Nobel Prize in Literature 2022 Speculation
- Thread starter The Common Reader
- Start date
- Status
Bartleby
Moderator
I do appreciate your views. I also think today's views on literature are very cynical, for better or worse. Think of most book titles (and perhaps this isn't something that new, but I've been noticing it as of late); you'll have books named "Paradise", or "Glory", or "Heaven"/"Haven" and you know the opposite of that is what's being presented...
I have a great curiosity towards those writers first awarded the prize, but I sometimes wonder (maybe a sign that I myself, even if to a small extent, have been "corrupted", as it were, by said cynicism, even tho I try to have a more tender, optimistic view towards things — one reason I love Marilynne Robinson, in fiction and essay form) whether those early laureates weren't selected more for fitting into the SA's then humanistic viewpoint rather than for their aesthetics, their literary merit, even considering that yes, times change, and we should think of what has been written in its context... But that doesn't change the fact that sometimes bad art is bad art (or maybe just even mediocre), no matter how hard you try to defend it.
I keep thinking how better it would've been, for the prize, if Tolstoy had been the first awarded writer, for instance, instead of Prudhomme, which I haven't read, and I'd very much love to see a contemporary report on him (and other "unloved" authors); but it's got to mean something that the former is very much well known and read to this day, while the latter is pretty much buried and forgotten...
Bartleby
Moderator
Another obvious pick (and, if what is said of him is true, he'd be a truly deserving candidate) would be Cartarescu. I should read his Nostalgia, it keeps staring me from my shelf ?
Patrick Murtha
Reader
I would absolutely agree that the humanistic viewpoint overruled the aesthetics, but the keepers of the award clearly had a different view of what aesthetics comprised. And that “idealism” was what the award was about, AS STATED. It was never about “greatness”, and still isn’t.
So when anyone appeals to the original intentions (just as with the US Constitution!), I get grumpy and think, They don’t really mean that; they’re just cherry-picking some words from the past that they find ideologically useful, and pretending to honor “intent”.
As I have stated elsewhere, the Nobel, and awards in general, don’t mean THAT much to me, except in a historic sense; I am much more interested in my personal relation to books and authors than in any external recognitions. And believe me, I am aware that puts me in an outsider / oppositional position within the WLF, where absolutely nothing matters as much as Nobel speculation. I doubt the site would have stayed alive all these years without it; at the same time, I am basically indifferent to that thrust. I mean, I have been BANNED from film discussion groups for questioning the emphasis on Top Tens. ? But I think that an over-emphasis on awards, Top Tens, lists, rankings, memes, etc, is trivializing to the arts. And whenever I make that point, people become furious.
Most of today’s winners will be “forgotten” ( and rediscoverable) ) in 75-100 years, just as the early laureates are now. Hence, I can’t get too excited about contemporary decisions. Time washes it all away.
So when anyone appeals to the original intentions (just as with the US Constitution!), I get grumpy and think, They don’t really mean that; they’re just cherry-picking some words from the past that they find ideologically useful, and pretending to honor “intent”.
As I have stated elsewhere, the Nobel, and awards in general, don’t mean THAT much to me, except in a historic sense; I am much more interested in my personal relation to books and authors than in any external recognitions. And believe me, I am aware that puts me in an outsider / oppositional position within the WLF, where absolutely nothing matters as much as Nobel speculation. I doubt the site would have stayed alive all these years without it; at the same time, I am basically indifferent to that thrust. I mean, I have been BANNED from film discussion groups for questioning the emphasis on Top Tens. ? But I think that an over-emphasis on awards, Top Tens, lists, rankings, memes, etc, is trivializing to the arts. And whenever I make that point, people become furious.
Most of today’s winners will be “forgotten” ( and rediscoverable) ) in 75-100 years, just as the early laureates are now. Hence, I can’t get too excited about contemporary decisions. Time washes it all away.
