Nobel Prize in Literature 2023 Speculation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ben Jackson

Well-known member
He deserves it, no doubt about it, but his best is way back in the past. Being an old man, he hasn't published a lot lately, but some of his latest novels translated are just from mediocre (Requiem for Linda B) to atrocious (The Accident).

Kadare has a newer book called The Doll, an autobiographical novel. Has anyone read it?

Totally agree about Kadare's chances been over more than ten years ago. He had huge chances in the 90s and 2000s.

As for Ernaux, I totally agree she wasn't even a finalist until 2018/2019 when the new Nobel committee, led by Mats Malm, was inaugurated. Earlier, I once talked about Malm's interest in social-context like writers, which might have been a huge criteria for Ernaux.

As for perennials candidates getting Nobel this year, I don't think it will happen this year.
 

Ben Jackson

Well-known member
I would say Lessing should be considered as a perennial. We now know she was nominated first time in 1972 at 53 years old. I have read comments in Swedish media from when Gordimer was awarded in 1991 as the first woman in 25 years that when finally the SA decided to award a woman it should have been Lessing. It took 16 more years.

On Ernaux I have the feeling that she started to get haussed in Sweden also with the publishing of Les Années in 2020. The same year La place and Une femme were also republished, in 2021 it was Mémoire de fille and in 2022 L'Événement.

On perennials the Swedish publisher Modernista started a while back (around 10 years ago?) to republish books by several writers who had not been published by their original publisher in a long time, seemingly in hope that they would at some point cash in on Nobel Prize sales. Writers in that list include (among others):
  • Ismail Kadare
  • António Lobo Antunes
  • Cees Nooteboom
  • Don DeLillo
  • Ngugi wa Thiong'o
  • Nuruddin Farah
Their tactic hasn't paid off yet, maybe it will this year?

Totally agree with Lessing. Lessing was already shortlisted as far back as, if we take the word of Wastberg, 1982. I can't remember where I read it, but she was also in the shortlist in 85/86, 1991and 2004 before winning in 2007. Other perennial candidates include Vargas Llosa (might be shortlisted in the 90s), Handke (around 2000s), Transtromer (probably in 1995/96), and Naipaul (already a finalist almost fifteen years before 2001: 1987, 89, 92, 98 and 2000, of course from speculative sources).
 

Ben Jackson

Well-known member
Speaking of perennials, it's quite fun to read old NYT articles and see how the perennial speculation would manifest into actual laureates. And by speculation, I mean clearly Academy members were leaking shortlists. It may be fruitful if someone wants to do a deeper trawl to ascertain names.

From 1994 when Oe was awarded:

Because the three previous winners -- Derek Walcott, Nadine Gordimer and Ms. Morrison -- write in English, speculation before today's announcement had centered on authors from Europe or Asia. Among those considered in the running were the Belgian poet, playwright and novelist Hugo Claus, who writes in Flemish; the German novelist and playwright Peter Handke; the Dutch novelist Cees Nooteboom; the Swedish poet Tomas Transtromer; the Japanese novelist Shusaku Endo, and the Irish poet Seamus Heaney.

Or when Fo got it in 1997:

Mr. Fo later told reporters over the telephone that he found out 15 days ago that he was a Nobel finalist along with the Portuguese writer Jose Saramago.

Morrison:

The announcement that Ms. Morrison had won the Nobel Prize came as something of a surprise. Speculation in the Swedish press had swirled around four possible candidates: Seamus Heaney, the Irish poet, who has been considered a front-runner for several years; Hugo Claus, a Belgian poet, playwright and film maker who writes in Flemish; Bei Dao, an exiled Chinese poet, and Ali Ahmed Saeed, a Syrian-born Lebanese poet who writes under the name Adonis.

American writers whose names have surfaced from time to time are Joyce Carol Oates and Thomas Pynchon.

Paz:

In keeping with the academy's tradition of secrecy, he declined to identify the others. But members of literary circles here said that perennial candidates included Carlos Fuentes, another Mexican writer; Nadine Gordimer, the South African writer; V. S. Naipaul, the novelist, who was born in Trinidad and lives in Britain; Milan Kundera, the Czechoslovak novelist; Max Frisch, the Swiss playwright, and Mario Vargas Llosa, the Peruvian writer.

Brodsky:

Although the deliberations are secret, an academy member confirmed that Mr. Brodsky was a finalist last year when Wole Soyinka, a Nigerian poet, won. This year, according to some accounts, Mr. Brodsky won out over a list of finalists including Mr. Naipaul, Octavio Paz, a Mexican critic and poet, and the reputed runner-up, Camilo Jose Cela, a Spanish poet born in 1916.


