Nobel Prize in Literature 2015 Speculation

[Vazquez]

I won´t use the internet until Thursday so this will be my last post in this thread...

It was a very interesting discussion, and I must thank again for the recommendations I´ve got here. Thanks to you, I´ve got to know two great writers - Gonçalo M. Tavares and César Aira. I would be glad if any of them win, but I believe it will be some years in the future.

Just finished reading A Grain of Wheat from Ngugi Wa Thiong´o, another sugestion from this thread (OverTheMountains). I´m a bit tired today to be able to write a decent text about it now, but I must say - it´s an incredible book, one of the best African books I ever read, better than Chinua Achebe (it´s more profound, denser, bleaker, with lot more developed characters, encompassing a larger subject with a superior skill of English, imho). But soon I will write a review of it. If Ngugi has written one, two more books on this same level, he is sure a deserving writer to win the Nobel.

By the way, Svetlana Aleksijevitj odds are now 3/1... I don´t know if this is news, I just noticed that now.

 

[Daniel del Real]

I won´t use the internet until Thursday so this will be my last post in this thread...

Why's that? Do you want to keep it interesting by not getting news on a possible leak?

 

[pinkunicorn]

This morning there was a fair amount of movement in the odds. Here are some highlights:

Svetlana Aleksijevitj is still the favorite, moving 5 -> 3 at Ladbrokes and 6 -> 4 at Nicerodds.

Recent talking point Jon Fosse moves 14 -> 10 at Ladbrokes while his colleagues move in the opposite direction, John Banville 14 -> 16 (Ladbrokes) and Cesar Aira 25 -> 33 (Ladbrokes), new at 24 (Nicerodds).

Ko Un creeps from 20 -> 14 (Ladbrokes) and 19.5 -> 15 (Nicerodds).

A larger move is done by Nawal El Saadawi at 33 -> 16 (Ladbrokes) and 26 -> 17 (Nicerodds).

Anne Carson is new at Ladbrokes at 20.

Oldtimer Don DeLillo moves up 50 -> 20 (Ladbrokes) and 45 -> 21 (Nicerodds).

An interesting item is Maryse Conde that appears for the first time on both lists at 25 (Ladbrokes) and 19 (Nicerodds).

Another big mover is Nuruddin Farah, 50 -> 20 (Ladbrokes) and 51 -> 21 (Nicerodds).

Finally, Javier Marias moves 31 -> 19.5 at Nicerodds, putting him even further from his constant 50 at Ladbrokes.

 

[Corswandt]

Looks like gamblers only started betting now. Probably waited for a leak, didn't get it, but decided to bet anyway, spreading their money over various candidates (which makes sense - if they pick the actual winner @ 16 or 25 it will more than cover the losses with the other bets they made).

A common thread into some of the last minute additions to the list and last minute betting seems to be looking for someone who isn't a white European male like Modiano and who fits the Nobel profile - the gamblers probably suspect that this will be another year of the Heroic Tokenistic Award, with the Swedish Academy giving the finger to an Establishment dominated by Living White Males. I fear they may be right.

Nooteboom would be the first ever Nobel winner writing in Dutch. As that language is the central guest at the 2016 Frankfurt Buchmesse, the effect could be large. His oeuvre however is lopsided: three very good novels, but the rest is elevated autobiographical journalism. Someone wrote that Komrij had been considered. This I find hard to believe. The best chances for the Dutch language were for WF Hermans (who got into international translation too late to make an impact) and Hugo Claus (Belgian author from Flanders, where the nationale language is Dutch). Both dead now.

I mentioned Komrij as his name was familiar to me since he lived in Portugal for many years. But TBH I was talking out of my ass as I don't really know how Komrij's work was/is rated when compared to Nooteboom's, in the Nether Regions or elsewhere.

Someone dismissed Handke with a one liner. It would be interesting to see a more reasoned opinion. Feel free to use more than 140 characters.

I think that, the year the Swedish Academy decides to go with a playwright, Handke, Albee and maybe Stoppard are stronger candidates than Fosse - at least for now.