Last edited:
Liam
Administrator
Forgive me, but I think you are selling the World Literature Forum short. This board is alive and well (though, granted, not as during the "Nobel announcement time") during the rest of the year too. People keep posting threads, and exchanging suggestions, and writing reviews. Which is more than you can say about plenty of other sites that have gone dormant.
Patrick Murtha
Reader
While I’m hanging myself, I’ll also say that speculation is generally either wrong (who predicted Gurnah?) or right-but-who-cares (pre-ordained Oscar winners). So it seems to me a total waste of time, although I do get that people find it “fun”. It seems to have taken over the news, sports, and entertainment media entirely: There is almost more speculation about what WILL happen than reporting or analysis of what HAS happened.
The build-up to events like the Super Bowl or the Nobel Prize in Literature falls into the category of what a friend of mine brilliantly dubbed “the pre-hash”. The pre-hash is kind of infinite, therefore exciting; once something has happened, it is finite, and by comparison kind of boring. So pre-hash and anticipation is what we get the most of. (Famously, no one remembers Oscar winners a month after the ceremony. CODA, anyone?)
These types of events, like the Olympics, are more precisely what Daniel Boorstin, in his great book The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-events in America, calls “pseudo-events”. Guy Debord and Jean Baudrillard also had something to say about this. ?
“A media event, also known as a pseudo-event, is an event, activity, or experience conducted for the purpose of media publicity. It may also include any event that is covered in the mass media or was hosted largely with the media in mind. Media events may center on a news announcement, an anniversary, a news conference, or planned events like speeches or demonstrations. Instead of paying for advertising time, a media or pseudo-event seeks to use public relations to gain media and public attention. The theorist Marshal McLuhan has stated that the pseudo-event has been viewed as an event that is separate from reality and is to simply satisfy our need for constant excitement and interest in pop culture. These events are, ‘planned, planted, or incited (Merrin, 2002)’ solely to be reproduced later again and again.”
Well, the Nobel Prizes were in all these particulars one of the earliest pseudo-events, and that is precisely why I don’t want to buy into them too much: To do so is inherently ideological in the sense that it supports media manipulation (one author deserves more attention than 500 others). It is perhaps not intended to be, BUT WINDS UP BEING, “anti-cultural”. It reifies the existent power structure. And prizes (this is my money shot) are always about THEMSELVES, and NOT about what is ostensibly “honored”.
The build-up to events like the Super Bowl or the Nobel Prize in Literature falls into the category of what a friend of mine brilliantly dubbed “the pre-hash”. The pre-hash is kind of infinite, therefore exciting; once something has happened, it is finite, and by comparison kind of boring. So pre-hash and anticipation is what we get the most of. (Famously, no one remembers Oscar winners a month after the ceremony. CODA, anyone?)
These types of events, like the Olympics, are more precisely what Daniel Boorstin, in his great book The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-events in America, calls “pseudo-events”. Guy Debord and Jean Baudrillard also had something to say about this. ?
“A media event, also known as a pseudo-event, is an event, activity, or experience conducted for the purpose of media publicity. It may also include any event that is covered in the mass media or was hosted largely with the media in mind. Media events may center on a news announcement, an anniversary, a news conference, or planned events like speeches or demonstrations. Instead of paying for advertising time, a media or pseudo-event seeks to use public relations to gain media and public attention. The theorist Marshal McLuhan has stated that the pseudo-event has been viewed as an event that is separate from reality and is to simply satisfy our need for constant excitement and interest in pop culture. These events are, ‘planned, planted, or incited (Merrin, 2002)’ solely to be reproduced later again and again.”
Well, the Nobel Prizes were in all these particulars one of the earliest pseudo-events, and that is precisely why I don’t want to buy into them too much: To do so is inherently ideological in the sense that it supports media manipulation (one author deserves more attention than 500 others). It is perhaps not intended to be, BUT WINDS UP BEING, “anti-cultural”. It reifies the existent power structure. And prizes (this is my money shot) are always about THEMSELVES, and NOT about what is ostensibly “honored”.
