Nobel Prize in Literature 2008 Speculation

[fausto]

Originally Posted by Patrick Murtha

I didn't say Nothomb is good. I didn't say Nothomb was Nobel-worthy. I said, quite clearly, that her name is a credible inclusion on a list of writers who come up in discussions of who might be awarded the Nobel. I mean, please, read what I say! For a reading forum, there are a fair number of posters here who don't read carefully..

This is taking the mickey...
Where did I say you, Patrick Murtha, deemed her Nobel-worthy or even good. Where? You seem to be reading things so carefully that you're seeing things that aren't there. Funny that.

As for the list of Nobel winners: I think (opinion) that it is misguided to peg any conclusions to that hodge-podge beyond the conclusion that there is no consistency: they miss writers they might well have honored and honor writers who make you scratch your head.

The issue is not with those not honored as already pointed out. It is with those honored. None really making me scratch my head in the last twenty years besides for those where I said "who?". For the rest, whether I agree with the choice or not is neither here nor there. What matters is a certain logic behind it. I don't think Dario Fo was worthy of it but I'm not really surprised they gave it to him.

Regarding Nothomb -- who is Belgian, not French contrarily to what is stated on your long list... France can have her if they want, mind---, I don't think she's worthy and I don't think she would be considered. In fact, although I'm Belgian, press speculation here never mentions her as a contender -- even though most dailies love her -- so I think I can safely assume her being mentioned here is due to Michael Orthofer liking her and Eric deciding, after having read one of her books, that he'd quite fancy her taking the award. Seriously, she's not in the ladbrokes odds, so where did you pick the idea up? If we want this to be a serious discussion, we should take writers we do have valid ground to think they are contenders. In her case, I'm yet to see anything. Waiting.

As for your Oates comparison... I'm not a big Oates fan but there seems to be an obvious difference between the two. Oates is discussed in US literary reviews at least once in a while and sometimes write for Bookforum or NYRB. Nothomb, on the other hand, is never reviewed in French literary reviews nor does she write for quality publication. You will find plenty of papers about her in general interests newspapers and magazines and in a couple of books monthly (general public ones like Lire). This suggest to me that the comparison you're making is not working.

[saliotthomas]

Originally Posted by fausto

Regarding Nothomb -- who is Belgian, not French contrarily to what is stated on your long list... France can have her if they want.

No thank you !

[Patrick Murtha]

Originally Posted by fausto

This is taking the mickey...
Where did I say you, Patrick Murtha, deemed her Nobel-worthy or even good. Where? You seem to be reading things so carefully that you're seeing things that aren't there. Funny that.

The issue is not with those not honored as already pointed out. It is with those honored. None really making me scratch my head in the last twenty years besides for those where I said "who?". For the rest, whether I agree with the choice or not is neither here nor there. What matters is a certain logic behind it. I don't think Dario Fo was worthy of it but I'm not really surprised they gave it to him.

Regarding Nothomb -- who is Belgian, not French contrarily to what is stated on your long list... France can have her if they want, mind---, I don't think she's worthy and I don't think she would be considered. In fact, although I'm Belgian, press speculation here never mentions her as a contender -- even though most dailies love her -- so I think I can safely assume her being mentioned here is due to Michael Orthofer liking her and Eric deciding, after having read one of her books, that he'd quite fancy her taking the award. Seriously, she's not in the ladbrokes odds, so where did you pick the idea up? If we want this to be a serious discussion, we should take writers we do have valid ground to think they are contenders. In her case, I'm yet to see anything. Waiting.

As for your Oates comparison... I'm not a big Oates fan but there seems to be an obvious difference between the two. Oates is discussed in US literary reviews at least once in a while and sometimes write for Bookforum or NYRB. Nothomb, on the other hand, is never reviewed in French literary reviews nor does she write for quality publication. You will find plenty of papers about her in general interests newspapers and magazines and in a couple of books monthly (general public ones like Lire). This suggest to me that the comparison you're making is not working.

It is not going to be a serious discussion with the likes of you and Mirabell in it, certainly. My regard for continental mastery of debate is declining by the minute.

