Nobel Prize in Literature 2013

[Cleanthess]

I've always personally thought of her as a writer for people who kind of like literature but not really; that is, there is quality and depth to her writing, but not to any level that can be considered as challenging or brilliant as, say, Bolano or other more esoteric writers.

RASimmons, as usual, you raise a very cogent and ReASonable point. IMHO, Munro's strength lies in the way she deals with content not form: morals, manners, relationships, life, death, sex. Actual content and plot, as opposed to the concerns of more formalist, innovative writers, and this is not everyone's cup of tea

That towering mad genius, Szentkuthy, defends the formalist side against the content side particularly well on his Black Renaissance book.

Over time, all the issues related to myth and philosophy end up as the subject for light movies, and this is not due to intentional derision, nor depravity, nor decadence, nor desire to blaspheme, but due to an intelligent realization. Because sooner or later it is discovered that the so called ancestral, deep, key problems only masked the impotence of small, perverted intellectuals, and that the only possibility to solve them was found in treating them as games.

Life is made up of two parts: unnamed objects, devoid of cause and purpose, and events, ie games. The facts of sex and death either are unimportant, things that exist but lack metaphysics and poetry, anonyma facta et indifferentes, as Pope Sixtus IV wrote, or they are our playthings, useful only to devise a style and provide movie plots, to frivolously use as ornamental and decorative backgrounds. Indifference or pratfall, those are the only choices for reasonable people. The symbolist smuggling of content is something better left to degenerate slaves.

And about form and formalism. I read just yesterday how 'in times of decay form takes precedence over content'. In fact, even a blind man realizes that the opposite is true: the great eras ultimately lack content and are only interested in form. The Baroque artists and petty bourgeois sentimentalist writers would give up even their last drop of blood for their most important, beloved thing: content.

 

[Corswandt]

But still: Alice Munro - "master of the contemporary short story"? Couldn't they invent sth less banal than that? Mario Vargas Llosa had far more interesting line: "for his cartography of structures of power and his trenchant images of the individual's resistance, revolt, and defeat". Actually - all writers rewarded after Karlfeldt (1931) had far more interesting lines.

Because of this, I'm very disappointed in the Nobel Committe's citation "master of the contemporary short story". It offers no analytic depth into Munro's writings; it simply offers an opinion that Munro is a master of a genre

Better than the usual meaningless, tacky purple prose. At least it goes straight to the point.

Transcript of a literary magazine article by Bruno Vieira do Amaral thrashing the paragraphs the Swedish Academy uses to describe its own picks:

http://circodalama.blogs.sapo.pt/105610.html

Google translator, choose “Portuguese” then whichever language you want it translated to.

 

[Uemarasan]

Trevor would definitely be a worthy winner (definitely a favorite of mine), and if he still has quite a few years left in him he can still win the Prize at some point. Although they will probably try to give it to Ngugi and Kadare before they get to him. Oh well, they already fudged it with Achebe and Fuentes, so no surprises if history repeats itself.

*But if you want to fight, Uemarasan, you can. It will only akcnowledge some of my former statements (about lack of reason of women with feminist tendencies ).

I don't really know why you think I'm a woman. Har har. I guess "lack of reason" does extend beyond "women"... Anyway, sorry, but this is getting boring, so I'll probably stop responding at this point, especially since you can't even get my gender right. So much for (self-)righteousness. Further correspondence should be through PM, thanks. Kisses! You know you love me. XOXO. Gossip Girl.

 

[pesahson]

IMHO, Munro's strength lies in the way she deals with content not form: morals, manners, relationships, life, death, sex. Actual content and plot, as opposed to the concerns of more formalist, innovative writers, and this is not everyone's cup of tea

I think that's an excellent point. She raises interesting moral questions, when I was reading her stories, I was never bored or uninterested in the characters or their choices and decisions.

For me the announcement was a bit of an anti-climax because Munro was mentioned for years as a candidate, because I've read her, because she's an established writer. I would have loved someone I haven't read or never heard of (or Kundera ) only because it would be more exciting for me. But the more I think about the decision, the more I like it actually.

 

[Bubba]

Do I get to crow about my post in the other thread? The one I made about a minute before the announcement of the prize and where I said you had to watch out for Munro because she tends to sneak up on you?

For the rest, abaris's (?) post earlier in this thread is the one that comes closest to describing my experience of Munro's stories (which I haven't read very many of).

 

[anchomal]

Trevor would definitely be a worthy winner (definitely a favorite of mine), and if he still has quite a few years left in him he can still win the Prize at some point. Although they will probably try to give it to Ngugi and Kadare before they get to him. Oh well, they already fudged it with Achebe and Fuentes, so no surprises if history repeats itself.

I'd say Trevor's shot is gone, especially since he is an old man and (like Munro and Roth) has announced in interviews that his next collection of stories will be his last book, and that he's retiring. With Heaney's passing this year it leaves Ireland without a laureate for the first time in what, twenty years? William Trevor would have been the ideal choice to carry that torch. But I suppose other countries need a turn, too

 

[childeroland]

Is Atwoods shot gone too?What about older North Americans like McCarthy?

