The Nobel-gate

[Liam]

^Unfortunately, Daniel, I do think that they are going to strive and make this year "exemplary," following the scandal that has divided the SA so bitterly (it seems like). So I wouldn't get my hopes up. However, that being said, there are many women writers out there who just happen to be great at what they do, many of them working in languages other than the perennial few that come up in discussions on this board. I suppose we'll be able to judge after the final announcement comes in.

This is off topic, but has anyone here watched The Wife with Glenn Close? It's about a famous elderly male novelist who keeps waiting for the call from the Swedes announcing he's won the Nobel (loosely based on Philip Roth) and his patient, self-effacing wife of many years (played by Glenn Close). The movie proceeds quietly, showing us the aftermath of what happens when that phone call DOES finally come. I haven't finished watching it yet so can't recommend it categorically but the performances (so far) are lovely.

 

[peter_d]

I don't know about you guys, but I want to see a Nobel laureate that is the best at what he does (or at least, that you know there is no doubt he is among the best).
Ko Un is one of the best poets alive, period. I don't want a straight A model citizen as the winner, I want a great fucking poet! I don't want a crappy musician like Dylan or a woman that is average in her writings just because she is a recognized feminist.

I really hope there is no response to the scandal for these two Nobels this year; otherwise it would've been better to continue without the award this year as well.

I have good hopes that they want the prize to get its timelessness back and that they realize that a response to the scandal wouldn't help. But let's keep the speculation for the few months before the announcement.

 

[Dante]

I don't know about you guys, but I want to see a Nobel laureate that is the best at what he does (or at least, that you know there is no doubt he is among the best).
Ko Un is one of the best poets alive, period. I don't want a straight A model citizen as the winner, I want a great fucking poet! I don't want a crappy musician like Dylan or a woman that is average in her writings just because she is a recognized feminist.

Amen to that!

But I'm afraid they'll try to be as much as possible "politically correct" after the huge controversy.

 

[redhead]

I'm gonna ignore the whole "should an awful person get an award for their art" debate and just say, if they give the Nobel to a man accused of years of sexual harassment while the SA recovers from their own scandal, that would be peak idiocy.

Anyway, it's not like there aren't tons of deserving women and feminist writers in the world. Giving one or both prizes to feminist women doesn't have to be solely for the sake of political correctness.

 

[Bartleby]

I'm gonna ignore the whole "should an awful person get an award for their art" debate and just say, if they give the Nobel to a man accused of years of sexual harassment while the SA recovers from their own scandal, that would be peak idiocy.

Anyway, it's not like there aren't tons of deserving women and feminist writers in the world. Giving one or both prizes to feminist women doesn't have to be solely for the sake of political correctness.

I don't think it would be bad if the prize went to a feminist that is also a great writer. (for yes, there are tons of feminists, both living and dead, who are great writers - that doesn't enhance or curb their talent, meaning it's not, nor should it solely be, the measure for why a given author is good or bad). I don't care what the laureate's political views are. The thing here I see as being: awarding someone whose views far outweigh the quality of their output. What I care most in Art is the ingenuity in the communication of ideas; so even when reading something completely opposite from what I agree with, if it's ingeniously written I'll find joy in it.

But still I think I am moderately confident, I still have enough faith that they'll think solely of the longevity of the prize and not make a most immediate, politically relevant choice, but the most literary relevant one.

I remember that interview when Engdahl said they chose pamuk for the quality of his storytelling, and then everyone kept saying he won for his political problems with his country.

(and yeah, there are these new, external committee members, but I can just hope they won't have enough power to de-characterize the prize...)

 

[OverTheMountains]

I don't know about you guys, but I want to see a Nobel laureate that is the best at what he does (or at least, that you know there is no doubt he is among the best).
Ko Un is one of the best poets alive, period. I don't want a straight A model citizen as the winner, I want a great fucking poet! I don't want a crappy musician like Dylan or a woman that is average in her writings just because she is a recognized feminist.

I really hope there is no response to the scandal for these two Nobels this year; otherwise it would've been better to continue without the award this year as well.

It's worth remembering that a whole shitload of great male writers have been awarded the Nobel despite their misogyny. They far far far outnumber the exceptional female writers who have won, regardless of where they sit as feminists.

Those misogynists may not have won if more women were involved in the selection process, if only because their treatment of women as objects rather than characters may have turned those judges off. In the same way that the assumption of feminism in exceptional female writers (may the good Lord never reward good intentions for equality, right?) may make it more difficult for the still male-dominated judging panel to recognize that women can be exceptional in spite of (or because of) their feminism, and "forgiven" for it for the sake of recognizing amazing Art, in the same way that men can be recognized in spite of their misogyny. #doublestandard

This post reminds me that some of us in this forum have a lot of work to do in finding and reading female writers. And that misogyny is so deeply embedded in notions of "great art" that we clearly have a couple generations to go before we get to a point where we recognise great art can, actually, remarkably, somehow be made by anybody regardless of the particular shape of their genitals.

