes, Llossa, Achebe, and Kundera have to be favorites, (Along with Oz) I have to check out Can Xue, (too soon for another Chinese Laureate tho).

All of course my idle opinions. (today)

---

Mirabell

18-Aug-2009, 01:32

Incidentally, I agree

So, first Morrison and now Pynchon (the other ones, yeah...)? What's your beef with great American writers of genius? ;)

no wonder you didn't show up this sunday. ;)

peter_d

18-Aug-2009, 10:39

If I were forced to put my money on a candidate I would have a difficulty chosing between following either ratio or feeling:

If I would listen to ratio (someone I expect to get it) it would be one of the usual suspect poets, in this order:
1. Ko Un
2. Transtr?mer
3. Adonis

If I would follow my feeling (some I hope to get it) it would be one of the following novelists:
1. Hella S. Haasse; when talking about potential Dutch laureates the only ones that are always mentioned are Nooteboom and Mulisch. In my view Hella Haasse is (or maybe I should say was to my huge regret) a very credible candidate. Her work is diverse (historical novels, contemporary novels, short stories, plays, essays) but also harmonious (e.g. her characters are recognizable as Haasse-charachters, because of the way she has ?painted? them, characters you must love or hate, but never leave you unaffected). Unfortunately, being 91 years of age and with the recent win of Doris Lessing, who has a comparable profile, I?m afraid the Nobel committee has spoiled the chance to award her the price.
2. Ismail Kadare; maybe it?s because of my long time fascination for this Balkan country, but I read most of his books that have appeared in either English or Dutch translation. The only moments that I hate his books are when the alarm clock starts beeping at 6.45 a.m. after having slept only for 3 or 4 hours. Last night I did it again, couldn?t close his book Albanian Spring until it was 2.30 :(
3. Cees Nooteboom; I think Nooteboom is the only real Dutch candidate. I don?t think he?s better than Mulisch, but I have the feeling that his work fits better in a Nobel candidate?s profile. His work has more of an ?international charisma? than Mulisch. I?m afraid (although I hope I?m mistaken) Mulisch, like Haasse, has had his chance, he?s not adding new things to his oeuvre anymore. If they would have wanted to give him the price, they would have done it already.

From this reflection people might think I?m this nationalist guy who only wants his countrymen to win the price. Not really. But I feel it would be a great impulse for Dutch literature if a Dutch language author would get it. It might be a way to get rid of this ugly inferiority complex many Dutch have about their own language.

Eric

18-Aug-2009, 11:21

I would like a Baltic candidate. But as Jaan Kross is now dead, he can't join the list. However, there are people such as Jaan Kaplinski (Estonia), Knuts Skujenieks (Latvia). I'm not so well up on Lithuania. But the Nobel people in Sweden are allergic to Balts, sixty years after deporting some 500 Baltic refugees, who had fought in the Wehrmacht, back to the Soviet Union in 1946. These were, of course, sent straight to Siberia. Sweden doesn't want to open up old wounds.

The Nobel seems to waver between people they think ought to win the prize for non-literary reasons, and internationally obscure writers who may have built up a whole œuvre over a lifetime, but have remained in the international twilight. Such as the German G?nter de Bruyn from the March of Brandenburg. The latter approach (identifying obscure writers) is more literary. They've also had a few misses such as Jelinek (pun intended).

Whether Hella S. Haasse will be allowed on stage after Doris Lessing, as Peter D points out, is anyone's guess. I'm not a great fan of Mulisch; I can't tackle his complexity (e.g. "The Discover of Mulisch" written by God about how the latter discovered his superior, Harry Mulisch). I've read a little Nooteboom; can't really appreciate his wanderings either. But the British publishing house Harvill swears by Nooteboom. So, you never know. Has the Netherlands ever won the Nobel? If not, why not? A country of some 16 million souls should be able to produce one writer for the Nobel. They've produced painters from Rembrandt, via van Gogh and Vermeer, to Mondriaan. So why not a key literary player?

I sincerely hope that no Scandinavian crime author wins the Nobel. But Scandinavia is full of non-crime literary talent. We get rather a distorted view in Britain, as so little contemporary Scandinavian general novels and poetry collections make it across the North Sea. So sure, why not Transtr?mer.

Finally, the languages into which a potential Nobel candidate is translated can determine the outcome. As few things appear in English, we have to hope that Horace Engdahl & Co can read other languages, apart from Swedish and English, so as to have a broad access to Nobel candidates.

Stewart

18-Aug-2009, 11:58

...we have to hope that Horace Engdahl & Co can read other languages, apart from Swedish and English, so as to have a broad access to Nobel candidates.
I believe French, German, and Chinese are some of the languages Academy members have shown fluency in.

Bjorn

18-Aug-2009, 12:27

Finally, the languages into which a potential Nobel candidate is translated can determine the outcome. As few things appear in English, we have to hope that Horace Engdahl & Co can read other languages, apart from Swedish and English, so as to have a broad access to Nobel candidates.
Or, y'know, they can read non-English literature that's been translated into Swedish. It happens. Look at Pamuk and Kertesz, for instance.

(And even when it doesn't, the Academy has been known to commission translations of possible candidates.)

peter_d

18-Aug-2009, 13:44

Has the Netherlands ever won the Nobel? If not, why not? A country of some 16 million souls should be able to produce one writer for the Nobel. They've produced painters from Rembrandt, via van Gogh and Vermeer, to Mondriaan. So why not a key literary player?

No Dutch language author has ever won the Nobel. Maybe this has to do with the inferiority complex about the language that I mentioned in my previous comment. Dutch are known to be able to speak many foreign languages. An Irish friend of mine visiting Amsterdam, once remarked 'even the tramps speak English here...'. Why do we Dutch learn all these foreign languages? Is it because we doubt the value of our own language? I'm afraid so.
One of the (in my view) most promising young Dutch authors Arnon Grunberg, lives in the US and blogs in English. (Fortunately he still writes his novels in Dutch). There are many examples of Dutch writers living abroad. Too bad, I think.

I read somewhere that the late W.F. Hermans used to complain about the fact that he was born and raised in the Netherlands instead of somewhere in the French or English speaking world. In some way we are not proud of our language...

promtbr

18-Aug-2009, 16:24

Ismail Kadare; maybe it’s because of my long time fascination for this Balkan country, but I read most of his books that have appeared in either English or Dutch translation. The only moments that I hate his books are when the alarm clock starts beeping at 6.45 a.m. after having slept only for 3 or 4 hours. Last night I did it again, couldn’t close his book Albanian Spring until it was 2.30 :(

As having Dutch heritage (and surname) I am always looking into its literary fiction...
Thanks for the Haasse recommendation..I am looking into her. I keep hearing Kadare's name come up. But I refuse to read double translations (even if he wins the Nobel). What little I have read of Mulisch and Nooteboom...I like the the latter's voice better (maybe I get the impression that Mulisch is shouting down at the reader from on high)

What's a good Haasse novel (in translation) to start with?

---

Daniel del Real

18-Aug-2009, 18:46

No Dutch language author has ever won the Nobel. Maybe this has to do with the inferiority complex about the language that I mentioned in my previous comment. Dutch are known to be able to speak many foreign languages. An Irish friend of mine visiting Amsterdam, once remarked 'even the tramps speak English here...'. Why do we Dutch learn all these foreign languages? Is it because we doubt the value of our own language? I'm afraid so.
One of the (in my view) most promising young Dutch authors Arnon Grunberg, lives in the US and blogs in English. (Fortunately he still writes his novels in Dutch). There are many examples of Dutch writers living abroad. Too bad, I think.

I read somewhere that the late W.F. Hermans used to complain about the fact that he was born and raised in the Netherlands instead of somewhere in the French or English speaking world. In some way we are not proud of our language...

I agree that Dutch must have a Nobel winner. Now, I have a question for you:
Which Dutch writer do you think deserved or still deserves most this prize?

peter_d

18-Aug-2009, 21:11

As having Dutch heritage (and surname) I am always looking into its literary fiction...

What's a good Haasse novel (in translation) to start with?---

Hard to say, it depends of course on what kind of reading you like. And it depends much on what your language is. She has been translated extensively in French and German and also quite a bit in Italian. But there are not too many English translations unfortunately. However her most widely read novel 'In a dark wood wandering' seems to have a very good English translation. Of all her novels it's also the one that has been translated in most languages. Although it's more than 10 years ago that I read it, it was a good read. I don't remember detailed contents, but I do remember that I was really fascinated by the atmosphere of the book right from the beginning. It is set in the 15th century during the Hundred Years War between France and England and it follows the life of the poet Charles of Orleans. There are several reviews available when you google the title.

peter_d

18-Aug-2009, 21:42

I agree that Dutch must have a Nobel winner. Now, I have a question for you:
Which Dutch writer do you think deserved or still deserves most this prize?

Easy question when you say 'deserved'. For me Simon Vestdijk was the greatest of Dutch 20th century literature. My all time favorite Dutch novel is Ierse Nachten (although there two or three written by representatives of the younger generation that come close). I don't know if it?s been translated in English, I hope so. The literatal translation of the title would be Irish Nights. Vestdijk was not only a great novelist but also a very good poet. I?m not as much into poetry as into proze. But his poems I really like. De koperen tuin, translated as The garden where the brass band played, is also marvellous. And, sorry for getting enthusiastic, Ivory Watchmen. I read that one when I was in secondary school and remember having dreamt about it. When I see walnuts I always think of this novel Ivory Wathcmen. The main character, a very talented secondary schoolkid, had the habit of cracking walnuts between his teeth. This resulted in enormous deterioration of his teeth and one day in a terrible pain on one of his teeth. He went to a dentist who helped him, but afterwards he couldn't pay the bill. Instead he wrote a poem to pay the bill. Well, let me not tell the whole story here. I hope the translation is still available so that you can read it yourself.

When you talk about the present. Which Dutch author deserves it? Much more difficult question. As mentioned in my previous comments my favorite is Hella Haasse. But I would be immensely suprised if she would get it. Mulisch and Nooteboom are always mentioned as the candidates. They are good writers. I respect their work. My favorite Mulish is Discovery of Heaven. It's brilliant. My favorite Nooteboom is In the Dutch Mountains. Especially because of the involvement of the writer of the story in the story. I always like this kind of constructions. Who deserves it most? I can't say. And to be honest I don't know if they can compete with my 'foreign' favorite the Great Albanian.

Eric

19-Aug-2009, 01:02

Stewart: the Chinese scholar on the Nobel team is G?ran Malmqvist (born 1924). Who, precisely, reads French and German I do not know.

The fact that Pamuk and Kert?sz are available in Swedish is a start. But there are lots of potential Nobel authors, no doubt, that have not been translated into million-dollar Nobel-language Swedish...

"No Dutch author has ever won the Nobel." Oh dear; time we got beyond Multitulip (aka Douwe Egberts) as the image of Dutch prose prowess.

Hella Haasse. You say: "She has been translated extensively in French and German and also quite a bit in Italian." Why not English? Has she been promoted by anyone in the English-speaking world? If not, why not? What has the Productiefonds been doing all these years? There are wheelrunning novels and goodness knows what in English translation. But literature?

For me, Vestdijk is one of the few genuinely interesting Dutch authors. But who is promoting him abroad now? I've not read "Ierse nachten" but I have read "Else B?hler", "Een moderne Antonius", "Het glinsterend pantser", "De redding van Fre Bolderhey" and "De koperen tuin" and wonder why the hell Vestdijk isn't promoted more abroad. I've got to admit that "De schandalen" is very hard going, but even a serious author publishes a pot-boiler now and again. I saw his collected poems in the library yesterday, and will no doubt borrow that fat tome tomorrow. I was fingering a copy of "Ivoren wachters" yesterday too, but couldn't quite get my teeth into it... I'm going to read the Hazeu biography one day, maybe even the vermaledijde Visser ditto.

Mirabell

19-Aug-2009, 01:38

hdw

19-Aug-2009, 08:58

No Dutch language author has ever won the Nobel. Maybe this has to do with the inferiority complex about the language that I mentioned in my previous comment. Dutch are known to be able to speak many foreign languages. An Irish friend of mine visiting Amsterdam, once remarked 'even the tramps speak English here...'. Why do we Dutch learn all these foreign languages? Is it because we doubt the value of our own language? I'm afraid so.
One of the (in my view) most promising young Dutch authors Arnon Grunberg, lives in the US and blogs in English. (Fortunately he still writes his novels in Dutch). There are many examples of Dutch writers living abroad. Too bad, I think.

I read somewhere that the late W.F. Hermans used to complain about the fact that he was born and raised in the Netherlands instead of somewhere in the French or English speaking world. In some way we are not proud of our language...