The academy member that revealed Brodsky shortlist with Soyinka was Osten Sjostrand, the then Academy expert on poetry. He was very influential in the Acdemy decisions concerning poets in those years, up till Szymborska. From what I have read about him, here are some poets he reviewed/advocared for the Nobel Prize:

Seamus Heaney
Soyinka
Walcott
Brodsky
Yves Bonnefoy
Tomas Transtromer
Tomas Venclova
Charles Simic
John Ashbery
Odysseus Elytis
Jaroslav Seifert
Yiannis Ritsos
Octavio Paz
Gunnar Harding
Zbigniew Herbert
Vincent Aleixandre
Rafael Alberti
And so many others.

I once talked about Paz, Fo, Oe and Brodsky's opponents in the years they were awarded in the speculation last year. In fact before Cela's win in 1989, he was already shortlisted for six consecutive years (1983--1989). I also knew about Hugo Claus been the 90s Auden (shortlisted almost all the years of the 90s decade apart from maybe the first two years of that decade).
 

Abhi

Well-known member
Why do you guys thing Ngugi wa Thiong'o hasn't won? Do you think the SA might be of the opinion that his contributions are more cultural (as in considerably increasing the representation of a continent amidst world literature) than purely literary?
 

Ben Jackson

Well-known member
Why do you guys thing Ngugi wa Thiong'o hasn't won? Do you think the SA might be of the opinion that his contributions are more cultural (as in considerably increasing the representation of a continent amidst world literature) than purely literary?

Ngugi's case is one of pure didactism. His works are more ideological than artistic. If you look at works like Petals of Blood, which in the earlier stages (I haven't read the whole thing but I read it up till mid-way, hasn't finished it yet), it started as a work that will rival Marquez or possibly Fuentes, but at the pint when it started to preach revolution, that's when I closed the book. He works best, I believe, in non-fiction than fiction.
 

Davus

Reader
Why do you guys thing Ngugi wa Thiong'o hasn't won? Do you think the SA might be of the opinion that his contributions are more cultural (as in considerably increasing the representation of a continent amidst world literature) than purely literary?
He hasn't won simply because it would be 'too obvious choice' for the Academy. So they chose Gurnah instead. This is the only reason. :)
 

Skinnyfists

Active member
Lorna Goodison...how do we rate her chances? People have also been quiet on Ulitskaya this year. She often came up in conversations in previous years.

I'm doing some last minute reading of some Ersi Sotiropoulos...why not...it's all part of the fun...

??
 

Davus

Reader
If that were the case, these would be my favorite "combos":

1. Krasznahorkai and Nádas
2. Murnane and Malouf
3. Fosse and Knåusgard

Also, three Wolfie laureates are there... what a coincidence! ?
They should reward Salman Rushdie and someone from Iran (let's say, Mahmoud Dowlatabadi) together. This would be a statement from the Swedish Academy!
 

Leseratte

Well-known member
Reading the news about the other Nobel prizes (medicine, chemistry, etc.), I thought it would be really nice if the academy awarded two prizes per year. Sure, writers don't work together/parallel like a team of scientists, but after all, there are twin authors, even miles apart. I thought of some examples.

António Lobo Antunes and Scholastique Mukasonga, for chronicling the abuses of indoctrination and cultural colonisation, and illustrating the shared pains of victim and perpetrator.

Anne Carson and Antonella Anedda, for having sublimated the personal analysis of the human condition, and for having identified the fragment as the key to understanding the mosaic.

Can Xue and Yōko Ogawa, for using the word in brushstrokes and illuminating the inconsistencies of logic and the inaccessibility of the mystery of the human condition.

With two Nobels a year, perhaps we would all be happier! Ahahah!
Allow me to disagree from your well justified post, Laura. You yourself state the reason: "Sure, writers don't work together/parallel like a team of scientists" (what in my opinion is the only reason that justifies a double award.). Authors are artists not scientists, even if their themes or stiles happen sometimes to be similar. A double award doesn´t double the visibility of the winner, it halves it as could recently be witnessed, as the awarding of Olga Tokarczuk was almost swallowed up by the Handke controversy. On a more concrete economical level it also halves the money and while one supposes that scientists have usually at least acceptable salaries or scholarships to conduct their experiment/research, the same can not be said the authors, who very often don´t live from what they earn as writers. So, the award may represent a, sometimes much needed, sort of economical relief or upgrading.
 

The Common Reader

Well-known member
Allow me to disagree from your well justified post, Laura. You yourself state the reason: "Sure, writers don't work together/parallel like a team of scientists" (what in my opinion is the only reason that justifies a double award.). Authors are artists not scientists, even if their themes or stiles happen sometimes to be similar. A double award doesn´t double the visibility of the winner, it halves it as could recently be witnessed, as the awarding of Olga Tokarczuk was almost swallowed up by the Handke controversy. On a more concrete economical level it also halves the money and while one supposes that scientists have usually at least acceptable salaries or scholarships to conduct their experiment/research, the same can not be said the authors, who very often don´t live from what they earn as writers. So, the award may represent a, sometimes much needed, sort of economical relief or upgrading.
But surely on those grounds an argument could be made for a double award for Both Strauss, considering how closely they have colaborated...seriously, though, I've always liked the idea of a double award, but I think that you have pointed out a very good reason to avoid this practice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top