 

[Bartleby]

It's worth remembering that a whole shitload of great male writers have been awarded the Nobel despite their misogyny. They far far far outnumber the exceptional female writers who have won, regardless of where they sit as feminists.

Those misogynists may not have won if more women were involved in the selection process, if only because their treatment of women as objects rather than characters may have turned those judges off. In the same way that the assumption of feminism in exceptional female writers (may the good Lord never reward good intentions for equality, right?) may make it more difficult for the still male-dominated judging panel to recognize that women can be exceptional in spite of (or because of) their feminism, and "forgiven" for it for the sake of recognizing amazing Art, in the same way that men can be recognized in spite of their misogyny. #doublestandard

This post reminds me that some of us in this forum have a lot of work to do in finding and reading female writers. And that misogyny is so deeply embedded in notions of "great art" that we clearly have a couple generations to go before we get to a point where we recognise great art can, actually, remarkably, somehow be made by anybody regardless of the particular shape of their genitals.

OTM, I appreciate you coming forward with your view, especially since I prize spaces where free speech is warranted, but I do think this was a little uncalled for. (and I don't intend here to answer for Daniel, so I'll let he address this himself, I just hope he comes with a respectful response, especially after being so misread).
For I think you might have found this opportunity to open up about something that upsets you in the world at large but ended up seeing trouble with things Daniel hasn't said, and from what I remember of his reading habits, is not true. (again, I'm not answering for him, so that's the last thing I'll say citing him).

I can see maybe you're triggered by the constant example of feminists winners. But I can only see this use coming against not the writers themselves, but the media and general public who are so vocal about so called equality while they don't consider how sexist it would actually be if from the start a woman author was chosen just for being a woman, if every other candidate's nomination from the opposite sex was therefore not even considered because they knew it would have to go to a woman. I don't see this as being helpful, specially not for the woman in question. Well, at least I, were I a writer, would like to be considered for my work, not the sex I was born with...

And I undestand that, the nobel nomination process being secret for 50 years, it can be nothing but speculation this idea that the men would discriminate women writers for their sex... It's far easier to acknowledge the very difficulties women would find in the act of being published itself, for it is more transparent, more public.

And yes, as I have been saying, I do believe it doesn't matter where an author is coming from (their sex, race, views, choices made etc), what matters is the talent said author displays on paper. And I also believe, from what I've seen here and in other circles, that people who read literature will read anything regardless of who wrote it. Therefore these initiatives to read more x authors are primarily preaching to the converts. For those who already read Literature won't have prejudices against any writer. And those who do have don't read, and its not by all this animosity that they'll start reading at all, much less the specific group advertised...

Oh, and what you've said about women objectification - I would very much appreciate it if you could give some examples (mostly) of recent man authors who objectify women, for I must admit I find most of these claims when I encounter them online to be missing the artistic point of the text, so easy it is to see something that upsets one, something one find “problematic” and immediately call it out when actually the intention wasn't to glorify it. Representation isn't necessarily endorsement (e.g. Lolita)...

(anyway, I know this is sensitive terrain, but I hope everything has come out respectfully and that you understand I wasn't trying to upset or offend you )

 

[Liam]

To be fair, Daniel is not predicting that Ko Un will win, he's merely saying Ko Un deserves to win for his poetry--because he writes GREAT poetry--whatever faults he may have as a human being (and god knows no one's perfect, some of us less so than others).

I also don't think Ko Un has any chances left, but let's just let it rest.

@OTM: I think what Daniel is saying (and I don't want to be putting words in his mouth) is that artists should win based on the greatness of their art, and should a writer from an under-represented category win, they should win solely for the power of their artistic vision and not because they belong to some token minority. But as several people have already pointed out, one need not exclude the other.

I second Daniel's wish to see at least one poet honored this year though. With people reading less and less poetry, and with less and less poetry being translated from other languages into English (not counting the hundred-thousandth version of the Iliad), it's important to keep it in the public eye.