I used to know a young Dutch academic here in Scotland whose field of expertise was mediaeval Scots literature and language. His spoken English was flawless, with no trace of a foreign accent. He told me it was normal in Dutch universities to write one's Ph.D. thesis in English.

Harry

Eric

19-Aug-2009, 09:35

Uh, Mirabell. One shouldn't dismiss an author too easily with a shrug of the intellectualist shoulder. I haven't read Haasse either, so whether she can be written off as "conventional" (whatever that means), I do not know.

But what could make her interesting is that she was born in Batavia (Jakarta nowadays) and brought up in the East Indies (i.e. what is now Indonesia) during the latter end of colonial times. So she's not just y'r average Dutch author. She's written about 15 novels plus short-stories, memoirs, etc.

If you read Dutch (German is, of course, a mere dialect of that language...) her website is at:

Hella Haasse - HOME (http://www.hellahaasse.nl/boekboek/show/id=89942)

To find out what has been translated into English, German, etc., look at:

Hella Haasse - Het oeuvre van Hella S. Haasse in het buitenland (http://www.hellahaasse.nl/boekboek/show/id=91292)

A lot is available in French and Italian. Only one book in Nobel language Swedish, though.

Pity about the Dutch inferiority complex. You wouldn't sus that they have one when you meet Dutch intellectuals. The Dutch speak many languages - as long as they are English. Few Dutch people of the younger generations can be bothered with, for instance, neighbouring languages French and German. Some authors live in Provence and still manage to write a huge œuvre in Dutch without moaning, such as the Fleming Ivo Michiels. I cannot understand why it is the Flemings that produce most of the Modernist and postmodernist stuff, while the Dutch write about wheelrunning, sprouts, and other things, usually in a more realist manner (Mulisch being an exception). Nevertheless, I have a hunch that Maarten 't Hart would be popular amongst English readers were he to be translated more.

I am put off Grunberg because he seems to promote himself, his homosexuality, and his Jewish provenance ad nauseam. Plus the "poor little Dutchman living by a noisy railway in a tiny apartment in NY" dimension. I imagine there are many gay, Jewish, or immigrant writers living in the States who are less self-centred. Of the younger generation, I would rather read Ari?lla Kornmehl.

peter_d

19-Aug-2009, 11:05

Looked up Haasse. Uh. There are a few books of hers translated into German. what was it again that makes her appealing? I read the description of the wood novel you mentioned above Wald der Erwartung. Das Leben des Charles von Orleans.: Amazon.de: Hella S. Haasse: B?cher (http://www.amazon.de/Wald-Erwartung-Leben-Charles-Orleans/dp/3499262134/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250641954&sr=1-3) and it sounds awfully dull and conventional. I like thick historical novels but after a while these books start blend into one another...that book sound like yet another one of thousands. what makes her so special?

What I remember of this 'wood-book' as you call it, is that I liked the way you could feel the tension that Charles must have felt between the things he was expected to do (taking up huge political and military responsiblities) and the things he wanted to do (follow his creativity and take control over his own life). The book is based on historical facts and for me it brought that period to life through the eyes of this interesting figure of Charles of Orleans.

I'm planning to re-read the book and write a more extensive review elsewhere on this forum.

peter_d

19-Aug-2009, 11:28

I cannot understand why it is the Flemings that produce most of the Modernist and postmodernist stuff, while the Dutch write about wheelrunning, sprouts, and other things, usually in a more realist manner (Mulisch being an exception). Nevertheless, I have a hunch that Maarten 't Hart would be popular amongst English readers were he to be translated more.

I am put off Grunberg because he seems to promote himself, his homosexuality, and his Jewish provenance ad nauseam. Plus the "poor little Dutchman living by a noisy railway in a tiny apartment in NY" dimension. I imagine there are many gay, Jewish, or immigrant writers living in the States who are less self-centred. Of the younger generation, I would rather read Ari?lla Kornmehl.

Flemmings are proud of their language. That's the difference with Dutch. They study and cherish it. Maybe this can be explained from their struggle with Wallonia over which language should prevail in Belgium. Perhaps nowadays the biggest difference between Dutch and Flemmish is the prevalence of English words. Flemmish avoid them as much as possible, whereas the Dutch seem to adopt them as much as possible. Flemmish always win the ?Groot dictee der Nederlandse taal', leaving the Dutch far behind. Same goes for the language game '10 voor taal'. Until his death it used to be Hugo Claus who was on top of the Dutch language authors when it came to Nobel specualation. Which was symbolic, I think. Maybe it should be a Flemming to win the Nobel as the first Dutch language author. But I don't know if there are any serious contenders nowadays. Any suggestions Eric?

I feel completely different about Grunberg. He doesn't promote himself that much as jewish and gay. In fact I didn't even knew he was gay. Are you sure? I really liked Tirza, his pre-last novel. Fascinating plot. In my opinion it justly won two of the three prestigeous Dutch/Flemmish literary prizes.

Mirabell

19-Aug-2009, 12:20

Uh, Mirabell. One shouldn't dismiss an author too easily with a shrug of the intellectualist shoulder. I haven't read Haasse either, so whether she can be written off as "conventional" (whatever that means), I do not know.

I didn't write her off, I asked. I couldn't see the appeal in the book I linked above so I asked.

But what could make her interesting is that she was born in Batavia (Jakarta nowadays) and brought up in the East Indies (i.e. what is now Indonesia) during the latter end of colonial times. So she's not just y'r average Dutch author. She's written about 15 novels plus short-stories, memoirs, etc.

That does not make her books better now does it.

Mirabell

19-Aug-2009, 12:22

What I remember of this 'wood-book' as you call it, is that I liked the way you could feel the tension that Charles must have felt between the things he was expected to do (taking up huge political and military responsiblities) and the things he wanted to do (follow his creativity and take control over his own life). The book is based on historical facts and for me it brought that period to life through the eyes of this interesting figure of Charles of Orleans.

I'm planning to re-read the book and write a more extensive review elsewhere on this forum.

So, it brought the period to life. That it? How's her writing? Do her book have a common strand of thought or are they more singular?

Sorry to ask so much, I'm really trying to comprehend the appeal and convince myself to read her.

Daniel del Real

19-Aug-2009, 18:18

Easy question when you say 'deserved'. For me Simon Vestdijk was the greatest of Dutch 20th century literature. My all time favorite Dutch novel is Ierse Nachten (although there two or three written by representatives of the younger generation that come close). I don't know if it?s been translated in English, I hope so. The literatal translation of the title would be Irish Nights. Vestdijk was not only a great novelist but also a very good poet. I?m not as much into poetry as into proze. But his poems I really like. De koperen tuin, translated as The garden where the brass band played, is also marvellous. And, sorry for getting enthusiastic, Ivory Watchmen. I read that one when I was in secondary school and remember having dreamt about it. When I see walnuts I always think of this novel Ivory Wathcmen. The main character, a very talented secondary schoolkid, had the habit of cracking walnuts between his teeth. This resulted in enormous deterioration of his teeth and one day in a terrible pain on one of his teeth. He went to a dentist who helped him, but afterwards he couldn't pay the bill. Instead he wrote a poem to pay the bill. Well, let me not tell the whole story here. I hope the translation is still available so that you can read it yourself.

Thanks a lot for your answer Peter. I've never heard Simon Vestdijk's name but I'll be looking for it

Liam

19-Aug-2009, 18:58

So, first Morrison and now Pynchon (the other ones, yeah...)? What's your beef with great American writers of genius?Ah, I never said they were shite, which was, I believe, Eric's charge against James Kelman, I just said they weren't for me. I do believe they're important (Morrison included); however being relevant or important to the times you live in is still no reason to be praised and lauded to the skies like you're God or something.

Pynchonomania in particular is completely out of control in this country. And yes, it is true, I want to see more people reading Chaucer and Shakespeare and Milton instead of Pynchon, Roth and DeLillo. Relevance is one thing, and greatness is another.

no wonder you didn't show up this sunday.Apologies, apologies; I'll check out the episode later when Donny finally posts it. I was afraid I wouldn't be able to contribute much, and would just sit there making Neanderthal noises while listening to the rest of you, :o. I hate to be made to feel stupid, is'all.

Daniel del Real

19-Aug-2009, 23:12

Relevance is one thing, and greatness is another.

Excellent phrase, you should register it! :D

Mirabell

20-Aug-2009, 00:01

Excellent phrase, you should register it! :D

just, y'know, misapplied in this case.

;)

but generally, I agree.

JTolle

23-Aug-2009, 22:57

Wow! Going through this thread has brought me so many names I've never heard of, and the way some of these authors have been praised is giving me a reason to give up my Modern American Literature binge which has been on for almost a year now.

But, back to the Nobel...It is immensely frustrating that the biggest prize for Literature is so heavily based on, to an unfair degree, geo-social-political acceptability instead of superb writing ability. Achebe is definitely deserving, but the 2003 win for Coetzee, even though he's not as "true" an African writer as Achebe, will overshadow his possibilities in the worst way, the same being true of Haasse and Lessing, except Haasse isn't winning because, as someone mentioned, their profiles are too similar, even if their writing is widely divergent (although in a Harold Bloomian aside; the Historical Novel is pretty dead and unappealing, another reason why Vidal will never, Jaan Kross did never, and Haasse probably will never, win the Nobel) .

My choice, my hope, my great desire for the 09 winner, in my small minded, under-read American way, would be William Gass, a name I haven't seen mentioned yet. He would fall into the "old (84), obscure writer slowly (and I mean slooooowly, The Tunnel took him 27 years to write) forming his oeuvre" niche. His experimentalism knows almost no equal, and with Willie Masters' Lonesome Wife he shows that he's got the substance and depth to go with it. It has been 16 years since an American won, it seems time for the Prize to come back, and as great and prolific as Philip Roth is, as dark and brutal as McCarthy is, as strange, massive, and creative as Pynchon is, and as...well I haven't read much DeLillo but from what has been said it seems he's a contender, they are all too popular, and the Nobel Committee hates popularity, they've even stated that Rushdie is, and Arthur Miller was, too popular to win. Gass has a large body of criticism, his essays are renowned, his novels are complex and beautifully crafted, his short stories, like The Pedersen Kid, are some of the best of in American craft, although his novellas, collected in Cartesian Sonatas, have a sort of Mulischian philosophical haughtiness and density. The only problem I can see is that he hasn't produced something really major in a couple years, so maybe he won't get it this time, but when Middle C comes out, he deserves to snatch it out of anyone's hands.

Reality Check: He won't win, too American, too weird, too unknown. My bets for actual winners are going to be Amos Oz, Milan Kundera, Vargas Llosa and Carlos Fuentes. Murakami, as much as I enjoy him, has no chance at all, far from heavy enough, too much pop culture.

Mirabell

24-Aug-2009, 00:07

they are all too popular, and the Nobel Committee hates popularity, they've even stated that Rushdie is, and Arthur Miller was, too popular to win.

really? "they" did? goody. you have a link or something? see, they do award it to bestsellers, some of them nationally (grass) some of them internationally (bellow. yes, 't was the time when books like his sold very well) successful. but if you say they said that, they must have changed their minds. interesting.

Liam

24-Aug-2009, 00:36

you have a link or something?
Nobel stuns Italy's left-wing jester (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/62/016.html)

...the Nobel committee had often acted in mysterious ways. Mr Rushdie and Mr Miller were strongly tipped to win, but the Nobel organisers had told Mr Earley that they would be "too predictable, too popular"...

Mirabell

24-Aug-2009, 00:45

Ah, so it was actually Mr. Earley who said that? I've spent some time googling and this is the only quote I found, as well. Huh. and "too predictable" is an interesting addition, no? it puts the "popular" into perspective.

But thanks for the swift reply.

who would you like to see win the nobel? have you said so already? I must check, if so, excuse me. that would interest me particularly since you're not partial to modern American prose...

Liam

24-Aug-2009, 01:06

who would you like to see win the nobel? have you said so already? I must check, if so, excuse me. that would interest me particularly since you're not partial to modern American prose...
Yeah, I did, somewhere or other.

Ray Bradbury. Mary Oliver. Pentti Holappa. Gerald Murnane. Michel Houellebecq (I kid. I kid not!). Paul Muldoon. Imants Ziedonis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imants_Ziedonis) (definitely! Epifānijas is a small miracle). Ferenc Juhasz (still alive?). Maybe Tim Saunders (haven't read enough of him though).

As well as the usual suspects: a handful of Latin-Americans, Kadare, Oz, Roth, etc. Don't care if they win but I won't spew fire and brimstone if they won't: either way, they're good writers.

Mirabell

24-Aug-2009, 01:11

Interesting choices. Would you explain to me why these especially? They don't crop up on the usual lists (well Muldoon does.), do they? why do you think they merit the Nobel? I mostly ask because I'm greedy for new writers and near-illiterate that I am, I've read few of them.