Last edited:
Liam
Administrator
But at the same time, no one is FORCED to care about the Nobel Prize. It's just what one tiny country awards to one writer every year. If the rest of the world didn't care, this award wouldn't mean so much, I don't think. But the world DOES care. I don't know why, but it does. And so it continues, 
Patrick Murtha
Reader
Someone pins me to the wall and demands, “Do you think that prizes are inherently reactionary?” And as I squirm and ponder the categorical imperative, finally I blurt out, “Yes, I’m afraid I do.” ?
Daniel del Real
Moderator
Granted, but a very mediocre poetic quality, with absolutely no right to claim he deserves the Nobel as a poet, or to think he is in the same level than Heaney, Szymborska or Transtömer, true and wonderful poets awarded right before Dylan. Have you read them? It seems that's not the case.
Bartleby
Moderator
I have, all of the three you mentioned, and think Dylan not only more than stands in the same level of them, but also is one of the greatest choices of this century, with his vibrant use of the English language distinguishing from most writers alive, in any genre (and I'm not alone in saying that). I'm not gonna repeat myself, if you want an explanation as to why just see my posts on the Bob Dylan thread.
While you don't think he is that great, I can understand that, but it would suit you better if you supported this view with arguments, instead of just writing him off simply with adjectives; not to mention to obliquely question the intellect of other members of the forum
Last edited:
Daniel del Real
Moderator
When someone says Dylan is "one of the greatest choices of this century" and thinks he's in the same league of Heaney, Szymborska & Tranströmer, there's no other thing to do but question (not obliquely, directly) your intellect. Not gonna waste my time any more kid, never really cared about your opinion.I have, all of the three you mentioned, and think Dylan not only more than stands in the same level of them, but also is one of the greatest choices of this century, with his vibrant use of the English language distinguishing from most writers alive, in any genre (and I'm not alone in saying that). I'm not gonna repeat myself, if you want an explanation as to why just see my posts on the Bob Dylan thread.
While you don't think he is that great, I can understand that, but it would suit you better if you supported this view with arguments, instead of just writing him off simply with adjectives; not to mention to obliquely question the intellect of other members of the forum
namelesshere
Reader
I don't really think someone in the position of moderator should be expressing this view in this way.
Please let's just stop rehashing the arguments about Dylan's win, or at least port them to the Dylan thread (I presume there is one).
Daniel del Real
Moderator
I'm stopping here, that's what I said in my last post.
namelesshere
Reader
Dubravka Ugresic or Nuruddin Farrah, perhaps.
Daniel del Real
Moderator
Ismail Kadare from Albania or Ana Blandiana from Romania. Not only countries, but languages never awarded.
namelesshere
Reader
Forgot about Kadare (how could I!), but yes, absolutely him.
Liam
Administrator
I am reminded of my own words about our yearly Nobel speculation thread: "Names will be called, blood will be spilled, honor will be defended, chaos will reign..." Come on people, let us enjoy ourselves in this crazy time before the Nobel announcement and remember to be civil, and keep in mind Eric's words that "an opinion is just that, an opinion..."
Last edited:
If song is literature, then no worries. I think Dylan is brilliant. His words were intended for melody. Poetically though, his lyrics often don't scan, and I remember thinking Tarantula pretty unachieved as poetry.
Liam
Administrator
I am still holding out hope (hope against hope) that a poet will win. I am rooting for Tomas Venclova, but really, I would love to see ANY poet win. But with everything going on in the world, I'm just not sure what the SA will do this year, perhaps they will reward a writer with a "global" outlook, perhaps an anti-war polemicist, perhaps a Ukrainian novelist (I wouldn't put it past them). I am really biting my nails in anticipation, LOL. I feel like, whatever their choice is this year, it's going to be MAJOR in terms of response!
- Status