Time to predict the actual winner:

Ngugi wa Thiongo'o


Unless this has killed his chances:

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/10/01/who-will-win-the-nobel-prize-in-literature-six-names-top-bettors-charts/

In an interview with Swedish news agency TT in 2013, when asked who should win the Nobel Prize, he said that he would like to give it to himself.

Backup picks:

Sei lá eu.

If the Academy finally gives in and goes USA! USA!, it might end up rewarding the most American voice of all - Marilynne Robinson, despite her small body of work. If the Academy goes for a playwright, even though not that many years have gone by since Pinter, Peter Handke or Tom Stoppard.

Who I wish would win - same as always:

One of the well-known, perennial candidates like Kadare, Kundera, Amos Oz, António Lobo Antunes or one of the Americans (Roth, DeLillo, McCarthy; Pynchon will never be a contender) as it would raise the profile of the award.

Someone ambitious, bold, experimental (Maybe Peter Nádas? Haven't read any of his books though.), the opposite of the worthy, middlebrow stuff with humanistic undertones that still wins the Nobel far too often.

Someone who would be particularly abhorrent to SJWs, like Houellebecq. I'd laugh for weeks.

Final words for Portuguese language writers:

In a few days, the first vol. of Mia Couto's historical trilogy/magnum opus/stab at immortality will be published; if it's not too awful, IMO he's almost certain to get the Nobel sometime in the future, maybe as soon as the final instalment of the trilogy is published (and praised).

António Lobo Antunes won't win on account of his big mouth. Writers who openly say they deserve and crave the Nobel never get it.

 

[Corswandt]

And BTW I still think Ugresic or Ulitskaya are much likelier to win than Alexievich.

 

[Sevastefo]

And BTW I still think Ugresic or Ulitskaya are much likelier to win than Alexievich.

Liudmila Petrushévskaia, Víktor Pelevin, Eduard Limonov or Vladimir Sorokin could be also authors to bear in mind.

 

[Corswandt]

Eduard Limonov

Limonov has about as many chances of winning the Nobel literature prize as his former pal Karadzic has of winning the Nobel medicine prize for his groundbreaking work in psychiatry.

 

[Corswandt]

And - to repeat something I say every year - I'd be fine with Murakami winning (which - to repeat another thing I say every year - won't happen) as at least people actually read his stuff.

 

[redhead]

http://www.vulture.com/2015/10/my-book-prize-gam-addiction.html#

mentions betting on some writers like DeLillo, which could explain their jump in odds. No one's uniformly moving up in all the betting sites, so I'm assuming most of the movement is just bettors putting money on whoever. It's nice to see Marias move up from 50/1, but I doubt it actually means anything significant.

As great a winner Alexievich or Fosse would be, I'm kinda hoping for someone more unknown. So far, the winners in the sciences this year have all been surprises but, for the most part, most critics have hailed them as excellent choices. Mo Yan and Modiano were both unknown to me before the Nobel and I like them quite a bit; would not mind another great writer little known in the Anglophone world winning.

 

[redhead]

Swedish critics picks: http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article21539676.ab

Svetlana Alexievich gets the most mentions for "Who do you think will get it" and "Who would you like to see get it", but many also mention Mircea Cartarescu, Peter Nadas, and Peter Handke. All of them, from the little I've read of and about them, seem like good laureates. Marie Ndiaye also comes up, but, along with Cartarescu, I think they have to wait a few years (especially Ndiaye after Modiano's win). A bunch are in agreement that Murakami should not get the prize. None talk about him as a serious candidate.

Also interesting that Nadas and Esterhazy come up but not Krasznahorkai. What's the track record for these Swedish critics? I could easily see one of their favorites win, but, on the other hand, I could just as easily see them not get the prize.

Some quotes:

When asked who will win:
1 Joyce Carol Oates. Everyone seems to agree about her greatness.

I have no idea who he hangs out with, but most people seem to agree she does not deserve the prize, including this same critic. She gets namedropped a few more times, usually as someone who should not get it.