I'm a bit apprehensive about this year's prize. After I was so happy to see Doris win, last year was a bit of a letdown. And I don't want them to cave to the "Give it to Roth already" pressure.

Liam

24-Aug-2009, 01:40

Interesting choices. Would you explain to me why these especially? They don't crop up on the usual lists (well Muldoon does.), do they? why do you think they merit the Nobel?
BECAUSE I SAID SO!

But seriously. They're all excellent writers/poets, hyper-serious about their craft; some are in many ways unique.

If politics is unavoidable, let's politicize.

Oliver is a lesbian environmentalist, active in politics, too; though her political poetry is weak (in my humble opinion)

Holappa: ditto. Environmentalist, gay, pacifist. And a Finn!

Muldoon: if Heaney won, Muldoon should too. His poetry is in many ways more complex than Heaney's, although Heaney has a broader spectrum (and thus a broader outreach as well).

Ziedonis: wrote highly politicized poetry during the Soviet era. Latvian (Eric wants a Baltic writer to win, here's one!). Epifānijas is a book that will fuckin' help you survive in this life, other than the Bible (and I know you're not a big fan of the Holy Writ, :p).

Juhasz produced (WAY back during the 50s/60s/70s) some of the most amazing, mind-blowing, beautiful, divinely inspired (too bad he's a Commie) poetry of the last century. I'll do a thread on him, rest assured.

Bradbury: for Dandelion Wine alone.

Houellebecq: wait till Thomas gets a load of this! LOL. I like him only mildly; Elementary Particles, which a lot of people here did NOT enjoy was, I thought, funny as shit.

Saunders: an important Cornish poet/translator--maybe I ought to do a thread on him as well.

And yes, they SHOULD give it to Roth before he croaks.

Mirabell

24-Aug-2009, 01:48

(and I know you're not a big fan of the Holy Writ, :p).

Why would you say that? I'm a huge fan. Huge Currently reading both the Lutherbibel and the King James Bible. Amazing, amazing stuff. I also, for different reasons spend unconscionable amounts of time reading theology these days.

as to your list: my proficiency in so few languages really bums me. Not sure that I would read all these poets in translation...

you haven't made many comments on literary significance?

Liam

24-Aug-2009, 02:00

Why would you say that?I don't know. Just the general impression of you I have: a Bible-hatin' heathen, in need of immediate salvation!

I also, for different reasons spend unconscionable amounts of time reading theology these days.Could it be you're slowly coming to terms with... Jesus? ;)

Not sure that I would read all these poets in translation...Oh, pshaw! Just give it a try.

you haven't made many comments on literary significance?That's because I believe in letting works of art speak for themselves.

Well, Mary Oliver you've read and liked, so I don't have to comment on her. I hope you're also familiar with Bradbury. Houellebecq you know. You can check my threads on Murnane and Pentti Holappa in the Writers section.

As for the rest, I'll try to post some of their poetry here, for you and the others to sample and/or savor. If you've recovered your Russian at this point, I can send you the complete text of Ziedonis' Epiphanies via email. No complete translation exists in English; I don't know about German though. Eric told me he'd read it in Swedish.

Sounds good?

Mirabell

24-Aug-2009, 02:11

I don't know. Just the general impression of you I have: a Bible-hatin' heathen, in need of immediate salvation!

Nah. Loving it. Really. Lutherian version more than King James but that's quibbling. And I've been to church twice these last two weeks. some salvation musta rubbed off on me. mmmmh. rubbing..

Could it be you're slowly coming to terms with... Jesus? ;)

I'm fine with Mister Nails. Jesus and I, we're fine. I've read the Pope's Jesus book with great enjoyment, will acquire a copy now it's in paperback and reread carefully. Whoa. It's really well written. Nobel worthy?

I hope you're also familiar with Bradbury.

Only by name. Haven't read a single sentence of his.

Sounds good?

yup. thank you for yr patience, darling.

Liam

24-Aug-2009, 02:26

Only by name. Haven't read a single sentence of his.The description of the main character's fever towards the end of the Dandelion Wine:

Inside redness, inside blindness, Douglas lay listening to the dim piston of his heart and the muddy ebb and flow of the blood in his arms and legs. His lips were heavy and would not move. His thoughts were heavy and barely ticked like seed pellets falling in an hourglass slow one by falling one. Tick...

"Grandma! Grandma..."

Tap, softly, tap.

"...river... river..."

Douglas took one breath and let it all out at once, wailing.

He did not hear his mother run into the room.

A fly, like the burning ash of a cigarette, fell upon his senseless hand, sizzled, and flew away.

Eric

24-Aug-2009, 12:27

I agree with Liam about the Latvian poet Imants Ziedonis. I first read some of his epiphanies (more or less prose poems), as Liam points out, in Juris Kronbergs' Swedish translation about thirty years ago, and found them very special.

About fifteen years ago, Ziedonis came to stay with friends in Hilversum in Holland, so I've met him briefly.

Because he is translated into Swedish, and if the Swedes don't shun the Baltics, he would certainly be a worthy recipient of the Nobel, as he is also an author of ordinary poems and has written a book about the area where he grew up, Kurzeme / Courland. I have three of his books in Latvian but, alas, I have never learnt Latvian to such a high degree that I can read literature in it. But his Epifānijas were originally published in Latvian in two volumes - 1971 and 1974; a third volume appeared in 1994. His poems exist in Russian translation; I know, because I've got a copy.

The Wikipedia entry (in English) is at:

Imants Ziedonis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imants_Ziedonis)

From this you can see that he has written a whole body of work, more than I had imagined, in fact. Pictures of him from various years at:

Imants Ziedonis - Google Pildiotsing (http://images.google.nl/images?hl=et&as_qdr=all&num=100&q=Imants+Ziedonis&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=lHOSSo7nOMPS-Qa5_PTyDQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4)

A book of his poems called "Flowers of Ice":

FLOWERS OF ICE - Imants Ziedonis : Small Press Distribution (http://www.spdbooks.org/Producte/0935296891/flowers-of-ice.aspx)

Mirabell and other German-speakers may note:

Wegerichbl?tter: Gedichte, Epiphanien, M?rchen

by Imants Ziedonis

Hardcover, Verlag Liesma, ISBN 541000826X (5-410-00826-X) (http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/Wegerichblatter-Gedichte,_Epiphanien,_Marchen/541000826X/)

Available on German Amazon at 15 and 25 euros, second-hand.

Daniel del Real

24-Aug-2009, 17:13

Baltic? why not writer from the Balkans. I'd love to see the pruse in Goran Petrovic's hands. He is an amazing writer who handles fantastic literature in a way Borges would've loved. He's not a very prolific author but with such novels as The Hand of the Good Fortune and Atlas Described by the Sky he truly deserves it.
And the most eminent and famous writer from the zone, Ismail Kadar? is always between the most sounded names.
If the award goes to this part of the world it would bring a lot of joy to a landscape with many bruises to heal.

promtbr

24-Aug-2009, 19:11

My choice, my hope, my great desire for the 09 winner, in my small minded, under-read American way, would be William Gass, a name I haven't seen mentioned yet. He would fall into the "old (84), obscure writer slowly (and I mean slooooowly, The Tunnel took him 27 years to write) forming his oeuvre" niche.

Oh there are those here (myself incuded) who LOVE Gass... I don't know about his Nobel odds... too 'nichey' maybe...Overshadowed by the big four? Some only like his pre-Tunnel stuff.

his short stories, like The Pedersen Kid, are some of the best of in American craft

Yes, I am serious when I post on forums that this is the best American short story I have read. Ever.

---

Clarissa

24-Aug-2009, 19:12

Kadar? would certainly be a good choice. A friend recommended him to me. Said friend was a French lierary agent and so impressed by Kadar? that he studied Albanian to be able to read him in the original. I respected his opinion and read Broken April and The Wedding, Both were good.
The friend also recommended Vasily Grossman's Life and Fate - if you are looking for an outstanding novel written about WWII in the Soviet Union, I cannot think of a better one. In my humble opinion, it is outstanding and as good as Solzhenitsyn. The historical scope and storytelling in which the Russians are such masters (Tolstoy, Pasternak, et al.)
Read all the above in French (I was living in Paris at the time) and do not know how good or bad the translations are.

The title The Wedding reminds me of another book I enjoyed - John Berger's To the Wedding.John Berger is a writer whose work rarely disappoints. Obviously, I read him in English.

Daniel del Real

24-Aug-2009, 20:37

The other day I was thinking if there were any writers who had won the Nobel Prize because of his work in short stories. It seems that novels are the only way to sneak to the prize and excellent short story writers were denied because of this. The best example Borges, as he never wrote a novel; Cort?zar although he wrote a few novels, his strongest work are his short stories. It's hard to find a laureates who did not wrote a novel and just short stories, but which ones do you thing his/her short stories weighted more than novels for the Academy to give them the prize?

Bjorn

24-Aug-2009, 21:50

The other day I was thinking if there were any writers who had won the Nobel Prize because of his work in short stories.
The only ones who have had their short stories mentioned in the motivation for getting the prize are Heyse and M?rquez. I haven't read either of them, but I understand Agnon and Lewis were largely short story writers?

Daniel del Real

24-Aug-2009, 22:42

The only ones who have had their short stories mentioned in the motivation for getting the prize are Heyse and M?rquez. I haven't read either of them, but I understand Agnon and Lewis were largely short story writers?

You're right Bjorn, here's Heyse's:
"as a tribute to the consummate artistry, permeated with idealism, which he has demonstrated during his long productive career as a lyric poet, dramatist, novelist and writer of world-renowned short stories"
I don't know if he's good, but seriously, who reads this guy nowadays?

and Marquez:
"for his novels and short stories, in which the fantastic and the realistic are combined in a richly composed world of imagination, reflecting a continent's life and conflicts"
His short stories are good, but nothing extraordinary. He was basically awarded for Cien A?os de Soledad.

I've heard Bunin wrote a lot of good short stories, is that right?

Mirabell

25-Aug-2009, 00:19

Heyse basically won it for his novellas, for his specific version of the genre. at the time everybody thought he was a titan and would be known as a titan for decades and decades. 's a good example why the Nobel is often awarded years after the last major achievement these days.

rkcr

25-Aug-2009, 19:59

I didn't get a chance to read everything in this thread, so forgive me if I missed anything.

I would really like to see an American author win this year. It's been almost 20 years since Morrison won the prize. I think McCarthy, Roth, or Pynchon should at least be nominated since they are all deserving of the award. (On a side note, I think that if Pynchon wins, nobody will know where to contact him and the prize will go to someone else.)

mimi

26-Aug-2009, 14:14

"I would really like to see an American author win this year. It's been almost 20 years since Morrison won the prize. I think McCarthy, Roth, or Pynchon should at least be nominated since they are all deserving of the award. (On a side note, I think that if Pynchon wins, nobody will know where to contact him and the prize will go to someone else.)"

In that case, Achebe has the strongest case, since it been 23 years since a black African took away the prize....

Mirabell

26-Aug-2009, 14:21

In that case, Achebe has the strongest case, since it been 23 years since a black African took away the prize....

Honey, the last Israeli writer, Mr. Agnon, won in 1966. I'd love to see it go there.

mimi

26-Aug-2009, 15:00

Mirabell

26-Aug-2009, 15:35

on what basis do you assign writers to years???

Bjorn

26-Aug-2009, 15:50

In that case, Achebe has the strongest case, since it been 23 years since a black African took away the prize....
And even longer since a non-Nigerian black African got it, so arguably people like Ngugi or Farah have an even better chance if statistics are all they're going by... ;)

If they're half as political as some people claim, the recent brouhaha (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/world/middleeast/24mideast.html?em) between Sweden and Israel might be good news for Oz.

Daniel del Real

26-Aug-2009, 17:59

Let's see, about time possibilities:

Canada = never
Netherlands= never

I'd like to see it go there also.

Here is my wish list for the next 10 years
2009 Achebe
2010 Llosa or Fuentes or both
2011 Amos Oz
2012 ADONIS
2013 AN AMERICAN!!!! Thomas Pynchon, Don DeLillo, Philip Roth, Cormac McCarthy, Joyce Carol Oates( I doubt she will get it from this bunch, but oh well!)
2014 Murakami or the south korean poet Ko Un
2015 Mulisch or Umberto Eco
2016 Salman Rushdie
2017 Margaret Atwood or Alice Munro
2018 Assia Djebar

Good list Mimi, I thought the only author you knew about was Achebe

Clarissa

26-Aug-2009, 18:24

If Margaret Atwood got it, it would be a Canadian and a woman. Don't think she has a hope in hell but if Jelinek got it, who knows? However, Doris Lessing last year is probably a handicap for any female contender.