I made it abundantly clear that my inclusion of Nothomb was based on a harvest of authors who receive sustained favorable attention at the Complete Review. Beyond that, I notice that among the "literary reviews" and "quality publications" in English that I see, Nothomb is among the most-written about authors of her generation, not simply in France but in the world.

On the longlist I included plenty of authors who are not in the Ladsbroke odds and did not include some who are, so I did not rely on it especially.

[Patrick Murtha]

Originally Posted by Titou

With all your suggestions, the tremendous list and my own prospects, I've listed about 200 possible contenders... Ready to share this. Thanks. Thierry

I am interested in your list! Please do share it.

[Patrick Murtha]

Originally Posted by fausto

Alcides, no worries, it was just an encouragement for you to have a look at the thread ;-)

Mirabell, I'm very illiterate in contemporary poetry and in France it's much less read than in Spain for example -- plus my girlfriend happens to like poetry hence my being aware of the two names mentioned by Alcides -- so it's tough for me to come up with names. Jaccottet is obviously one of the big names, so is Goffette. Henri Bauchau is still alive (95 now). Two other names are Emmanuel Hocquard and Claude Royet-Journoud. They lean more on the experimental side and have been published in English by Burning Deck, if that can give you an idea of what they're about.
I can't make personal comments as my knowledge of their works, as I said, is quite limited.

I added Hocquard, Goffette, Royet-Journoud, and also Anne-Marie Albiach. My Googling of Bauchau and Olivier Cadiot did not suggest that there is a "critical mass" level of interest in their work, so I did not include them.

I corrected Nothomb's country to Belgium.

[Stewart]

Patrick, further to your list, some other candidates for possible inclusion, are amongst those considered for the Neustadt, which at least makes public its candidates.

[adaorardor]

Originally Posted by Patrick Murtha

It is not going to be a serious discussion with the likes of you and Mirabell in it, certainly. My regard for continental mastery of debate is declining by the minute.

I made it abundantly clear that my inclusion of Nothomb was based on a harvest of authors who receive sustained favorable attention at the Complete Review. Beyond that, I notice that among the "literary reviews" and "quality publications" in English that I see, Nothomb is among the most-written about authors of her generation, not simply in France but in the world.

On the longlist I included plenty of authors who are not in the Ladsbroke odds and did not include some who are, so I did not rely on it especially.

One of the problems is that, since we don't see shortlists or even who's nominated and the Academy is so tight-lipped, we don't have a clue if someone like Oates, for example, is actually "in the discussion" or whether the media just incorrectly thinks she is.

[Aiculik]

May I ask - what is "Nobel worthy"? What is that mysterious "it" that book or the author must have to be "Nobel worthy"?
And also - is this "worthiness" based solely on his work or also on his opinions and lifestyle?

[Patrick Murtha]

Originally Posted by adaorardor

One of the problems is that, since we don't see shortlists or even who's nominated and the Academy is so tight-lipped, we don't have a clue if someone like Oates, for example, is actually "in the discussion" or whether the media just incorrectly thinks she is.

To be as precise as possible, by "discussion" I mean the discussion we are privy to, including the thread we are engaged in here -- the discussion in the "literary world." So if Nothomb wasn't in the Nobel discussion before -- I think that, on the basis of renown, she was, just as Houellebecq is whether he ever wins the prize or not --she certainly is now!

[fausto]

Originally Posted by Patrick Murtha

It is not going to be a serious discussion with the likes of you and Mirabell in it, certainly. My regard for continental mastery of debate is declining by the minute.

Jesus bleedin' Christ. You've been busy making ad hominem and ad personam attacks from the beginning, you've been giving reading classes yet seem to constantly misread what others do write, you've been ignoring all points put forward and you think you're fit to decide that a discussion cannot be serious if we're taking part? This is laughable. I put forward numerous arguments or points in this thread that you didn't even care to reply to. Please let me know what you don't get. It's not that complicated, so even with your close-reading-glasses-that-make-you-read-things-that-ain't-there-on you should be able to give an articulate answer that doesn't fall into meaningless personal digs - neither mirabell nor me did feel the necessity to have a dig at you.

