Evidence? Simple fact that better writers die without Nobel while worse ones win every year.Again, show me evidence of these unjust awards, this string of mediocre winners dastardly pushed by the woke SA.
On repairing injustices, in the fiery words of Malcolm X: “If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there’s no progress. If you pull it all the way out that’s not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven’t even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They won’t even admit the knife is there”. Apt.
It's not productive, and worse, redundant, since this johnny-come-lately is just rehashing the argument we had (and have every year) at the beginning of the thread. I've said my piece, and will leave off now, since they are not presenting anything new or interesting, or even arguing competently ("Again, show me evidence of these unjust awards, this string of mediocre winners dastardly pushed by the woke SA." answered by "Simple fact that better writers die without Nobel while worse ones win every year." is a complete non sequitur and again does not answer the problem of what exactly is "better")Each reply here invites another, as happens in a dialogue, and I'm not convinced this is productive (or that it's my place to say so, but I am) so someone needs to grasp the nettle here and give up/leave their reply unsaid/not have the last word.
Otherwise Stewart will come along just after 12 and resolve the issue for us.
As your arguments do not answer the question why today's left is authoritarian and rapes the minds of free thinking people.It's not productive, and worse, redundant, since this johnny-come-lately is just rehashing the argument we had (and have every year) at the beginning of the thread. I've said my piece, and will leave off now, since they are not presenting anything new or interesting, or even arguing competently ("Again, show me evidence of these unjust awards, this string of mediocre winners dastardly pushed by the woke SA." answered by "Simple fact that better writers die without Nobel while worse ones win every year." is a complete non sequitur and again does not answer the problem of what exactly is "better")
Well, it most certainly would for most of the time, as "rebalancing" would be politically - and not artistically - inspired. And such motivations are always wrong.3. To spend the next 50 years rebalancing the books and awarding the award solely to women would not in any way mean that they were awarding the prize to 'lesser' writers.
Doesn't matter if they picked stone cold female bangers, is my point. The boys have had their turn. In terms of dodgy motivations, I'd say the worse of the two would be having reinforced the hegemony of the patriarchy since the inception of the prize.Well, it most certainly would for most of the time, as "rebalancing" would be politically - and not artistically - inspired. And such motivations are always wrong.
I agree with this.Each reply here invites another, as happens in a dialogue, and I'm not convinced this is productive (or that it's my place to say so, but I am) so someone needs to grasp the nettle here and give up/leave their reply unsaid/not have the last word.
Otherwise Stewart will come along just after 12 and resolve the issue for us.
Thank you for your excellent analysis.
I disagree about LS. I absolutely don't understand how he resembles Samuel BECKETT and how their books are similar?
How is his "late modernism" reminiscent of Samuel BECKETT's "absurdist" writing?
And how is LK's writing "old school"? When in fact it is astonishingly modern?
Sounds like a good idea to me! The worst of it is how 50 years of consecutive female winners still wouldn't balance the scales lol. Myself, I think we'll reach the place such rebalancing strives to achieve if/when we're able to enjoy great books irrespective of the author's gender.3. To spend the next 50 years rebalancing the books and awarding the award solely to women would not in any way mean that they were awarding the prize to 'lesser' writers.
Apparently, it is going to be Anders Olsson, doing the honours today.24 hours til Mats Malm manages not to butcher the laureate's name.
T-minus a few hours...wonder if the winner has received the call yet.
Valerymed for the sleepless!?
Oh really? Where did you read this?Apparently, it is going to be Anders Olsson, doing the honours today.
Critic 2 is really ridiculus! : "I haven't read Krasznahorkai"... "But it really is the old school kind of Nobel laureate."!.. ?I listened to it again and the following is what was said when they discussed LK.
Reporter: László Krasznahorkai, how did he become a critics' favourite, Viktor?
Critic 1: He is a typical critic's favourite. A late modernist of Samuel Beckett's sort, as well. All the critics love it. There's so much to think about regarding the novels and they're dark and funny and apocalyptic, so it's not the least bit strange. He has also written an absolutely fantastic bright novel that somewhat contrasts the darkness found in his other writings, "Seiobo There Below", so he is also an author with an enormous range. He has for a long time been one of my favourites, even if I'm getting a little tired of bringing up his name in these contexts. That's how it is.
Reporter: I can't help but notice that Johan giggled a little there?
Critic 2: Yes, no but it really is the old school kind of Nobel laureate. I'm not going to say anything because, scary to say, I haven't read Krasznahorkai, so I'm withdrawing from this particular discussion.
Critic 3: No, and I also think that it would be a well-established track with an older European man, so in that way he can clearly be a favourite. But we must remember that it is still the case that the Nobel Committee and the rest of the Academy looks very different now compared to the last few years before. There are more women, there are new names. You do not know. It could be someone who has pushed for Krasznahorkai for a long time who is no longer around. So there is always that aspect which we have to think about also if one is to think about the possibilities.
Reporter: I still think it sounds like a possible laureate based on your reasoning.
Personally I think LK has a good chance as Steve Sem-Sandberg who is part of Nobel Committee is known to have been a great fan of LK before entering the Swedish Academy.
Critic 2 is really ridiculus! : "I haven't read Krasznahorkai"... "But it really is the old school kind of Nobel laureate."!.. ?
? ?