Liam

26-Aug-2009, 20:34

If they're half as political as some people claim, the recent brouhaha (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/world/middleeast/24mideast.html?em) between Sweden and Israel might be good news for Oz.

...a Swedish newspaper last week accus[ed] the Israeli Army of harvesting organs from Palestinians (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/palestinians/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) wounded or killed by soldiers.
WOW, this is a pretty serious charge. Forget apology and condemnation, if the accusation is completely unfounded or based on hearsay, the reporter, whoever he/she is, needs to go to jail.

I'm sorry to say this, but it just goes to show... The New York Times would never print such a story without verifying all the facts a couple of hundred times.

Mirabell

26-Aug-2009, 21:34

The New York Times would never print such a story without verifying all the facts a couple of hundred times.

Yeah. Liberal Jewish Media.

Sorry. I've been on the sidelines on a hell hole thread where one antisemite chides another for endorsing this article...and both assure each other constantly that any positive thing they might say about Israel is NOT indicative of generally positive feelings towards that state. Ugh.

and yes, so far, the claims are completely unsubstantiated. the swedish government's role here is strange though. now, I'm all for freedom of speech so no complaints therek, but when the swedish ambassador in Israel said that she was disgusted by the article, she was heavily reprimanded by the government, I gather, which has otherwise been silent on the matter, as far as I hear, but then, I can't read swedish.

gah.

Bjorn

26-Aug-2009, 23:09

Well, luckily, over here people don't go to jail for saying stuff, no matter how insane.

I agree that the article was way out of line. It should be pointed out that the newspaper in question is roughly as reliable in serious matters as, say, The Daily Mirror, Bild or National Enquirer. They're a tabloid, they make shit up, that's how they sell newspapers. Taking them seriously or using them to make any point beyond "people want scandals" is a mistake, IMO. My point was simply that considering the exaggerated reaction from both sides, giving it to the author of How To Cure A Fanatic would be a nice touch and fully in keeping with the Academy's previous choices.

promtbr

27-Aug-2009, 04:09

Here is my wish list for the next 10 years
2009 Achebe
2010 Llosa or Fuentes or both
2011 Amos Oz
2012 ADONIS
2013 AN AMERICAN!!!! Thomas Pynchon, Don DeLillo, Philip Roth, Cormac McCarthy, Joyce Carol Oates( I doubt she will get it from this bunch, but oh well!)
2014 Murakami or the south korean poet Ko Un
2015 Mulisch or Umberto Eco
2016 Salman Rushdie
2017 Margaret Atwood or Alice Munro
2018 Assia Djebar

On the stupid chance that it ends up being even remotely close, I could live with that list of Laureates. Except swap Nooteboom with Mulisch and Goytisolo or (?) Spanish dude (help Daniel) need to be in there. Munro (86) would be getting up there in years at the dates you listed.

Do wishes require a basis?

--

Mirabell

27-Aug-2009, 04:41

Yes! Goytisolo! Or Mar?as?

Stewart

27-Aug-2009, 09:37

I would really like to see an American author win this year. It's been almost 20 years since Morrison won the prize.
I don't quite get the need to worry about nationality when it comes to the prize. If it was down to this then India would have a better case for a laureate, as it's been 96 years since Tagore was recognised, but even bigger would be the claim of all those nations that have never had a laureate but have the writers deserving of recognition (i.e. Albania, Korea, Peru).

Mirabell

27-Aug-2009, 12:04

yeah especially since the fact that two brits won it in a row suggests that they don't care so awfully much.

anchomal

27-Aug-2009, 14:45

First of all, I'm new around here so "hi" to all from rainy Cork.
I've really enjoyed reading the various posts but I was just wondering, what is it that decides who wins the nobel? The necessary criteria, I mean. I know we all have favourite writers that we'd love to see lauded, but is that enough?
Obviously, literary excellence has to be the first essential. Are extra points awarded for innovation? I've read that "idealism" was an important consideration, at least during the early years of the prize, when the committee were choosing a winner. Is this still so?
I had always thought that one of the ideas behind the prize (as well as many of the major literary prizes) was to bring attention to writers who are under-read and deserving of a wider audience, but as we all know there have been plenty of winners who were and are already world renowned before being honoured with the nobel. Then again, I had never read le Clezio or Jelinek (to name but a couple) before their win. As to whether or not they were deserving of the prize, well, that's a different debate, I suppose, but at least their work was made known to the greater reading public.

Bjorn

27-Aug-2009, 15:00

Welcome to the site!

I've really enjoyed reading the various posts but I was just wondering, what is it that decides who wins the nobel? The necessary criteria, I mean. I know we all have favourite writers that we'd love to see lauded, but is that enough?
Obviously, literary excellence has to be the first essential. Are extra points awarded for innovation? I've read that "idealism" was an important consideration, at least during the early years of the prize, when the committee were choosing a winner. Is this still so?
See this (http://www.worldliteratureforum.com/forum/general-discussion/18408-nobel-prize-literature-2009-speculation.html#post32461) post for the formal criteria. And yes, Nobel's will says that they're supposed to take "idealism" into account, but doesn't specify what he meant by that.

I had always thought that one of the ideas behind the prize (as well as many of the major literary prizes) was to bring attention to writers who are under-read and deserving of a wider audience
That's a common interpretation, and the Academy often seems to agree (the former secretary of the Academy has commented that there are some authors who are already so well-known and lauded that they don't really "need" the Nobel), but like you say it's not a requirement in any way.

Clarissa

27-Aug-2009, 16:09

I had never read le Clezio or Jelinek (to name but a couple) before their win.I had never read Kertesz or Mahfouz before they were awarded the Nobel for lit. Mahfouz was a revelation for me and, after reading the first volume of The Cairo Trilogy, I went on to read the other two.I read Le Clezio in French a few years ago but found him boring.

As you say, the Nobel Prize for lit. can introduce an author to a wider audience. I doubt if I would have known that Mahfouz even existed without his Nobel.

Obviously, writers like Doris Lessing or Harold Pinter don't really need the publicity the prize brings with it.

rkcr

27-Aug-2009, 16:14

anchomal

27-Aug-2009, 16:23

As you say, the Nobel Prize for lit. can introduce an author to a wider audience. I doubt if I would have known that Mahfouz even existed without his Nobel.

Obviously, writers like Doris Lessing or Harold Pinter don't really need the publicity the prize brings with it.

It's my opinion that the Nobel Committee want it both ways. They do promote overlooked talent (as you say, the likes of Mahfouz etc) but they also seem to want to acknowledge the big hitters. Then when writers like Updike or Salman Rushdie get overlooked in favour of a so-called lesser light, there is always consternation in some quarters of the media. Maybe what they need to do is split the pot and award two prizes each year!

Liam

29-Aug-2009, 19:26

It's my opinion that the Nobel Committee want it both ways. They do promote overlooked talent... but they also seem to want to acknowledge the big hitters.
The scholar Roger Scruton in his recent book Beauty (similar to Umberto Eco's On Beauty?) talks about precisely this kind of attitude in regards to the Turner Prize in painting:

When each year the Turner prize, founded in memory of England's greatest painter, is awarded to yet another bundle of facetious ephemera [oh how I'm loving this!], is this not proof that there are no standards, that fashion alone dictates who will and who will not be rewarded, and that it is pointless to look for objective principles of taste or a public conception of the beautiful? Many people answer yes to those questions, and as a result renounce the attempt to criticize either the taste or the motives of the Turner-prize judges.

Funhouse

30-Aug-2009, 13:34

I brought nationality up because it seems a lot of literature Nobels are political awards. I can think of many people who haven't won who deserve it and many who have who don't deserve it. Besides, the only reason I specifically said American was because one of the people of the Nobel committee stated that American writers are too isolated and aren't connected with literature from around the world. I highly doubt an American is going to win in the next 10 years or so. Yes, I do believe that nationality shouldn't be a criteria for winning, but I have a problem when someone is purposely excluding one nation.

The operative word here is "seems". It may well seem to you that "a lot of literature Nobels are political awards", but you really don't know, do you? What might have seemed to you to have been a decision based on political considerations may have been, in fact, based only on literary considerations (including the stipulation for "idealism" in the work of the writer).

As for the claim that "someone is purposely excluding one nation", well, I would be amazed if you could substantiate that with any evidence. Horace Engdahl didn't say anything about excluding American writers from consideration. What he said was "Of course there is powerful literature in all big cultures, but you can't get away from the fact that Europe still is the center of the literary world . . . not the United States . . . The U.S. is too isolated, too insular. They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature. That ignorance is restraining."

Now most people read into those comments that an American wouldn't win, and that proved to be correct last year, but I really don't think there is anything there that would really rule out any given American writer, given that he is making comments about a general literary culture (which, on the issue of translation at least, are largely correct). You could say similar things about the literary cultures of many cultures, including Australia, where I live, but that doesn't mean that the prize won't go to writers who transcend those general limitations.

rkcr

30-Aug-2009, 17:53

The operative word here is "seems". It may well seem to you that "a lot of literature Nobels are political awards", but you really don't know, do you? What might have seemed to you to have been a decision based on political considerations may have been, in fact, based only on literary considerations (including the stipulation for "idealism" in the work of the writer).

As for the claim that "someone is purposely excluding one nation", well, I would be amazed if you could substantiate that with any evidence. Horace Engdahl didn't say anything about excluding American writers from consideration. What he said was "Of course there is powerful literature in all big cultures, but you can't get away from the fact that Europe still is the center of the literary world . . . not the United States . . . The U.S. is too isolated, too insular. They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature. That ignorance is restraining."

Now most people read into those comments that an American wouldn't win, and that proved to be correct last year, but I really don't think there is anything there that would really rule out any given American writer, given that he is making comments about a general literary culture (which, on the issue of translation at least, are largely correct). You could say similar things about the literary cultures of many cultures, including Australia, where I live, but that doesn't mean that the prize won't go to writers who transcend those general limitations.

I am ample evidence that the award is unfair. The first few years after WWI (and even WWII), the writers who won the award were from countries that remained neutral during the war. Also, Sweden has won more awards that all of Asia combined. There are many such faults and controversies with the Nobel. Sure, they have chosen some really good writers in the past, but the prize does have its faults. The Nobel committee said that Arthur Miller and Salman Rushdie were too popular and predictable to win the prize, no matter how good they are. In the end, the prize is given for more than just good writing. If it is purely based on literary considerations, then some people who didn't win it would definitely have won it and vice versa.

And if that guy is calling American writers "ignorant" then I fail to see how they could win. I do believe that American writers have their own style and have very little in common with their European counterparts. But that should hardly be a reason to call them ignorant. This comment really just shows that ignorance of whoever made the comment. That guy should seriously read more American literature.

Stewart

30-Aug-2009, 18:30

I am ample evidence that the award is unfair.
Unfair is, perhaps, too strong. It is, however, subjective. As the qualities that go toward awarding the prize are not measurable, what else can be done? Plus, in order to get the candidates for the prize, the committee doesn't solely pick them but instead sends out invitations for recommendations to universities and literary establishments the world over. Candidates are then whittled down from there, with a select five handed over the active members of the Swedish Academy so as to choose, or not, a candidate for that year's Nobel Prize in Literature.

The Nobel committee said that Arthur Miller and Salman Rushdie were too popular and predictable to win the prize...Well, that was back in 1997, and I'm sure that some of those Committee members have moved 'upstairs', leaving a new batch of Swedes to interpret the meaning of idealisk. Just because one group would dismiss them wouldn't mean a future group wouldn't recognise them. (EDIT: Only eight of those that awarded Fo back then are still around.)

And if that guy is calling American writers "ignorant" then I fail to see how they could winHorace Engdahl never called American writers 'ignorant'. He was talking of the country's attitude to literature as being ignorant, in respect of literature, because it doesn't translate much. Given that it's the country that puts out the most books over any period the low turnout of translations (see Three Percent's translation database (http://www.rochester.edu/College/translation/threepercent/index.php?s=database)) then you can see where he's coming from.

Daniel del Real

31-Aug-2009, 21:18

Well, that was back in 1997, and I'm sure that some of those Committee members have moved 'upstairs', leaving a new batch of Swedes to interpret the meaning of idealisk. Just because one group would dismiss them wouldn't mean a future group wouldn't recognise them. (EDIT: Only eight of those that awarded Fo back then are still around.)

I don't know if this has changed recently. I don't want to mention any names, but personally, in the last 10 years, only two or three truly deserving names have come to obtain the prize.
8 from Europe and 3 from the UK, that is also insular, don't you think?

Eric

01-Sep-2009, 16:43

Engdahl was being pretty undiplomatic in his timing of his anti-American utterance.