Who should win:
1 Péter Nádas. I do not like when the Nobel Prize used as a political manifestation, but our need to talk about Hungary is acute. And his writing is enough and for all prices.

I haven't read Nadas's work too much, but I can tell he deserves better than to be a political pawn.

When asked who should not win:
3 too many begrudge me the Nobel Prize to summarize them with a single name.

My kind of curmudgeon.

 

[Uemarasan]

The possible future winners actually excite me more (Marias, NDiaye, Krasznahorkai) and the future dark horses (Mizumura, Al-Koni) but an unknown or unexpected choice (i.e. not on any of the betting lists) would be lovely. I must say that the winners during Peter Englund's tenure have all been satisfying, save for an issue I have with Goldblatt's utter dominance as the translator of Mo Yan into English (strange how Su Tong sounds almost like Mo Yan). Looking forward to how Sara Danius starts things off.

 

[lucasdiniz]

Murakami might be so rich, he has sold so many books. I hope they give it to a poorer author. xD

 

[Daniel del Real]

For all the voices who claims for Magris to win he just entered the Ladbrokes list at 33/1. Interesting those late additions.
It would be a great choice.

 

[redhead]

I just finished Ngugi wa Thiong'o's The River Between. I need to wait to let it sink in a bit more, but I wasn't too impressed. Surprising and powerful ending was not enough to make up for the other parts. The writing is poetic when describing the landscape, at times approaching mythic storytelling, but it falls into simple, more functional than beautiful prose when detailing the other stuff. He's also very tell don't show in this book. Character's emotions and thoughts are often directly stated, and at some points he even explained his own symbolism (he described one characters house a bit dilapidated, as if to let in the western customs...). The basic plot is predictable, although that could be a case of "Seinfield is Unfunny," where this book popularized a lot of the tropes and plot points, but I'm not sure about that.

Also, I've heard Ngugi get criticized before for being too male-centric, which I didn't understand until this book. It deals a lot with circumcision, both for boys and girls, and, while not an expert, I came away thinking he had not delved into female circumcision with enough tact and understanding. I don't know what people thought of the practice back in the 60's when it was published, but now it's pretty controversial and seems to be getting more so. In contrast, another big African name, Nawal El Saadawi, has written extensively on female genital mutilation.

Compared to the other stuff I've read of Ngugi, I'd rank this way above The Trial of Dedan Kemathi and just below The Wizard of the Crow. It's an alright book, but I didn't get much out of it and I'd be disappointed to see him win on the basis of those books. I've heard good things about A Grain of Wheat, but... well, I'll get to it at some point, but unless he wins, that might be a while.

As for Magris, I'm not getting my hopes up because he is listed only on Ladbrokes, but I'd be delighted with a win for him.

Edit: also, the betting this year isn't as exciting...guess there really wasn't a leak. Just over 13 hours left!

 

[redhead]

Another list of possibilities from the Swedish press:
http://www.svd.se/12-heta-nobelpriskandidater/#sida-11

I have reservations about a DeLillo win, but the more I think about it, the more I think he might be the most likely American candidate. Surprised to see Anne Carson on there. And as for Nawal El Saadawi, have I just been living under a rock? I hadn't heard of her before this year's speculation, and now she's popping up everywhere, even in the comments of newspaper articles about Nobel winners (not that they're out of place there, it's just...they're usually filled with people complaining about Obama's peace prize win and similar comments).

Edit: Saadawi is pretty old, but she won the Stig Dagerman Prize in 2011, a Swedish prize Jelinek and Le Clezio won the years they got the Nobel.

 

[Daniel del Real]

I just finished Ngugi wa Thiong'o's The River Between. I need to wait to let it sink in a bit more, but I wasn't too impressed. Surprising and powerful ending was not enough to make up for the other parts. The writing is poetic when describing the landscape, at times approaching mythic storytelling, but it falls into simple, more functional than beautiful prose when detailing the other stuff. He's also very tell don't show in this book. Character's emotions and thoughts are often directly stated, and at some points he even explained his own symbolism (he described one characters house a bit dilapidated, as if to let in the western customs...). The basic plot is predictable, although that could be a case of "Seinfield is Unfunny," where this book popularized a lot of the tropes and plot points, but I'm not sure about that.