 

[Patrick Murtha]

Absolutely no one should be unhappy with this pick, which honors literature as it is supposed to do. So I have been shocked to notice that a number of men are sniping that too many women writers are winning the award these days, and that women writers IN GENERAL are less worthy than male candidates. This discussion is happening in 2013, at a website presumably populated by educated and cultured types. Good Lord.

The fact is that worthy women writers were UNDER-CONSIDERED for the Nobel and other literary prizes for decades. They are now being appropriately considered in the mix. There is no "political correctness" in this (as some commenters are accusing), no redress for past imbalance, just a re-calibration of practices to reflect our expanded, more inclusive sense of what literature is. African and Asian writers didn't used to be considered either, and now they are. Like, it's the 21st Century!

 

[Daniel del Real]

What are Tabucchi's greatest stories or collections in your opinion?

Every single short story book I've read by him is magnificent. Not sure how many of them have been translated to English but here are a few titles with its original title and English one where available:

Il Gioco del Rovescio
Donna di Porto Pim e Altre Storie (The Woman of Porto Pim)
Piccoli Equivoci Senza Importanza (Little Misunderstandings of No Importance)
Il Tempo Invecchia in Fretta

 

[Uemarasan]

Yes, I fear that's the case with Trevor. He'll be pushed aside in favor of writers from other regions, especially when they return to Africa or Europe for next year's prize (and probably someone who doesn't write in English). That means for now Atwood and other American writers probably won't be in the running.

I've never liked him as a writer, but I have a feeling that Murakami winning in five years or so isn't completely impossible. Depends on who translates him in Swedish, of course.

But I've always wondered if they ever really choose truly "obscure" writers. I mean, I was surprised that many posters here barely heard of Mo Yan when he won last year, seeing as he is a major figure in modern Chinese literature, and I even see his books in the larger English-language bookstores whenever I venture outside Asia.

Absolutely no one should be unhappy with this pick, which honors literature as it is supposed to do. So I have been shocked to notice that a number of men are sniping that too many women writers are winning the award these days, and that women writers IN GENERAL are less worthy than male candidates. This discussion is happening in 2013, at a website presumably populated by educated and cultured types. Good Lord.

Great post! Alas, people's true natures will always reveal themselves when the time is ripe

 

[Daniel del Real]

She was nominated for the Booker Prize in 1980. She's had a notable international reputation for considerably longer than ten years.

Isn't the Man Booker only for novels? For what work she was nominated?

 

[redhead]

Isn't the Man Booker only for novels? For what work she was nominated?

The Beggar Maid. I haven't read it, but from what I've heard it's less a collection of short stories and more a "cycle" as in they all have to do with the same woman. Kinda like A Visit From the Goon Squad.

 

[lhsl]

Does Alice Munro winning the prize means that another short story writter won't win it any soon? Because some of my favorites in this gender can wait some more years (like Cesar Aira), but I'm not very sure about others (Rubem Fonseca or Dalton Trevisan, both 88-years-old)...

 

[Cleanthess]

...reminds me why the Fictional Woods is the superior forum.

uemarasan, them's fightin' words! It's bad enough that there are so many double agents posting at both forums, but actually preferring the other one?

And, yeah, Munro deserves it as much as Ngugi. Or Djebar. Or Mahasweta Devi. Or Anne Carson. Or Lyudmila Petrushevskaya.

Damn right! And as much as Cynthia Ozick. Or Olga Tokarczuk. Or Ana Blandiana. Or Edna O'Brien. Or Nelida Pinon. Or...

My personal, long-shot picks would be Claribel Alegria, Duong Thu Huong, or Werewere Liking... As for American writers, my favorite living American writer won the prize twenty years ago (Toni Morrison)..., I would vote for the brilliant poet Will Alexander, whose dazzling Negritude-inspired poetry transcends his precursors.

Abaris, thank you, thank you, thank you. WereWere and Will Alexander, what wonderful recommendations! My weekend is booked, thanks to you.

perhaps
9 suns before the Sun existed
before the oceans seemed formed
there were molecular drafts

akashic precursors
floating proto-ammonia

I think of carbon
& wisps
& floodings

of feral combat shelter
where blank geometry accrues

before separable biology was born
before the contradictory ballast of de-existent protozoa

being scorching photon by abstentia
like a pre-atomic sigil
destabilized as blizzard

a pre-cognitive rotation
a strange galvanics of the cosmos
as soiled apparitional anagram

 

[Davus]

I don't really know why you think I'm a woman. Har har. I guess "lack of reason" does extend beyond "women"... Anyway, sorry, but this is getting boring, so I'll probably stop responding at this point, especially since you can't even get my gender right. So much for (self-)righteousness. Further correspondence should be through PM, thanks. Kisses! You know you love me. XOXO. Gossip Girl.