The major problem with the Nobel is that a small country has a committee that has too much money to splash around; and publishers get orgasmically geared up every year for roping in a team of slave translators to do everything in indecent haste, should some Ruritanian or other obscure-language type win the prize. Like football, the original spirit has fled, some of the choosing team may well be in their dotage, and the prize is now used to feed the media hype linked to sales.

They would do better only to give a brass trophy (not glass, it can be dropped) and enough money to pay for a modest house extension to the lucky sole and only winner.

Mirabell

01-Sep-2009, 20:53

only two or three truly deserving names have come to obtain the prize.

that's like, your opinion man. apart from pamuk and that female polish poet, I am very happy with the choices.

Daniel del Real

01-Sep-2009, 23:00

that's like, your opinion man. apart from pamuk and that female polish poet, I am very happy with the choices.

Jelinek, Lessing, Kertesz? You gotta be kidding me

e joseph

02-Sep-2009, 00:27

Jelinek, Lessing, Kertesz? You gotta be kidding me
I've got The Piano Teacher and Kaddish for an Unborn Child staring at me from my toberead pile. I expect good things from both, so I'm hoping no one's kidding you...

Mirabell

02-Sep-2009, 00:35

Jelinek, Lessing, Kertesz? You gotta be kidding me

Yes, yes, yes. Utterly and thoroughly. I was very happy when the two women won (I admire both). I had to look up Kertesz, now I've read six of his books I'm happy to know he won, as well. After finishing a kudarc in German translation (Fiasko) my first reaction, after catching my breath, was marvel at the astuteness of that price.

Daniel del Real

02-Sep-2009, 18:01

Yes, yes, yes. Utterly and thoroughly. I was very happy when the two women won (I admire both). I had to look up Kertesz, now I've read six of his books I'm happy to know he won, as well. After finishing a kudarc in German translation (Fiasko) my first reaction, after catching my breath, was marvel at the astuteness of that price.

Well, that's a respectable opinion. You hate Pamuk and for me he's one of the truly deserving writers of the prize in the last ten years along Coetzee and Grass. We have to consider that it's very hard for the Swedish Academy to keep everyone happy, so I guess some years will be good, others not, although you have more chances to smile if you're European.

Clarissa

02-Sep-2009, 18:14

Still think Umberto Eco should have got it before Jelinek or Kertesz.
But then again, the prize winners do not include Kafka, James Joyce, Celine or Proust. But Pearl Buck got it - hardly a writer of momentous lasting literary value. Even compared to Vrginia Woolf who in 1938 was still very much around.

Mirabell

02-Sep-2009, 21:23

Still think Umberto Eco should have got it before Jelinek or Kertesz.

as novelist, no. oh no. in all his actions as a writer, oh yes. but philosophers have not had it easy, so far. the only high profile philosopher who won, I think, was the great Bergson. i read somewhere that the academy almost gave derrida a well-earned prize but then he passed away.

to use kafka as example has always been and is still ludicrous, since almost all his work was published posthumously. almost as much as proust, much of whose work was also published after his death. of course they didn't win.

as to buck, the academy knows they misstepped there.

Clarissa

02-Sep-2009, 22:18

Joyce, Celine, Woolf? Musil?
Not sure many people still read Roger Martin du Gard today though I must say his Les Thibaults books are remarkable. A well deserved Nobel Prize (1937) though, as said, probably not read today.I only read him because someone mentioned Les Thibaults in a TV interview and whetted my appetite.

Bjorn

02-Sep-2009, 22:34

If we're going to list deserved winners who never got it, I'll start with Tolstoy and Twain. Are they somehow lesser authors for not getting this particular award?

e joseph

02-Sep-2009, 22:40

If we're going to list deserved winners who never got it, I'll start with Tolstoy and Twain. Are they somehow lesser authors for not getting this particular award?
Yup.
Hacks! the both of them.

Daniel del Real

02-Sep-2009, 23:04

If we're going to list deserved winners who never got it, I'll start with Tolstoy and Twain. Are they somehow lesser authors for not getting this particular award?

It's easy to see that from 1901 to 1910 the Swedish Academy was new delivering this prize because their awards were very poor and omissions huge.
It's unbeliveable they skip such amazing authors who are still classics and will prevail for so much time in the future: Mark Twain *(1910), Lev Tolstoy (1910), Anton Chekhov (1904), Henrik Ibsen (1906).
* Year of death
With Chekhov is understandable since he died young at age 44, but Ibsen died at 78, Tolstoy 82 and Twain 75.
How could they dismissed him?

Eric

03-Sep-2009, 00:36

Mirabell: "that female Polish poet". Nice put-down, or wind-up. Humour is your forte. But have you ever read any Szymborska? I do hope you're not a misogynist. Half the writing population are women, you know. What will you call this year's winner, when we know? "That male Ruritanian novelist?" Anyway, we'll have to wait for Horace the Hedgehog to utter his winged words outside the ritualistic Swedish Academy, in the narrow ginnels of Stockholm's Old Town.

Mirabell

03-Sep-2009, 00:49

Mirabell: "that female Polish poet". But have you ever read any Szymborska?

I forgot her name, was too lazy to look it up. that's the whole mystery. I have read a volume of her poems in German translation, which I like a lot, by the way. this one

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51WAZN257SL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

Bjorn

03-Sep-2009, 02:28

Anyway, we'll have to wait for Horace the Hedgehog to utter his winged words outside the ritualistic Swedish Academy, in the narrow ginnels of Stockholm's Old Town.
No we won't. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Englund)

Eric

03-Sep-2009, 11:51

Thanks, Mirabell for the information. I too like what I've read of Szymborska, but have borrowed a parallel text Milosz from the library. Will read that first.

Bj?rn, I'd forgotten that Horace has gone on to do better things. The name Peter Englund means nothing to me, beyond what I can read in the Wikipedia article. Funny to have an ex-Trotskyist, ex-military secret policeman, and present-day military historian chairing the Academy. Makes a change from literary specialists. Let's see whether this year's winner comes up to the Academy motto "Snille och smak".

I see from the Wiki that there are only 17 current members of the Academy, 10 of whom were born between 1918 and the late 1930s. Lotta Lotass will be joining this year. Englund, in his early 50s, appears to be the youngest of the team. Lotass (born 1964), who joins on 20th December 2009, will then be the youngest. Has anyone here read anything by Lotass? I haven't yet.

Clarissa

03-Sep-2009, 12:29

Never heard of her but what a name! Googled her but not much information there other than she has a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature. She shouldn't be too parochial!

Bjorn

03-Sep-2009, 12:51

I've read several of Englund's books, and he's an excellent writer, both well- and easily-read - more so in non-fiction than in fiction, though his novel Jag skall dundra isn't half-bad. But it's as a historian that he's in his element. His debut, The Battle That Shook Europe: Poltava And The Birth Of The Russian Empire, is available in English and is definitely recommended. (Also, like Engdahl, he has a very dry sense of humour, but doesn't strike me as nearly as snobbish.)

I've got a few of Lotass' books in my TBR pile. I've heard very good things about her, but I just haven't gotten to her yet.

(Oh, and as previously mentioned (http://www.worldliteratureforum.com/forum/general-discussion/18408-nobel-prize-literature-2009-speculation.html) in this thread, there are in fact 15 active members of the Academy.)

Eric

03-Sep-2009, 13:31

Clarissa, Polish literature is quite a large field. When I first started getting interested in the 1970s, hardly anyone in Britain appeared to take any notice of the literature of the Poles, beyond a few works by Bruno Schulz, Witold Gombrowicz [pronounced: VEET-olt gom-BROH-veetch], and Witkacy [veet-CAT-sy], which had been translated into English, mostly by Americans.

Three Poles won the Nobel before Wislawa Szymborska:

Henryk Sienkiewicz (historical novelist; 1905) [HEN-rick sheng-KYEH-veetch]
Wladyslaw Reymont (novelist; 1924) [vwa-DISS-waff RAY-mont]
Czeslaw Milosz (poet; 1980) [CHESS-waff MEE-wosh]
Wislawa Szymborska (poet; 1996) [veess-WAH-va shim-BOR-ska]

Not very many laureates, given the size of Poland (population 40 million nowadays), but maybe representative. Perhaps all the esses and zeds frighten people away, rather than the subject matter. I read in the paper yesterday, that the Polish economy is the only one actually growing in the EU, incidentally.

I've not read much Szymborska, but enough to know that I like what I read. I can easily find translations in both the ordinary bookshop and library of the small Dutch town where I live. The Dutch are rather good at translation from Polish; there have been several translators devoted to Polish literature, which has born fruit over the years.

I include the pronunciation, as many people stress Polish names wrongly and say, for instance [GOMM-bru-vitch], which is just as wrong as [dee-KENSS] for Charles' (and my own!) surname.

*

Bj?rn, I'm glad someone's read or reading Englund and booty bum [loot ass, geddit?]. I'm rather sceptical about there being 15 active members of the Academy. Turning up to meetings and saying a few words is not the same as being deeply involved in the exhaustive and exhausting reading and ranking process. But maybe I'm underestimating the older members of the Academy. When I met the 82-year-old Lars Ardelius last year, he was a very vigorous figure. So if Malmquist and the rest are equally lively, the decision will get a lot of input.

I'm afraid I took rather a dislike to Horace Engdahl when he used to turn up to PEN meetings in Stockholm in the 1980s. He may have mellowed by now. Though you put your finger on it with the word "snobbish".

When I come over to Sweden some time, I'll get hold of a few books by, for instance, Lotass and Englund. You can buy anything online nowadays, but I like to flick through the book first before buying. So it's likely to be Hedengrens or LundeQ for me, rather than Amazon.

Clarissa

03-Sep-2009, 13:44

Eric,
The 'never heard of her' was for Lotass. But I admit I had never heard of the Polish poetess.

Polish lit., I remember reading Quo Vadis. Not sure it has stood the test of time.

Bruno Schulz - one of my 'to be read' writers that I don't seen to have got round to it.

Ryszard Kapuscinski - his Travels with Herodotus - now there's a book I enjoyed! (Not Nobel Prize material but what a wonderful travel writer!)

hdw

03-Sep-2009, 13:55

You can buy anything online nowadays, but I like to flick through the book first before buying. So it's likely to be Hedengrens or LundeQ for me, rather than Amazon.

I recently got a quote in Sw.kr. from Hedengren's for a couple of books I'd enquired about. What's the best way to send the money? Do I have to go to my bank and ask for a money order in Swedish currency to send through the post?

Harry

Daniel del Real

03-Sep-2009, 17:54

By any chance does anyone has the names of the men in charge of chosing the Nobel Prize this year? It would be interesting to check their backgrounds and opinions.

Bjorn

03-Sep-2009, 18:14

By any chance does anyone has the names of the men in charge of chosing the Nobel Prize this year? It would be interesting to check their backgrounds and opinions.
No big secret, and it's been mentioned several times in the thread: Swedish Academy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_academy)

Eric

04-Sep-2009, 10:58

I see, Clarissa; I stand corrected. But I found you out about not having heard about Szymborska either. Never mind, you've learnt two new names. I've not read any Lotass, but I'm looking forward to doing so. As I read Swedish, I don't have to wait ten years for some Brit or Yank to translate her.

I started Quo Vadis decades ago. But unlike the Mastermind host, I started but never finished. This galloping knights type of historical novel didn't appeal to me at the time, nor does it now.

Bruno Schulz is a brilliant short-story writer, evoking in a magical way everyday life in the shtetl Drohobycz (Ukrainian: Drogobych) in what was then Poland, between the wars. There are two collections of stories: The Sanatorium Under the Sign of the Hour Glass and Street of Crocodiles / Cinnamon Shops. The title of this latter book varies between the American and British publications, but both collections were translated by Celina Wieniewska, maybe never by anyone else into English.

The title of the former book in Polish is shorter, Sanatorium pod klepsydra, but the English-language publisher clearly wanted to get every nuance into the title which refers to the British, Czech, Polish, etc., way of giving pubs and certain other buildings strange names (e.g. The King's Head, The Nag's Head, The Rose and Crown, The Black Horse), to be read on a wooden sign above the door. This time, it's a sanatorium that has such a sign.

I've never read any Kapuscinski (or Herodotus, for that matter).

*

Harry, I tend to use online banking for foreign transactions and send the money directly online from my bank account to the bookshop's. Then you don't have to faff around with exchange rates, but let the bank do it for you. I've done this with Estonia, maybe Sweden, plus the USA and the UK (as I live abroad). If you are cagey about online bank transactions, then you'll have to ask your bank for an alternative method.