It seems all you want to do is collate as big a list a possible without giving any prior thought to what makes a contender. Worse: the mere fact of disagreeing with the presence of one name in the list make you throw a hissy fit. (Weirder still: though said writer is hugely popular in her country, no one is considering as a contender or a contender for the future).

Beyond that, I notice that among the "literary reviews" and "quality publications" in English that I see, Nothomb is among the most-written about authors of her generation, not simply in France but in the world.

Pray tell which ones, since after a quick google search I found the Independent and a lot of webzines or blogs. I don't have time to investigate further, but apparently you did so let me know. I don't see Bret Easton Ellis in your list. He is 43 years old -- same generation as Amélie -- and discussed in much more publications of all types around the world. But, hey, you know... Orthofer don't like him.

[fausto]

Originally Posted by Patrick Murtha

I added Hocquard, Goffette, Royet-Journoud, and also Anne-Marie Albiach. My Googling of Bauchau and Olivier Cadiot did not suggest that there is a "critical mass" level of interest in their work, so I did not include them.

There are about 12,000 more hits for Bauchau than Hocquard in Google, over 10 critical studies of his work and he even has a foundation named after him in the Universtity of Louvain (one of the best in Europe). Anyway...
I don't think any of the names I mentioned in reply to Mirabell are contenders and as you might have read they came as an aside to the discussion following one of his questions. I would suggest you remove the names but since getting the longlist longer appears to be the aim... be my guest...

[Bjorn]

Originally Posted by adaorardor

One of the problems is that, since we don't see shortlists or even who's nominated and the Academy is so tight-lipped, we don't have a clue if someone like Oates, for example, is actually "in the discussion" or whether the media just incorrectly thinks she is.

Actually, there was an interview in Le Monde earlier this year where Engdahl stated the following:

In Sweden, critics read nothing but Philip Roth and Joyce Carol Oates. To them, that's the incarnation of great literature. To me it's pure ignorance. I don't think the USA is the centre of the literary world.

Which doesn't necessarily mean either of them is NOT in the running, I suppose, just that they're not as sure a bet as a lot of people seem to think.

Apparently he praised French literature, though, so who knows.

Without the French influences, Swedish literature - and especially poetry - would still be a bit barbarian, domestic or... German.

[titania7]

If the Swedish critics are reading nothing but Philip Roth and Joyce Carol Oates, they are definitely wasting a lot of time. I haven't read enough Roth to make a valid judgement on his talent. However, the only book I've ever found readable by Oates is Them. (and I've tried so many of her books it would take ten minutes naming all of them). I don't know why it is, but there's something (to me, at least) very exasperating about her writing. I have enjoyed a few of her short stories, but I oft-times have the impression I'm reading the work of someone who is very mentally/emotionally unbalanced. There was one horror story about a white cat (I think it was called "The White Cat," though I'm not absolutely positive) that was remarkable. But her novels (in my opinion) leave much to be desired. I'm not saying she can't be innovative--heavens, she could be a genius, for all I know (genius being a relative and highly subjective term, mind you). However, I can't really "get into" anything other than her short fiction. Maybe she's a better short story writer than she is a novelist.

At any rate, I definitely don't think she deserves a Nobel Prize. That much I can say.


Titania

"Nothing is a greater impediment to being on good terms
with others than being ill at ease with yourself."
~Honore de Balzac

[Patrick Murtha]

Originally Posted by fausto

It seems all you want to do is collate as big a list a possible without giving any prior thought to what makes a contender. Worse: the mere fact of disagreeing with the presence of one name in the list make you throw a hissy fit.

I won't engage with you again after this reply, because life is too short, and web discussion boards are trivial in the overall scheme of things, not really worth wasting emotional energy on.

I did not throw a "hissy fit," I simply defended including Nothomb in a list of 130 writers who could be discussed as possible Nobel candidates. (Titou said that his list exceeded 200 names.) I said explicitly that many of them were extremely remote possibilities, but merited inclusion on the list as fringe candidates. That's where Nothomb would be, at the extreme fringe of possibility (in part because of her age, which I also shouted out).