So you are not a woman. Than it's even worse because you fight but you don't know why.

 

[Patrick Murtha]

Does Alice Munro winning the prize means that another short story writter won't win it any soon? Because some of my favorites in this gender can wait some more years (like Cesar Aira), but I'm not very sure about others (Rubem Fonseca or Dalton Trevisan, both 88-years-old)...

I haven't calculated the statistics myself, but my understanding is that it would be pretty unusual for authors that old to win the prize; Munro at 82 was somewhat unusual in that respect.

At this point, it seems unlikely that authors born before 1930 will win the prize; the one exception perhaps being Milan Kundera (born in 1929). Authors who are affected by this factor, despite whatever their other merits are, include (besides the two you mentioned):

Claribel Alegria, John Ashbery, Simin Behbahani, John Berger, Yves Bonnefoy, Michel Butor, Ernesto Cardenal, Mahasweta Devi, Hans Magnus Enzensberger, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Brian Friel, Mavis Gallant, William Gass, Wilson Harris, Jurgen Habermas, Philippe Jacottet, F. Sionil Jose, Yashar Kemal, Eeva Kilpi, Tadeusz Konwicki, Ursula K. Le Guin, Siegfried Lenz, Peter Matthiessen, Friederike Mayrocker, W.S. Merwin, John Montague, Cynthia Ozick, Nicanor Parra, Tadeusz Rozewicz, Michel Tournier, William Trevor, Martin Walser

I double-checked to make sure all of those were still alive!

Among authors often mentioned as likely prize-winners, the following born between 1930 and 1933 are probably pushing it in terms of age:

Adonis, Umberto Eco, Juan Goytisolo, Ko Un, Javier Marias, Cees Nooteboom, Philip Roth

 

[Davus]

Absolutely no one should be unhappy with this pick, which honors literature as it is supposed to do. So I have been shocked to notice that a number of men are sniping that too many women writers are winning the award these days, and that women writers IN GENERAL are less worthy than male candidates. This discussion is happening in 2013, at a website presumably populated by educated and cultured types. Good Lord.

The fact is that worthy women writers were UNDER-CONSIDERED for the Nobel and other literary prizes for decades. They are now being appropriately considered in the mix. There is no "political correctness" in this (as some commenters are accusing), no redress for past imbalance, just a re-calibration of practices to reflect our expanded, more inclusive sense of what literature is. African and Asian writers didn't used to be considered either, and now they are. Like, it's the 21st Century!

And so what that it's the 21 century? Does it mean that now diversity is more important than quality? And yeah, you may think what you want but it doesn't change the simple fact that women are now rewarded more often because of political reasons. And it doesn't mean that they are worhtless and their literature unreadable. It simply means that the Academy has female and male candidates every year (probably) but every few years they feel that it is time to reward woman and they choose woman even if there are better men in the mix. It is as simple as that.

(And yeah - if someone disagrees with me on that - he's blind and doesn't understand how the world turns these days. But sure - not all people can be as smart as I am )

 

[Uemarasan]

So you are not a woman. Than it's even worse!

Silly rabbit. Tricks are for kids.

Abaris, thank you, thank you, thank you. WereWere and Will Alexander, what wonderful recommendations! My weekend is booked, thanks to you.

perhaps
9 suns before the Sun existed
before the oceans seemed formed
there were molecular drafts

akashic precursors
floating proto-ammonia

I think of carbon
& wisps
& floodings

of feral combat shelter
where blank geometry accrues

before separable biology was born
before the contradictory ballast of de-existent protozoa

being scorching photon by abstentia
like a pre-atomic sigil
destabilized as blizzard

a pre-cognitive rotation
a strange galvanics of the cosmos
as soiled apparitional anagram

I second this. How wonderful to have something new to read this Nobel Prize weekend. Werewere Liking and Will Alexander are revelations.

 

[Daniel del Real]

And so what that it's the 21 century? Does it mean that now diversity is more important than quality? And yeah, you may think what you want but it doesn't change the simple fact that women are now rewarded more often because of political reasons. And it doesn't mean that they are worhtless and their literature unreadable. It simply means that the Academy has female and male candidates every year (probably) but every few years they feel that it is time to reward woman and they choose woman even if there are better men in the mix. It is as simple as that.

(And yeah - if someone disagrees with me on that - he's blind and doesn't understand how the world turns these days. But sure - not all people can be as smart as I am )

OK, you've expressed your thoughts on the matter, and although I partially agree, you've becoming annoyingly repetitive at saying it so many times. That doesn't speak at all of your allegedly smartness.

 

[Stiffelio]

I'm thrilled with the news. Munro was among my top three choices but I thought that, because of her age and the fact that she had announced that she was going to stop writing, the Academy would write her off into oblivion. Well, this time they got it right. She fully deserves it. Munro is a brilliant storyteller. Each of her stories is as dense and fully developed as a novel. It's no cliche to say that she's like a modern Chekhov. I'm also glad that, for the first time, the Academy has honored the short story form.