I like Hedengren's bookshop in Stockholm, not least because a pleasant and helpful Finland-Swedish woman works at the information desk there. They also stock literary magazines, which is nice when browsing, and they have a respectable English and German section. It's much more of a real bookshop than, for instance, Akademibokhandeln, which has the atmosphere of a book supermarket, and where bestsellers dominate. LundeQ in Uppsala has improved this decade and is spread around the upper floor of an arcade. Generally speaking, Sweden has good bookshops and public libraries.

*

Daniel, the Nobel committee does not consist only of men. They have the odd woman: the Catholic author Birgitta Trotzig, religious author Gunnel Vallquist, novelist Kerstin Ekman, poets Kristina Lugn and Katarina Frostenson, plus the forthcoming Lotass. But the ladies are still in the minority (one third), despite Sweden's being a hotbed of gender equality. It still seems to be a bit of a gentlemen's smoking room set-up, despite an element of renewal. The members of the Academy are rather pompously called "De Aderton", i.e. The Eighteen.

Bjorn

04-Sep-2009, 13:41

I've not read any Lotass, but I'm looking forward to doing so.
The book I've seen recommended most often is Tredje flykthastigheten. I'll see if I can squeeze it into my September schedule and report back.

I started Quo Vadis decades ago. But unlike the Mastermind host, I started but never finished. This galloping knights type of historical novel didn't appeal to me at the time, nor does it now.
I half-liked what I read of it before I abandoned it last year, after finding out that the translation I'd found was abridged. Still on the fence about whether I'm going to read the real thing.

I've never read any Kapuscinski (or Herodotus, for that matter).
You should. He's brilliant (Kapuscinski, that is). Though I'll confess I've only read one of his, Imperium. Together with Gombrowicz, he's one of the Polish writers I've seen mentioned as should-have-gotten-the-Nobel candidates quite often, but of course it hasn't gone to non-fiction writers in a very long time now...

hdw

04-Sep-2009, 14:16

Re your Pol. Drohobycz/Ukr. Drogobych, I'm going out on a limb here, ("a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", and all that) but shouldn't it be vice versa? The Poles like their hard g's, but Ukrainian is full of breathy h's, e.g. Hrˇehorˇ is I think their equivalent to Pol. Grzegorz and Russian Grigori.

I'm not into online banking so will ponder how much I really want these Swedish books. I have fond memories of Sahlstr?ms Bokhandel in Link?ping with its resident mynah bird whose cheery "Goddag goddag!" greeted you on entering the shop.

I thought Kerstin Ekman had left the Nobel committee, but maybe she rejoined. It's chaired by Per W?stberg, who was at the Edinburgh International Book Festival which has just finished for another year. He gave me my first translation commissions back in the 80s, and I saw him at a literary reception hosted by the Swedish Embassy cultural bods at the Book Festival HQ, but couldn't easily get to him through the jostling throng without stepping on people's feet and spilling their drinks for them (something for which I have previous form).

Harry

Bjorn

04-Sep-2009, 14:51

I thought Kerstin Ekman had left the Nobel committee, but maybe she rejoined. It's chaired by Per W?stberg, who was at the Edinburgh International Book Festival which has just finished for another year.
No, she's still out. And the permanent secretary is Peter Englund, not Per W?stberg.

I don't know why I keep nitpicking in this thread. It's just that there seems to be an unusual amount of incorrect information floating around about this particular prize, and it just seems unnecessary. Sorry for getting stuck in Domineering Schoolmarm 2.0 mode.

Eric

04-Sep-2009, 19:15

Harry, despite your being perfectly right about Polish hard-ons and Ukrainian limp voiced gee-strings, this is the right way round regarding Bruno Schulz (not: Schultz, like many Americans, bar Charlie). So you may have sawn off the branch.

I get the impression that the Polish name Drohobycz was, owing to the "h", which does indeed represent a voiced guttural like the French "r", taken from the Ukrainian originally, not vice-versa. The English "g" is the transliteration of that voiced sound in Ukrainian. Even in Russian, what is written as a "g" varies between the north of Russia (a hard "g") to the south (a voiced "g"). This contributes to my comments as to why transliteration is so difficult. Nonetheless, in the 1970s, my Polish girlfriend pointed out that the written "ch" was different to the "h" in Polish, but she couldn't remember the difference. When written, it's the latter that is the voiced "g" sound.

I have never been to Lean Sherping. But it would be charming if they still had a Strine miner bird, complete wiith helmet and lamp, who kept saying "Gooday, gooday!".

As for the Nobel, their website (which I hope is updated often) is at:

De Aderton (http://www.svenskaakademien.se/web/De_Aderton.aspx)

This crafty website has the cop-out phrase that:

Kerstin Ekman deltar inte aktivt i Akademiens arbete.

Which no doubt translates as "K E isn't joining in 'cos she's sulking". But they won't actually say she's done a bunk, because the Eighteen are co-opted for life. The Wiki suggests that Bj?rn is right about Peter Englund ("st?ndig sekreterare") being in the chair. Maybe Per W?stberg takes over on occasions.

I like a bit of nitpicking, now and again. It is indeed pedantic, but you've got to get your facts right. Otherwise debates go round in circles.

miercuri

04-Sep-2009, 20:56

Does anyone know if there's a list of betting odds available this year? :)

Daniel del Real

04-Sep-2009, 22:38

Does anyone know if there's a list of betting odds available this year? :)

Generally the Brittish bet site Ladbrokes publish a list but I don't think it's already available. It should be in the next few days since it's just a month before the award is announced.

Stewart

04-Sep-2009, 23:22

I've just logged in to my Ladbrokes account and had a look at what things they are taking bets on. The Nobel isn't listed...yet. No doubt, closer the time, we will get the same misspelt list of writers they trot out each year, with a few dead cases removed.

Daniel del Real

04-Sep-2009, 23:26

Eric

05-Sep-2009, 09:04

This was the 2006 betting list. A couple have died, and Pamuk won, but otherwise this lot seems a likely list of bettables for this year too:

Orhan Pamuk
Adonis
Ryszard Kapuscinski
Joyce Carol Oates
Philip Roth
Inger Christensen
Ko Un
Thomas Transtromer
Amos Oz
Claudio Magris
Hugo Claus
Antonio Tabucchi
Milan Kundera
Cees Nooteboom
Haruki Murakami

Though the team (now under Englund not Engdahl) may come up with a writer no one has ever heard of, as happens every few years. Only a few people would then win a lot of money. So, close your eyes with a map of the world in front of you, pick a country with your finger. Find their tenth most famous author. And bet on him or her. And then place your bet at Ladbroke's. A sure winner!

peter_d

05-Sep-2009, 23:33

So, close your eyes with a map of the world in front of you, pick a country with your finger. Find their tenth most famous author. And bet on him or her. And then place your bet at Ladbroke's. A sure winner!

I like the idea of picking a country with your finger. I tried it and picked the Indian ocian at first instance, but the second time I picked Brazil. Who's their 10th famous author? If, by coincidence, you would pick The Netherlands with your finger, Jeroen Brouwers would be the 10th famous writer of the country (according to the Canon of Dutch literature, 2001. Of the authors still alive he's number 9, but for me young author Tommy Wieringa has passed him to be somewhere in the top 10). Born in 1940 Brouwers is heading towards the age of being nobl?able. He has written a substantial shelf full of books, novels and essays being his main genre. The only novel translated in English is Sunken Red, about his experiences in a Japanese warcamp in the Dutch Indies were he grew up. It really shook me when I read it as a teenager.

Since his nephew Jan is my direct colleague, I'm only one handshake away from this author. So I would be positively surprised if your prophecy would come true, Eric.

My name is red

05-Sep-2009, 23:59

Though the team (now under Englund not Engdahl) may come up with a writer no one has ever heard of, as happens every few years. Only a few people would them win a lot of money. So, close your eyes with a map of the world in front of you, pick a country with your finger. Find their tenth most famous author. And bet on him or her. And then place your bet at Ladbroke's. A sure winner!
But Last year it was Le Clezio so i think that was it for the next few years.I have a sense that this year a famous one will get the prize.

Stiffelio

06-Sep-2009, 09:26

I'm new to this Forum and I find this thread quite interesting. It's always a big guess each year as to who will win the Nobel prize for literature. The Academy are most of the times unpredictable and sometimes motivated by a non-exclusvely literary agenda. Come to speculate about this year's winner, I think it's been quite a while since a Spanish speaking writer has won it. Mario Vargas Llosa is, IMHO, the greatest living Spanish language writer and his Nobel prize is long overdue. If they stick to sheer literature they should give him the nod once and for all. Having said this, however, the Academy may still hold a grudge against him for having 'deserted' the left long time ago and being valiantly vocal about it.

Another strong candidate I'd like to see as winner some day is Italian Antonio Tabucchi, a fantastic and committed writer, a true genius (unlike the last Italian Nobel, the clown Dario Fo, whose choice was a bad joke to the world).

My next candidate would be Albanian writer Ismael Kadar?. I'm sure he'll get it some day. It's just a matter of his vast work being translated into languages the Academy can read in (his complete oeuvre has been well served in French and Spanish)

I doubt they'll award it to yet another writer in the English language any time soon, but if and when they do so my choices would be Alice Munro (the best short story writer since Chekhov!!) and Cormac McCarthy.

But my bet is that 2009 will see crowned yet another unknown or little known writer from outside the mainstream countries.

Clarissa

06-Sep-2009, 20:03

I would like to point out that Le Cl?zio was famous in France - and had been for many years - long before he was awarded the Nobel. The same goes for Jelinek. The Nobel Prize gave them an international audience. I know that I had never heard of Mahfouz before his Nobel but I am sure he was a well-known author in Egypt.
The notion of unknown author has connotations of the starving writer in his attic (shades of Chatterton here), but it is not because we have not heard of someone that they are not famous in their own country.

hdw

06-Sep-2009, 20:15

Nobody seems to have raised the question of how objective and fair-minded the current crop of Nobel judges are, which will obviously have a bearing on who they eventually choose. I don't know myself, so I can't say, and I trust they are all open-minded and generous lovers of literature pure and simple - but I believe that in the past old Artur Lundqvist - a leading modernist poet and a long-time member of the panel - had very fixed ideas of who was and who wasn't suitable, and he had a particular animus against Graham Greene, partly because he wasn't in any sense a modernist or experimental writer, and also because his Catholicism was unacceptable to an atheistic free-thinking Scandinavian liberal. So Greene became one of the ?lite band of major writers never to receive the ultimate accolade.

Harry

Eric

07-Sep-2009, 01:38

Peter D: the Indian Ocean has a few islands. But Brazil is more fruitful. My profound research came up with the following ten living Brazilian authors:

Paulo Coelho [x 9]
Jo?o Almino

I know nothing about this latter author, just found out from the internet that he's written a trilogy. This is the way the Nobel committee should work: by randomicity and serendipity. (NB: Alexandra Coelho Ahndoril is not a Brazilian author; merely a Swede cashing in on her co?ncidental surname.) One article says:

O escritor e diplomata Jo?o Almino ampliou sua Trilogia de Bras?lia, composta pelos romances “Id?ias para onde passar o fim do mundo” (indicado ao Pr?mio Jabuti, e ganhador de pr?mio do Instituto Nacional do Livro e do Pr?mio Candango de Literatura), “Samba-enredo” e “As cinco esta??es do amor” – que recebeu o pr?mio Casa de las Am?ricas em 2003.

So if Englund has any sense, he's persuade all the rest to let this chap win. Saves a lot of agonising and reading.

*
As for Jeroen Brouwers, I remember standing on the upper balcony of the Stockholm Public Library, choosing Dutch books and coming across some morbid tome about lots of authors that committed suicide when young (Chatterton being one of them, gracing the cover). Strangely enough, Brouwers himself (the author of this piece of literary morbidity) has made it to the age of about 70 without doing himself in. So do ask his nephew about his opinion of his uncle's psyche.

Seriously though, I do acknowledge that the Japanese concentration camp may have wrecked some of the more delicate parts of the memories which many untraumatised people have from a happy childhood. Everyone remembers the Nazis and their camps, but many British readers may not be aware of the nasty things the Japanese did to their prisoners during that same war. I wonder how many Brits and Americans have read Sunken Red.

*

As Clarissa points out, Le Cl?zio was very famous in France, even before the Nobel; strange that the Brits across la Manche, or Yanks across the Pond, could think of this Frog as being an obscure winner.

*

As for Spanish-speakers, there have indeed been few these last few years. But 1989 and 1990 were Spanish years. Maybe Spanish citizen Mario Vargas Llosa will win it this time round.

