Nobel Prize in Literature 2023 Speculation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Davus

Reader
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.
Evidence? Simple fact that better writers die without Nobel while worse ones win every year. :)

And I don't care what Malcolm X said. He's not my hero at all. :)
 

Skinnyfists

Active member
My two cents on the male/female laureate (ratio of winners) debate - my logic is:

1. There is an equal number of brilliant male and female writers. Or, alternatively, there are many more brilliant female writers than the SA would ever be able to award the Nobel to (given it's only one a year).

2. The prize winners, historically, have been disproportionately male.

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.
 

nagisa

Spiky member
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.
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")
 

Davus

Reader
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")
As your arguments do not answer the question why today's left is authoritarian and rapes the minds of free thinking people.
 

Davus

Reader
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.
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.
 

Skinnyfists

Active member
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.
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.
 

Z--

Member
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.
I agree with this.

Kind of pointless to fight here, as the thread will be gone shortly, so no benefits for posterity's sake.
 

Marba

Reader
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?

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.
 
Last edited:

hunger_artist

New member
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.
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.
People: I can't decide whether the SA is giving us a nudge with the Tagore photo, or throwing us off the track. Maybe they put it up because they know Can Xue's the frontrunner? I lie here poring over Chinese writers and comparing their odds: Yu Hua, Yan Lianke, Can Xue obviously. I still can't shake the Bei Dao possibility.
He'd totally fit the emigre profile, lived in the States for many years. He's written poetry, memoir, and a collection of stories. He just seems to tick all the boxes: world-citizen, genre-spanning, survivor of significant adversity...and yes, male (?).
 

Marba

Reader
T-minus a few hours...wonder if the winner has received the call yet.

I would say no to this. Usually they try to reach the laureate around half an hour before the announcement as to be able to let the laureate know first but still avoid the risk of leaks.

There have been years (I think it was when Ishiguro was awarded in 2017?) that they did not make any call at all just to try to avoid the name leaking. Also if I remember correctly they neither tried to reach Dylan in 2016.
 
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."!.. ?
? ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top