 

[JCamilo]

Anyways, if the Nobel could survive not awarding Borges for his blind inclination towards dictadors 50 years ago, it can survive feminism. Borges himself make me think how naive it is to separate politics from art, he tried hard to build this image around himself, but more people study his background, correspondence and testimony of friends, more a figure that was deeply rooted in politics (and that was expressed in his art) come out. I find very hard because great artists do have a vision of the world (either we agree with it or not is another story) and anytime your vision is about society, you are building a political view. This way, any action is has a political message: either they give both nobels to two novelists, one french and another english, or just award a oral storyteller from africa or a asian feminist philosopher, there will be a political message, no neutrality is possible in anything with such public impact and the Nobel always wants to say something when they justify their choices. Will be political and it is good to be, the thinking heads in the world that in someway the nobel represents must start thinking about those problems or we end like Brazil, with racist fascist in power.

 

[Bartleby]

Anyways, if the Nobel could survive not awarding Borges for his blind inclination towards dictadors 50 years ago, it can survive feminism. Borges himself make me think how naive it is to separate politics from art, he tried hard to build this image around himself, but more people study his background, correspondence and testimony of friends, more a figure that was deeply rooted in politics (and that was expressed in his art) come out. I find very hard because great artists do have a vision of the world (either we agree with it or not is another story) and anytime your vision is about society, you are building a political view. This way, any action is has a political message: either they give both nobels to two novelists, one french and another english, or just award a oral storyteller from africa or a asian feminist philosopher, there will be a political message, no neutrality is possible in anything with such public impact and the Nobel always wants to say something when they justify their choices. Will be political and it is good to be, the thinking heads in the world that in someway the nobel represents must start thinking about those problems or we end like Brazil, with racist fascist in power.

I do agree with you in the statement about every work of art being political for it shares a view of society, for it is not separated from it. And that yes, every reader when encountering such a work will be in contact with a political view.

But I do not think that the chosing of the laureates in itself is an attempt from the part of the academy to regulate the political scenery of the world. What I mean is, when deliberating whether X or y or z should get this year's prize, they must chose between these authors on account of their artistic contributions, regarding which one seems to be the most artistically relevant to deserve the prize, and not on the terms of which author will bring the most timely message to today's times.

The reason why I believe this is that we can try to find some common grounds among the nobel winners. If it was true that the academy is the most interested in shaping our political minds, then all laureates should be equally strongly, actively, politically engaged. Which is not the case. If we take for instance two poets, heaney and tranströmer. The former is very politically engaged in his poems, the latter is not (at least judging by his first book of poems, which, reading a bit from the Internet, it seems his contemporaries even critisised him for not bringing to his poetry the country's social problems). But then if we take a look at their aesthetics: both possess a very strong, unique sense of style. So to me this seems to be the most important concern of this prize. You will hardly (at least in more recent years) come across an author who writes awfully bad. They will have, though one might not like it, a strong, personal style.

But then, you are free to disagree, and at any rate we have no way of actually knowing what they talk about when giving theses prizes, only speculation is possible...

 

[Liam]

I remember that interview when Engdahl said they chose pamuk for the quality of his storytelling, and then everyone kept saying he won for his political problems with his country.

I think the SA has this infuriating tendency to award authors (who are good at what they do) precisely when they make a political splash that (or previous) year, and then claim that, Oh no we're giving it to them for the quality of their storytelling.

I find it curious that Pamuk won THE YEAR he got into a protracted political mess with the Turkish government. Harold Pinter won THE YEAR he went on a series of anti-American diatribes connected with the war in Iraq. Elfriede Jelinek won THE YEAR she published some anti-American pieces, also criticizing the war in Iraq and the Bush administration.

Like, yeah, if you want me to believe you're awarding these people for the quality of their art, maybe do it sometime when they're NOT otherwise in the news with politically connected stories attached to their name?

 

[Bartleby]

Way I see it, these authors are always so vocal, or live in such a complicated country, had the academy waited till miraculously they were saying nothing or nothing was happening to them they probably would never be awarded...

 

[Ludus]

Way I see it, these authors are always so vocal, or live in such a complicated country, had the academy waited till miraculously they were saying nothing or nothing was happening to them they probably would never be awarded...

Gonna put this on a frame in my wall.

 

[Daniel del Real]

It's worth remembering that a whole shitload of great male writers have been awarded the Nobel despite their misogyny. They far far far outnumber the exceptional female writers who have won, regardless of where they sit as feminists.

Those misogynists may not have won if more women were involved in the selection process, if only because their treatment of women as objects rather than characters may have turned those judges off. In the same way that the assumption of feminism in exceptional female writers (may the good Lord never reward good intentions for equality, right?) may make it more difficult for the still male-dominated judging panel to recognize that women can be exceptional in spite of (or because of) their feminism, and "forgiven" for it for the sake of recognizing amazing Art, in the same way that men can be recognized in spite of their misogyny. #doublestandard

This post reminds me that some of us in this forum have a lot of work to do in finding and reading female writers. And that misogyny is so deeply embedded in notions of "great art" that we clearly have a couple generations to go before we get to a point where we recognise great art can, actually, remarkably, somehow be made by anybody regardless of the particular shape of their genitals.