*

I shall attempt an answer to Harry's rhetorical question: how on Earth can a bunch of about seven Swedes (the active ones on the committee), i.e. from a smallish, averagish, richish northern European country, be anything approaching objective, when half of them only read Swedish and English, and a bit of German if you're lucky? I bet you there are people on the committee now who would also react like the man whose girlfriend Graham Greene is said to have nicked. It wasn't Greene's Catholicism, it was his successful randiness that angered Lundkvist. But if Harry's right, Birgitta Trotzig and others of her Papist ilk will never win the prize. Never! Never! as the Reverend Ian Paisley would have it. And Trotzig's on the committee herself. Remember the Martinson & Johnson Affair?

The Nobel committee is just another ?litist literary clublet, no better or worse than those of similar type in other countries. But they have the difficult task of allotting about a million dollars without upsetting anyone, including such democrats as the Butch Russian Judo Icon, Hugo the Chav, and the Tripolitanian Lawn-Camper.

peter_d

07-Sep-2009, 08:40

As for Jeroen Brouwers, I remember standing on the upper balcony of the Stockholm Public Library, choosing Dutch books and coming across some morbid tome about lots of authors that committed suicide when young (Chatterton being one of them, gracing the cover). Strangely enough, Brouwers himself (the author of this piece of literary morbidity) has made it to the age of about 70 without doing himself in. So do ask his nephew about his opinion of his uncle's psyche.

I went through Brouwers' De laatste deur (The last door) about suicide among Dutch language authors. What I found interesting about it, is its conclusion: hardly any of the mentioned authors that have committed suicide is still very appreciated or well known nowadays. The vast majority of them are only footnotes in Dutch literary history. Suicide is not the unavoidable end of the 'forlorn' genius. There's nothing romantic about it. Maybe that's why Brouwers hasn't chosen to 'do himself in yet'. It seems, though, that he has produced more volumes on this subject. His interest stems from a close friend of his who hang herself.

Eric

07-Sep-2009, 13:37

The comment about Brouwers' not having committed suicide is not my own but came from an older gentleman I taught Swedish for a while and who lives in Buitenveldert. He appreciated Brouwers' books a lot, but thought nevertheless that he was a gloomy soul.

Strange that he wrote such a thick book about unknown authors. And I'm pretty sure that the first edition had the British author Chatterton on the cover, a very famous painting:

http://www.intofineart.com/upload/file-admin/images/Henry%20Wallis1.jpg (http://www.intofineart.com/htmlimg/image-00444.html)

Of course there's nothing romantic about suicide. It is usually an act of desperation, or the result of not being able to get away from memories, as with Paul Celan and Primo Levi.

One intriguing aspect of Brouwers is his love-hate relationship with the Netherlands and Flanders, becoming Flanders' greatest Dutchman.

He seems to have written lots of books, but apart from Sunken Red, nothing seems to have appeared in English. Why not, I wonder?

Clarissa

07-Sep-2009, 14:05

French writers seem to top themselves when they feel their intellectual or physical faculties are giving way.
Romain Gary, Henri de Montherlant, Roger St?phane, to name just three 20th century suicides.

phoenixzeze

07-Sep-2009, 20:54

In his last interview, Adonis, the Syrian poet said that it is impossible at this phase for the Arab culture to get to the stage of obtaining a Nobel prize, because, sadly enough, it is in the phase of extinction. Though he was nominated several times for it, he suspects that he will ever get it. because of the status of the Arabic literature which has not achieved much since a long long time. ( I agree with his statement of the Arab culture, but I think that he must be set off that whole culture, he is just amazing).........

From a political point of view, I think that, though Adonis deserves this prize more than any poet, it will not be given to him.
He is just not anti-Arab enough to get it.............

Stewart

07-Sep-2009, 21:35

My profound research came up with the following ten living Brazilian authors:

Paulo Coelho [x 9]
Jo?o Almino

Some Milton Hatoum titles are available in English. Rubem Fonseca, likewise.

Autran Dourado has had some works Englished, about twenty years back, which have fallen out of print.

Eric

07-Sep-2009, 21:56

Talking about Brazilian literature, I found an interesting article:

Brazilian Literature: Lost Without Translation - Brazilmax.com (http://www.brazilmax.com/news3.cfm/tborigem/fe_artcultmus/id/39)

*

If Brouwers wins the Nobel, he might stop grumbling about money. I spent a pleasant hour under a parasol in the sun this afternoon on a square called Het Hof, which means the Court in the royal sense, reading one of his books. The name of the square chimed in with the book I was reading, which is a book-length plaint about why Brouwers refused a Dutch book prize because the money wasn't enough (only 16,000 euros for a life's work). Brouwers writes very entertainingly, but does suffer from the Mijnheer Peeperkorn propensity to lecture in a rather bumptious and self-referential way.

*

Good question: why does Arab literature have a relatively low profile in Europe? Aren't there enough translators, or don't the books get written in the first place? Is Adonis the same Adonis who is a minister in the Brown government in Britain, and a lord, I wonder, doubling up as a poet?

Stewart

07-Sep-2009, 22:08

Good question: why does Arab literature have a relatively low profile in Europe? Aren't there enough translators, or don't the books get written in the first place?

A lot of Arabic to English translations seem to be published by the American University Press in Cairo (http://www.aucpress.com/) (some titles (http://www.aucpress.com/showCategory.aspx?Categoryid=6)) which don't see distribution in Europe. That's recently been a-changing, with the set up of Arabia Books (http://www.arabiabooks.co.uk/) - between AUC and Haus - in the UK, which puts out AUC titles. Ten a year, apparently.

Couple that with the recent set-up of the International Prize for Arabic Fiction (http://www.arabicfiction.org/en/index.html) and we have a showcase for contemporary Arabian works. The inaugural winner, Bahaa Taher's Sunset Oasis, has just recently been published in the UK. So, if Arabic literature has been on the slide translation-wise, it can be optimistic at the possibility of renewed interest.

A couple of wars in and around the Middle East at the moment no doubt play some part in generating interest in that part of the world too.

Eric

08-Sep-2009, 09:58

The only British mag I know that deals with Arabic literature is Banipal. Intriguingly, they have an introductory article on the online website about immigrant authors from Arabic-speaking countries writing in Dutch! As BlogSpy mentioned. Here is the website:

Banipal (UK) - Home (http://www.banipal.co.uk/)

So we have the unusual situation that Arabic authors writing in Dutch have had a theme issue (Number 35) devoted to them, after excerpts have been translated from Dutch into English.

Daniel del Real

08-Sep-2009, 23:14

Mirabell

08-Sep-2009, 23:22

I don't know. From what I hear and read myself, Goytisolo is fuckin great.

Daniel del Real

08-Sep-2009, 23:28

Don't like Goytisolo, his use of language it's too complex without even having a purpose, although it could be a perfect fit for the weird academy since Delibes is too old and Marias too young.

Mirabell

08-Sep-2009, 23:30

how not a purpose...? tell you what. I'm rereading his books anyway, I'll review them and we'll have it out then. ;)

alik-vit

09-Sep-2009, 11:07

Delibes is too old and Marias too young. but Huan Marse not so young. He can be good contonder! And Alvaro Pombo too. (but for me this latest is terrible dull.

Daniel del Real

09-Sep-2009, 17:51

how not a purpose...? tell you what. I'm rereading his books anyway, I'll review them and we'll have it out then. ;)

Good! I need to read more Goytisolo, I'm trying to find his second novel Duelo en el Para?so (Duel in Paradise) which they've recommended me so much. Basically I couldn?t stand the Reivindicaci?n del Conde Don Julian (Count Julian). Which ones have you read M?

but Huan Marse not so young. He can be good contonder! And Alvaro Pombo too. (but for me this latest is terrible dull.

Yeah, Mars? is in a good "Nobel age" and he just won the Cervantes prize last year so he is in the eye of the hurricane now. I've read two of his novels, one I liked and the other one did not.
Haven't read Pombo.

Guillaume Barkero

14-Sep-2009, 06:15

Delibes would be a great Literature Nobel, but my bet is for Thomas Pynchon. Is Tabucci alive? If so...

Daniel del Real

14-Sep-2009, 21:44

Delibes would be a great Literature Nobel, but my bet is for Thomas Pynchon. Is Tabucci alive? If so...

Yes he is, and in a very suitable age to get the award: 66. Not too young, not too old. I'd love to see him recognized by his short stories that are magnificent.

By the way, no bets still on Ladbrokes, anyone why they're taking so long?

Ladril

15-Sep-2009, 17:52

Peter D: the Indian Ocean has a few islands. But Brazil is more fruitful. My profound research came up with the following ten living Brazilian authors:

Paulo Coelho [x 9]
Jo?o Almino

Well, you may want to save a spot there for Rubem Fonseca (unlike Coelho, he actually is a good writer). For the moment he seems to be well known in the Iberosphere* only.

* Latin America, Portugal and Spain.

Daniel del Real

15-Sep-2009, 21:15

Well, you may want to save a spot there for Rubem Fonseca (unlike Coelho, he actually is a good writer). For the moment he seems to be well known in the Iberosphere* only.

* Latin America, Portugal and Spain.

He is a good writer, full of credentials and awards in the Iberosphere as you say. In Europe, besides Spain, I don't think he is well known.
I've only read a novel called August, but he's mainly a short story writer, so I need to dive into his short stories to have a better perspective of his works.

Guillaume Barkero

15-Sep-2009, 21:20

Well, none of you mentioned Lobo Antunes, that's a shame. And Coelho, well... (The prize is for writers, I guess.)

Daniel del Real

15-Sep-2009, 21:42

Well, none of you mentioned Lobo Antunes, that's a shame. And Coelho, well... (The prize is for writers, I guess.)

You're right, he's also a perfect fit to get the Nobel Prize. He's way good althought sometimes he can exasperate you with his baroque narrative style. He writes beatifully with his mix of metaphores and images, but sometimes he abuses it. Anyway, he deserves it.

Stiffelio

16-Sep-2009, 01:12

Eric, Daniel: regarding Nobel worthy Brazilian writers, N?lida Pi??n comes to my mind. She's really good. Perhaps she hasn't been very prolific but The Republic Of Dreams was an outstanding novel.

liehtzu

16-Sep-2009, 03:18

Eric, Daniel: regarding Nobel worthy Brazilian writers, N?lida Pi??n comes to my mind. She's really good. Perhaps she hasn't been very prolific but The Republic Of Dreams was an outstanding novel.

Interesting comment. Pinon got a bit of discussion around here earlier when I got a secondhand copy of Republic of Dreams (being as completely unfamiliar with the author as I was with the book). I haven't read it yet, unfortunately (too much in the stack, sigh!) but looks like a good one. I also started a Pinon thread that no one responded to, so feel free to add anything to the tidbits I placed there.

She would also be a good choice for the Academy - allowing them their beloved who-the-fuck-is-that scramble from all the major English-language presses (I just know they get a kick out of that), while awarding an author from a huge and so far completely Nobel-free country - and a woman in the bargain! But I wonder if Pinon's problem is that she's been under the radar too long. Certainly all her English-language translations are well out-of-print. It would be a devilish interesting choice, though.

LRiley

16-Sep-2009, 03:45

Think the Canadian angle worthy of looking at with Michael Ondaatje, Margaret Atwood, Alice Monro, Anne Carson.

Elias Khoury is a great writer. So is Antonio Lobo Antunes. Haven't seen either mentioned here yet. Eduardo Galeano?

If it were all up to me though it would probably be Nicanor Parra.

Daniel del Real

16-Sep-2009, 16:53

Interesting comment. Pinon got a bit of discussion around here earlier when I got a secondhand copy of Republic of Dreams (being as completely unfamiliar with the author as I was with the book). I haven't read it yet, unfortunately (too much in the stack, sigh!) but looks like a good one. I also started a Pinon thread that no one responded to, so feel free to add anything to the tidbits I placed there.

She would also be a good choice for the Academy - allowing them their beloved who-the-fuck-is-that scramble from all the major English-language presses (I just know they get a kick out of that), while awarding an author from a huge and so far completely Nobel-free country - and a woman in the bargain! But I wonder if Pinon's problem is that she's been under the radar too long. Certainly all her English-language translations are well out-of-print. It would be a devilish interesting choice, though.

She's not that under the radar as you think. She has been awarded with two of the most prestigious prizes in Spanish Language, The Juan Rulfo prize in 1995 and the Prince of Asturias in Literature in 2005. In Europe of course she must have been a lesser known author. I haven't read anything by her, but it sure is on my TBR mental list.

Daniel del Real

16-Sep-2009, 16:56

If it were all up to me though it would probably be Nicanor Parra.

Ahh the good old Chilean Poet, Nicanor Parra. I'd loved to see this happens but unfortunately I see it almost impossible.

LRiley

16-Sep-2009, 19:02

Ahh the good old Chilean Poet, Nicanor Parra. I'd loved to see this happens but unfortunately I see it almost impossible.