Also, I've heard Ngugi get criticized before for being too male-centric, which I didn't understand until this book. It deals a lot with circumcision, both for boys and girls, and, while not an expert, I came away thinking he had not delved into female circumcision with enough tact and understanding. I don't know what people thought of the practice back in the 60's when it was published, but now it's pretty controversial and seems to be getting more so. In contrast, another big African name, Nawal El Saadawi, has written extensively on female genital mutilation.

Compared to the other stuff I've read of Ngugi, I'd rank this way above The Trial of Dedan Kemathi and just below The Wizard of the Crow. It's an alright book, but I didn't get much out of it and I'd be disappointed to see him win on the basis of those books. I've heard good things about A Grain of Wheat, but... well, I'll get to it at some point, but unless he wins, that might be a while.

As for Magris, I'm not getting my hopes up because he is listed only on Ladbrokes, but I'd be delighted with a win for him.

Edit: also, the betting this year isn't as exciting...guess there really wasn't a leak. Just over 13 hours left!

I just loved The River Between. The poetic language, the symbolism, beautiful descriptions; the myth and the present going together to create a stunning narrative.

Hope DeLillo never wins. The names was just awful.

 

[redhead]

I just loved The River Between. The poetic language, the symbolism, beautiful descriptions; the myth and the present going together to create a stunning narrative.

Hope DeLillo never wins. The names was just awful.

I think Ngugi's just not for me. Though if it had to be an African Nobel...he'd probably be better than Farah, though Couto's better than both. Don't have an opinion on Saadawi.

As for DeLillo, yeah he can be very uneven. His reputation lies just on White Noise, Libra, Mao II, and Underworld, and the acclaim for Mao II has waned in recent years. The rest of his stuff is middling to bad, but fans can usually find something they like enough to latch on to. But at 78 he's among the youngest of the Bloom 4, has a lot of international awards, much likelier than Roth or Pynchon (though Pynchon would be great), and (though I doubt anyone who would matter gives a shit) Underworld was ranked the 2nd best novel of the past 30 years or something, with Beloved taking first.

 

[Daniel del Real]

I think Ngugi's just not for me. Though if it had to be an African Nobel...he'd probably be better than Farah, though Couto's better than both. Don't have an opinion on Saadawi.

As for DeLillo, yeah he can be very uneven. His reputation lies just on White Noise, Libra, Mao II, and Underworld, and the acclaim for Mao II has waned in recent years. The rest of his stuff is middling to bad, but fans can usually find something they like enough to latch on to. But at 78 he's among the youngest of the Bloom 4, has a lot of international awards, much likelier than Roth or Pynchon (though Pynchon would be great), and (though I doubt anyone who would matter gives a shit) Underworld was ranked the 2nd best novel of the past 30 years or something, with Beloved taking first.

If one of the 4 has to win the Nobel, I'd give immediately it to McCarthy just for Blood Meridian. Judge Holden is one of the purest and best defined images of evil I've seen in fiction.
Roth bores me, DeLillo bores me and Pynchon is just insane.

 

[Stevie B]

Another list of possibilities from the Swedish press:
http://www.svd.se/12-heta-nobelpriskandidater/#sida-11

And as for Nawal El Saadawi, have I just been living under a rock? I hadn't heard of her before this year's speculation, and now she's popping up everywhere, even in the comments of newspaper articles about Nobel winners.

I heard El Saadawi speak on campus 20 years ago. During her presentation, she was chastised by a young American woman (and recent convert to Islam) for not covering her hair. The young woman talked about how "freeing" wearing a hijab was. El Saadawi impressed me in her response which was somehow respectful and dismissive at the same time. On a separate note, I think El Saadawi attended medical school, though she may have given up her medical practice once she became a successful writer. I'm commonly jealous of successful writers, but when they're also medical doctors, that's the double whammy. Talk about unfair!

 

[Daniel del Real]

Amos Oz moving to 20. Probably not meaning too much.