Nobel Prize Levelling and Saturation

[spacepirate]

I have been thinking over something about the Nobel Prize for Literature. I think most people would be in agreement that from the pool of living writers who are good enough to win, only a few will actually win the award. There's a fair few writers over 80 who, looking like it, will probably never get the award because of this imbalance of one award per year. But then, say in 10-20 years, the authors who are 80 now will probably be gone, does that mean that given a certain time-frame the Nobel might reach a stage where they could theoretically award everyone 'worthy' of the Nobel?

I mean, my reasoning might be a bit off here, but surely 'great' writers do not just magically come into existence every year thus you could reach a plateau between the appearance of 'Nobel' writers and the giving out of the award? And so long as the giving out the award worked at a faster pace than new possible recipients, it seems to me there could be a time where all (or most) writers of a certain calibre were never overlooked.

And perhaps from that, more controversially, what do you guys think then of the chances the Academy might go back to giving out the prize to multiple recipients?

 

[Stevie B]

And perhaps from that, more controversially, what do you guys think then of the chances the Academy might go back to giving out the prize to multiple recipients?

I agree that with only one recipient per year, some very deserving writers will continue to be overlooked. For me, however, the exclusivity of the Nobel selection process makes it all the more intriguing. I'm also against any idea that could increase the chances of a Nobel being awarded to Bob Dylan.

 

[Elie]

I can't believe there are odds up for this already. I know it's only last year's names in a slightly different order, but still!

 

[Daniel del Real]

I can't believe there are odds up for this already. I know it's only last year's names in a slightly different order, but still!

And I thought we were extremely insane starting the discussions in August

 

[RASimmons]

There really is quite a paradox with the Nobel award. Even if you leave aside all (often valid) complaints about HOW they decide who is worthy of winning, and assume a perfect selection process, you are inevitable going to end up leaving worthy writers behind. On the other hand, if you start handing out more awards, it begins to dilute the actual prestige of having one. Luckily, I think most savvy literary-minded folks are smart enough to realize that a writer can have a perfectly fine career without a Nobel (I think of it kind of like the NBA, if any of you follow that. Not every great player wins a championship, but that doesn't mean we don't respect and admire John Stockton, Karl Marlone, etc., even if those players that do win are thought of a bit differently historically).

EDIT: As for those odds, a LOT of fine writers on there. I would be most happy with the winner being one of either Adonis, Nadas, Cartarescu, Pynchon, Eco, Thiog'o, or McCarthy. I would really prefer it not to be Kundera or Murakami, who I find both to be wildly overrated (I know there are some fans of both on these forums, so sorry if you like them, but I honestly think their prose is awful). Oates and Atwood I don't really have a problem with, but I don't adore them, either. The rest of the names I am not qualified to judge, either being wholly or partly unfamiliar with their works.