Let's just say that if the world were perfect as it should be--Parra would win. He is in his 90's though and I don't think it's likely though I do believe he still gets around pretty good. He is my favorite (anti) poet of all time.

Flower

17-Sep-2009, 18:52

Just saw on the news today, that a danish literature proffessor has mentioned Bob Dylan.

Bjorn

17-Sep-2009, 19:40

Just saw on the news today, that a danish literature proffessor has mentioned Bob Dylan.
Someone has mentioned Bob Dylan every year since 1993 or so. That doesn't change the fact that he'll never get it. :cool:

I'd never heard of Pi??n or Fonseca before. Thanks for the tips.

Scott89119

18-Sep-2009, 05:15

And I don't want them to cave to the "Give it to Roth already" pressure.

I would LOVE it if they caved into that pressure.

alik-vit

18-Sep-2009, 13:21

ladbrokes awake: Ladbrokes Home | Sports Betting, Poker, Casino, Bingo & Betting Games (http://www.ladbrokes.com/lbr_portal) At first time in list we can see Luis Goytisola! And in third place!

Eric

18-Sep-2009, 13:51

Bob Dylan is a musical icon, and deserves many prizes. But I think that giving the Nobel for literature would be a disastrous mistake, as it would open the floodgates to people who've written lyrics for folk and pop music, creating yet another genre to be considered.

Literature is, in my opinion, novels, stories, plays, essays and a bit of Dada?st in-betweenishness. But the lyrics of songs are like the librettos of operas. I don't think that too many librettists have won the Nobel. Nor would Jacques Brel, Bulat Okudzhava, Edith Piaf, Lennon & McCartney have been the right sort of candidates although they were great lyric-writers.

Odense-based Professor of Literature Anne-Marie Mai is not really precise or convincing when she says:

Hans digtning har et st?rkt element af myter i sig. Han tager fat i hverdagssproget og form?r at skabe nogle fantastiske billeder, at v?re sanselig og ramme utrolig pr?cist med sproget.

In other words:

His writing has a powerful element of myth. He takes hold of everyday language and manages to create fantastic imagery, to be perceptive (/sensual) and use language in a very precise way.

But he's still not really a poet pur sang, but a writer and singer of lyrics set to music.

Professor Mai is getting worked up about Nobel choices being "puritanical", and she has a downer on "?litism". The fact that Odense Univerity just happens to be having a Dylan seminar in a few days' time suggests she's simply out to make publicity for that.

The article Flower saw is presumably: Derfor skal Bob Dylan have Nobelpris - Fyens Stiftstidende - Underholdning (http://www.fyens.dk/article/1323621:Underholdning--Derfor-skal-Bob-Dylan-have-Nobelpris)

Stiffelio

18-Sep-2009, 14:05

ladbrokes awake: Ladbrokes Home | Sports Betting, Poker, Casino, Bingo & Betting Games (http://www.ladbrokes.com/lbr_portal) At first time in list we can see Luis Goytisola! And in third place!

That link asks me to register and it's for actual online betting, mostly on sports and casino games. Can you gives us the exact link to the Nobel Prize odds?

alik-vit

18-Sep-2009, 14:23

Ladbrokes Home | Sports Betting, Poker, Casino, Bingo & Betting Games (http://www.ladbrokes.com/)
sports
specials
awards
2009 Nobel literature prize

saliotthomas

18-Sep-2009, 14:38

sports
specials
awards
2009 Nobel literature prize

The cheek of the guy.:D

An a wet t-shirt contest for the female nominee?

promtbr

18-Sep-2009, 15:11

Fuentes & Achebe @ 51 ? Oates tied with Roth? No Labunes or Skevoreky? Dunno bout this list... Fuentes odds would be a sweet payoff...If I was a bettin' man...

I do like Djebar. She IS good, but not much of an ouevre yet.

I wonder how much they pay the guy who puts together this list..(I hope not much)

---

peter_d

18-Sep-2009, 17:44

About Dylan:

I don't know... I'm a huge Dylan fan. Does poetry disqualify as soon as a melody is put to it? Jokerman, Mr. Tambourine Man, It's Allright Ma I'm only bleeding. It's all great great poetry in my view. But the Nobel? It just doesn't feel right...

About Ladbrokes:

WHERE'S KADARE for god's sake? Have they gone out of their minds? How can they be so offensive...

Flower

18-Sep-2009, 19:53

Eric,
I have not read this article you link to!
She was on the news after returning from the usa, where she told about the students reactions to her suggestion.

I only wrote this as I had never heard of any such suggestion before, not because I agree with her.
There are prizes for musicians and there are prizes for writers, and somehow it would not feel right if the Nobel Literature prize was given to a musician. Thats just how I feel.

Daniel del Real

18-Sep-2009, 20:13

Ok this list doesn't make sense at all in many ways.

First of all the date is wrong. Although there is no certain date , the most probable is October 8th, or maybe one week later. There's no way they are going to give in Oct 1st.

Then, Luis Goytisolo (by the way is not Goytisola)? and as 3rd? This doesn't make any sense. His brother Juan Goytisolo, obviously the most known of the three brothers (only two alive) is not even in the list. I thinks this is a mistake.

Fuentes 50/1 chances are ridiculous. He must be way ahead on the list.

I agree with Peter, where is Ismail Kadar?? He must be in the top 10 contenders. Lobo Antunes and Javier Mar?as are huge omissions also.

Atiq Rahimi? Ok, he has only published 4 books, he's only 47, and last year was awarded to someone who writes in french? Who's the idiot that is going to bet for him? 16/1 you gotta be kidding.

And what the hell happened this year for Dylan to advance from 150/1 last year, to 25/1 this year. Did he publish an amazing work which I'm not aware of it? I frankly think is stupid they even put him in a list of contenders, as stupid as it is to simply mention Bono's name for the Peacer Prize.

Bjorn

18-Sep-2009, 20:16

Here's a short (and not very up-to-date) history of Dylan's nominations for the Nobel Prize.

Bob Dylan Nobel Page (http://expectingrain.com/dok/art/nobel/index.html)

Apparently, it was Allen Ginsberg's idea. Huh.

Dylan is a major American Bard & ministrel of the XX Century, whose words have influenced many generations throughout the world. He deserves a Nobel Prize in recognition of his mighty and universal powers.
If you say so, Allen. I tend to side with Eric in this case: Dylan's a giant, and he deserves every award there is... in music. Giving him the literature prize would be a bit like giving him a lifetime achievement award at the Oscars just because he's dabbled in acting now and then (very badly, at that).

Daniel del Real

18-Sep-2009, 21:27

I was double cheking the Ladbrokes list and there appeared a couple of names I haven't even heard about:

Vassilis Aleksakis
Adam Zagajewski
Eeva Kilpi
F. Sionil Jose
Kjell Askildsen
Rosalind Belben

Anyone familiarized with any of them? (some of them are not even available in wiki)

LRiley

18-Sep-2009, 22:11

Zagajewski is a Polish poet. He won the Neustadt Prize (prize sponsored by this site I believe--?) a few years ago. I have one of his books--'Without end'. It's pretty good--he wouldn't be at the top of my list though.

Mirabell

18-Sep-2009, 22:11

Bjorn

18-Sep-2009, 22:28

Eeva Kilpi is a Finnish poet. Kjell Askildsen is a Norwegian short story writer.

I'm guessing that Ladbrokes are basing their odds partly on who's won Swedish literature prizes recently; Askildsen won the Swedish Academy's Nordic Prize this year, and Kilpi won the Nils Ferlin award 2 years ago. Of course, that may mean absolutely diddley-squat in the Nobel discussions, and Ladbrokes' list is, of course, nothing but wild guesses.

promtbr

18-Sep-2009, 22:30

I have Philipine novelist F. Sionil Jose's Dusk..Haven't read it bit it looks pretty interesting.

Stiffelio

19-Sep-2009, 04:36

About Ladbrokes:

WHERE'S KADARE for god's sake? Have they gone out of their minds? How can they be so offensive...

I agree with you......where's Kadare? It proves that those are not credible bets. I think somebody made the list up to lure add-on bets. C'mon some names are ridiculous....Maya Angelou?? Give me a break!

Eric

19-Sep-2009, 13:36

Kjell Askildsen (born 1929) is Norwegian as Bj?rn points out. I first heard of the Finnish author Eeva Kilpi (born 1928) about 30-odd years ago, I bought her erotickish novel "Tamara" in both Finnish and Swedish, with grand plans to read them together to get the most out of the novel. Alas, I've still not read her. But if she wins the prize, I might.

I'd never heard of the Filipino author F Sionel Jos? (born 1924) before, nor the Greek author Vassilis Aleksakis (born 1943), nor the British author Rosalind Belben (born 1941).

Adam Zagajewski (born 1945) is a major Polish poet and has been translated into English. He's the youngest, "only" 64 years old! But they often give the prize to older authors, so maybe he's too young, after all. Some of the oldies may stand a better chance. A plus point for Zagajewski is that he won the Neustadt, as L. Riley points out. That is a fine prize that, unlike the Nobel, changes its jury every time it's awarded.

But Ladbrokes loves all the profitable speculation, no doubt.

I've never read any Kadare. Which of his books would you recommend? I see that about a dozen (!) of his books are available in English, which gives people a good chance to choose and examine his writings. If he wins, the bookshops Europe-wide will be full of him. Then finding a novel of his will be easy. As with Kundera, there is a (minor) dispute as to how much he compromised with the authorities, this time the Albanian ones. But I doubt if that would stop him winning the Nobel.

Despite Ladbrokes, Kadare does look like a likely candidate.

Eric

20-Sep-2009, 08:19

Daniel del Real mentions on another thread how disappointed he is each year when the winner is announced.

While the Estonian author Jaan Kross was still alive (he died two years ago), I used to watch the telly on that fateful Thursday in October with bated breath. My horse could win the race (to use Ladbrokes terminology)! Kross was a hot candidate in the early 1990s. After that, his star began to wane. In one of his own novels (Professor Martens Departure) he pre-empts his own failure to win the prize by describing how the Professor Martens of the title, a legal expert, fails to win the Nobel Peace Prize back in 1905, when he was a candidate.

Every year, I too was disappointed, yet relieved that I wouldn't be asked to translate a novel by the winner in indecent haste by a publisher frantic for a bestseller. Translators need time to produce good material and after the Nobel is announced, there is a hideous scramble to get as many of his or her books out very quickly. Because as often as not, there is no mass market for a Nobel winner. So interest will wane within six months. And the publishers want to make profits while the going is good.

Dana

21-Sep-2009, 03:08

Interesting Ladbrokes list, but as usual it fails to mention the two American writers who most merit genuine consideration for this honor and who are rarely if ever mentioned: Ursula K. LeGuin and W.S. Merwin.

Mirabell

21-Sep-2009, 03:35

W.S. Merwin.

uh. no. ashbery's still alive. if you're gonna pick a white male american poet, you can't bypass ashbery.

Dana

21-Sep-2009, 03:44

Ashbery's oeuvre doesn't have the political, ecological, and regionalist bent of Merwin's. Ashbery is a great poet, but Merwin is more of a Nobel candidate.

Samuel Johnson

21-Sep-2009, 13:40

I think the academy will choose either a poet or an East European writer this time.
East European since Mr. Engdahl (who still has a great influence on the prize despite he is no longer permanent secretary) seems to see Europe as the center of world literature and Eastern Europe just seems right with many good writers and a turbulent and interesting 20th century history. There will be a poet sooner or later. Trust me. The academy has become over flooded by poets lately and it has been quite a while since last time now.
Based on this my first candidate would be Ismail Kadare and second candidate Les Murray. Another interesting writer from Eastern Europe is Peter Nadas although I haven't read him myself yet and the same goes for Hertha M?ller but perhaps she is still too young?
As for poets Adonis is a dark horse, sure, and I am starting to think that the fact that he has been mentioned for so long does not necessarily mean that he won't ever get it. The problem is obviously that no member of the academy has any knowledge in Arabic. They probably need new translations and interpretations by native speakers to dare to make that hard decision. Language is a sensitive matter in poetry. Would it even be right to judge a poet worthy a Nobel Prize by just reading translations?
Transtr?mer? Not likely. Maybe that is just my feeling but there are better poets and they wouldn't dare giving it to a Swede anyway. The choice of Johnsson and Martinson was heavily criticized, especially in Sweden, and I am sure the academy members are well aware of this.
I also like the speculations here on Achebe. Lessing proved that it is never too late! The academy can change their mind when the old ones fall of and new people enter.
As for American writers I think that McCarty holds the greatest chance actually. He has some sort of timeless and universal quality that I think they like. Perhaps ?The road? was the missing masterpiece. I definitely think he would deserve it.