I did indeed collate, and I did indeed go broad criteria-wise. What of it? It was a fun little exercise, not an assignment from the Gods of Literature! I put some work into it, but I honestly don't give a fig whether you or Mirabell find this modest offering useful or not. If you don't, why talk about it? Make your own list!

[Patrick Murtha]

Originally Posted by fausto

There are about 12,000 more hits for Bauchau than Hocquard in Google, over 10 critical studies of his work and he even has a foundation named after him in the Universtity of Louvain (one of the best in Europe). Anyway...

Although Bauchau has had a novel translated into English, his impact outside the French-speaking world appears, based on encyclopedia entries and English-language Google hits, to be far less than those of the other poets mentioned, including Hocquard.

[Daniel del Real]

My Top 5 candidates for this year are

Adonis
Ismaíl Kadaré
Haruki Murakami
Thomas Pynchon
Mario Vargas Llosa

[fausto]

Originally Posted by Patrick Murtha

I did indeed collate, and I did indeed go broad criteria-wise. What of it? It was a fun little exercise, not an assignment from the Gods of Literature! I put some work into it, but I honestly don't give a fig whether you or Mirabell find this modest offering useful or not. If you don't, why talk about it? Make your own list!

says the 50 years old wise man... You do have an hysterical side to you. I criticized (and with good reasons) one name on the list. Your conclusion? I should make my own list! Apart from that, I am the one who can't have a serious discussion. Yes, let's leave it at that...

As for Bauchau, it's getting worse and worse. I've heard the Academy has been known to ask for translations of writers brought to their attention whom they deemed not to have enough works available to them. Kertesz won in 2002 with two titles translated into English. Gao Xingjian had a few plays played in the UK and the US but as for published work before 2000? Just guess... What about Jaroslav Seifert?

[Patrick Murtha]

I'm "going private" with the longlist -- obviously there is no point to posting material that should be harmless, non-controversial fun if the vultures are going to swoop.

These situations are just so typical of web discussion boards, and I will freely admit that such situations do not bring out my warm and fuzzy side. On my blog (now discontinued), I have discussed my perception that one of the key arenas to avoid at all costs these days is joining "virtual communities." I have tried, and tried again, because the concept seems to hold such promise. But my universal experience on every sort of board, covering a very broad array of subjects, is that discourse always devolves because (let me underline this) web bulletin boards bring out the jockeying, posturing side of males, who can "show off" at no physical (and little other) risk.* Bulletin boards bring out men's "inner assholes" (mine too!). It starts being no fun at all. This has been characteristic whether I am involved myself or just observing (and sometimes I have merely observed just to study the process).

I still like what Stewart is trying to accomplish with the World Literature Forum, and have been trying to support the mission by, say, collating a list of Nobel Prize candidates. Can't say I'm happy with where it has gotten me, though!

* This is especially appealing to nerds who are total wusses in real life but get to be all manly and forceful when they post anonymously on boards. I'll wager that describes the majority of men who bother with these things.

[Stewart]

Originally Posted by Patrick Murtha

web bulletin boards bring out the jockeying, posturing side of males, who can "show off" at no physical (and little other) risk.

Having been a member of plenty, I can certainly see where you are coming from on this. Personally, I can't see what there is to show off with as regards books, but still, as guys, we manage to do it. Let's everyone take a step back. If we want to discuss Amelie Nothomb's Nobel credentials, then let's take it over to the Amelie Nothomb thread, and leave this speculative thread to an accummulation of possibilities.

I still like what Stewart is trying to accomplish with the World Literature Forum, and have been trying to support the mission by, say, collating a list of Nobel Prize candidates. Can't say I'm happy with where it has gotten me, though!

I certainly appreciate the list. I've got a copy of it so that I can work from it in creating new writer threads so as to give Google even more to snack on.

[fausto]

Fine and dandy. Just realise you're the main culprit here. I argued and tried to move things forward but you called people names, belittled them, ignored sensible points or put in doubt their knowledge. This from the very first time a negative comment was posted about one single name of the list. Not a negative comment on the list itself: just on one name. Discussing is part of a discussion board. It seems to be the discussion you have problems with.