You seem to be completely lost on what I said. I have nothing against women writers or feminism (when it is taken in the right direction, without extremisms). Whenever I pick a book, I really don't consider if it was written by a male or a female. To try to establish a quota, seems to me an idiocy, following standards of the politically correct bullshit, which is way more "say things that look nice- do the opposite".
This year so far, I've read nine books written by women. How many have you read?

My main possible complain to the academy would be not for awarding a women or even two: it goes against doing it as a statement of vindication on the Svenska Akademien, regarding the sexual scandal. I think it would even go in detriment of a great possible women writer: what if an unquestionable writer like Anne Carson or Ana Blandiana get the Nobel? many voices would start to say it was only to try to erase the bad impression SA left after the scandal. To honor two women would we equally damaging to the award as awarding Ko Un for example.

And yes, based on solely literary merits, Ko Un is easily one of the best five poets alive. Period.

 

[peter_d]

To honor two women would we equally damaging to the award as awarding Ko Un for example.

Whatever choice they will make, people will try to explain it with a reference to the scandal. If they award it to two men, you will hear: 'they want to make clear that it is in no way a reaction to the scandal'. If they choose two women, it will be 'this prize is not about literature anymore, but about political correctness'. If it goes to a man and a woman: 'they did that because they want to avoid it to be connected to the scandal.' There is just no way that everyone will be silent about the scandal. No matter what choice they make.

 

[JCamilo]

Yeah, that is pretty much it. There is no way any of your actions towards society (Individual or as a group) will not have a political impact. They shouldn't be bothered to avoid it because it is just not possible and be true to their concepts and principles, which are beyond just aesthetics.

Way I see it, these authors are always so vocal, or live in such a complicated country, had the academy waited till miraculously they were saying nothing or nothing was happening to them they probably would never be awarded...

So, the thing making noise now are the feminists, authors who wouldn't be noticed or considered are going to be considered because the buzz in this right frequency. It is not very different from how any awards that big was done in the world, they react (not manipulate, even more the Nobel that looks the past more than anything, since they pick an individual usually with a stabilished contribution and even past their prime). They may do, as Liam pointed, "pretend they weren't under influence of politics", but that is not how humanity works.

 

[Uemarasan]

I predict a female writer and a male writer, one of them not writing in English.

My ideal pairing would be Anne Carson and Adonis. It's been a while for poetry.

 

[tierraylibros]

I predict a female writer and a male writer, one of them not writing in English.

My ideal pairing would be Anne Carson and Adonis. It's been a while for poetry.

I wonder if the rules would allow for honoring someone who dies (or maybe has died) between the suspension of the prize this past year and the awarding of the prize this coming year. Adonis is 89, N'gugi wa T'hiongo is 81 (and was trending today -- I had worried he died), and Kundera is 89. And heck, John Barth is still around at 88, Thomas Pynchon at 81, Don Delillo at 82, and Herman Wouk is 103!

I'm not suggesting any of these authors, but remarking at the possibility of a posthumous award if someone were alive when the award would have been given or if they already made their choice for 2018 as some were reporting, what if that person were to die.

 

[Daniel del Real]

I wonder if the rules would allow for honoring someone who dies (or maybe has died) between the suspension of the prize this past year and the awarding of the prize this coming year. Adonis is 89, N'gugi wa T'hiongo is 81 (and was trending today -- I had worried he died), and Kundera is 89. And heck, John Barth is still around at 88, Thomas Pynchon at 81, Don Delillo at 82, and Herman Wouk is 103!

I'm not suggesting any of these authors, but remarking at the possibility of a posthumous award if someone were alive when the award would have been given or if they already made their choice for 2018 as some were reporting, what if that person were to die.

They weren't able to gather and discuss or deliberate last year. All the complete cycle process will be made this year for both, 2018 and 2019 Nobel Prize. For these reasons the answer is no, there will be no posthumous award.

 

[Marba]

Sara Danius said in an interview that in her opinion the 2018 prize should have been left blank as a memory to honour the women that had been harassed by Jean-Claude Arnault and others like him.

On the Nobel and its relation to politics I remember Per Wästberg once said that people criticised the choices of Harold Pinter as being too far left, Mario Vargas Llosa as being too far right, and then Tomas Tranströmer of being a too apolitical choice. So it's not easy as there will always be someone who reads politics into the choices.

As for the two choices for 2018 and 2019 it has been said that they might go for two writers that would be easily accepted among the general public, one for Margaret Atwood and one for an African writer were the two mentioned.