Ben Jackson
Well-known member
The Nobel Prizes in 1907, 08, 09, 10, 11 and 12 were awarded to Kipling, Eucken, Lagerolf, Heysee, Maeterlinck and Hauptmann.
The shortlist for 1907 was Kipling, Lagerolf and Swinburne. Kipling was selected for his "fertile ideas and imagination," in his then recent work Kim. Kipling was chosen was the laureate.
The 1908 shortlist was between English poet Swinburne, Eucken and Lagerolf. Wirsen, against the radical Lagerolf, backed up Swinburne despite acknowledging Kipling's recent Nobel triumph. He blamed Swinburne's fondness of the "wicked Baudelaire" but was happy in the recent poems which discussed British empire. Lagerolf was dismissed by Wirsen for "her radical approach demonstrated in works like Gosta Berlings' Saga), but the other committee members praised Lagerolf's rich imagination and called her " one of Europe's finest writers." At the end, Eucken was chosen as a compromise choice.
In 1909, Lagerolf was shortlisted alongside Belgians Maeterlinck and Emile Verhaeren. Wirsen yet again, knowing that Swinburne had died fee months in 1909, launched Maeterlinck and Verhaeren. He said, understanding Maeterlinck's works, that he was one of the "finest writers in the continent, " and praised his "brilliant compositions in works like The Blind and Pellaeas and Melisande." But unfortunately, he couldn't get the support he needed, and Lageolf was voted instead.
In 1910, Paul Von Heysee, Maeterlinck, Thomas Hardy, and Anatole France was shortlisted. Thomas Hardy works were deemed "too immoral and ungodly, " and was dismissed for "depictions of fallen women and his atheism." Anatole France was dismissed "as not having the noble idealism that should characterize those awarding the Nobel Prize." Heysee's selection seems vague, but it's suggested that he was one of the last realist acclaimed in Germany atill alive from 1850s and was praised for his oustanding novellas. Maeterlinck's evaluationn was similar from the previous year.
In 1911 & 1912, Henry James, Maeterlinck, George Bernard Shaw, Gerhart Hauptmann were shortlisted. Henry James was commended for his "fine style and conversational and situation novels," but was dismissed for "lack of concentration, and his recent outing 'Wings of a Dove,' too improbable and odious in subject." Maeterlinck was praised as 'a poet of admirable power and versatility is surprising great. His choice will be like in most quarters, because this poet enjoys a world reputation and his writings are widely read and accepted." Bernard Shaw was seen as "works lacking the ideal direction." Hauptmann's The Weavers played a vital role in Hauptmann's victory, though he was praised for been one of the finest naturalist in Europe. Hence for Nobel in 1911 and 1912, Materlinck and Hauptmann were chosen.
From me, looking at the recipients in this period of Wirsen, there are so many winners who have gone into obscurity: Heysee, Bjorson, Mistral and Echegaray, Eucken and of course Prudhomme. I read Maeterlinck's The Blind and Poems, and can say that he's very underrated. Kipling's Kim is a beautiful book, but I feel his poems are somewhat not my cup of tea. Sienkiewicz's Quo Vadis seems to me one of the finest historical works I read in my teens, and I agree that it displayed the power of Tolstoy l addressing a turbulent time in Roman history (in the age of Emperor Nero) and Lagerolf's Nils is also very interesting, but I can see why people called the period (one of the worst in Nobel history. Seriously, I don't know which decade is worse, this or the 30s). There are some writers I would love to read: Hauptmann and more of Lagerolf.
It seemed that the period 1900---1939, the committee expressed no interest in the innovations taken place on literature. It wasn't till 1946 that the reward for modernism started to pay off. And for what I said earlier about Freud, it seemed that the Academy was tired of awarding writers in the non-fiction areas. And since dawn of 21st century, only one writer from the non-fiction area has been awarded: the oral historian Alexevich. What I really think is that a prize recognizing writers mainly in the non-fiction field: philosophers, Travel writers, diarists, literary/art critics, historians, biographers/memoirists, linguists/semioticians, anthropologists, nature writing e.t.c. in this way, it could have provided equity for intellectuals in other fields. It seems now that the Nobel doesn't recognize other fields of knowledge but literature. I also feel that if the Nobel literature prize is awarded to two writers instead of one, maybe it might ameliorate things. The Nobel can't go to everybody, that's for sure, but at least the list of deserving names (am not talking of writers like Joyce, Woolf, Proust, Kafka, Lorca, writers that weren't even nominated), like Moravia, Nabokov and Kazantzakis could have, maybe, been awarded.
As I have concluded with the report/evaluation of the committee between 1907---1912, I have officially come to the end (or to the beginning) of every deliberation the Nobel committee and Swedish Academy have had.
The shortlist for 1907 was Kipling, Lagerolf and Swinburne. Kipling was selected for his "fertile ideas and imagination," in his then recent work Kim. Kipling was chosen was the laureate.
The 1908 shortlist was between English poet Swinburne, Eucken and Lagerolf. Wirsen, against the radical Lagerolf, backed up Swinburne despite acknowledging Kipling's recent Nobel triumph. He blamed Swinburne's fondness of the "wicked Baudelaire" but was happy in the recent poems which discussed British empire. Lagerolf was dismissed by Wirsen for "her radical approach demonstrated in works like Gosta Berlings' Saga), but the other committee members praised Lagerolf's rich imagination and called her " one of Europe's finest writers." At the end, Eucken was chosen as a compromise choice.
In 1909, Lagerolf was shortlisted alongside Belgians Maeterlinck and Emile Verhaeren. Wirsen yet again, knowing that Swinburne had died fee months in 1909, launched Maeterlinck and Verhaeren. He said, understanding Maeterlinck's works, that he was one of the "finest writers in the continent, " and praised his "brilliant compositions in works like The Blind and Pellaeas and Melisande." But unfortunately, he couldn't get the support he needed, and Lageolf was voted instead.
In 1910, Paul Von Heysee, Maeterlinck, Thomas Hardy, and Anatole France was shortlisted. Thomas Hardy works were deemed "too immoral and ungodly, " and was dismissed for "depictions of fallen women and his atheism." Anatole France was dismissed "as not having the noble idealism that should characterize those awarding the Nobel Prize." Heysee's selection seems vague, but it's suggested that he was one of the last realist acclaimed in Germany atill alive from 1850s and was praised for his oustanding novellas. Maeterlinck's evaluationn was similar from the previous year.
In 1911 & 1912, Henry James, Maeterlinck, George Bernard Shaw, Gerhart Hauptmann were shortlisted. Henry James was commended for his "fine style and conversational and situation novels," but was dismissed for "lack of concentration, and his recent outing 'Wings of a Dove,' too improbable and odious in subject." Maeterlinck was praised as 'a poet of admirable power and versatility is surprising great. His choice will be like in most quarters, because this poet enjoys a world reputation and his writings are widely read and accepted." Bernard Shaw was seen as "works lacking the ideal direction." Hauptmann's The Weavers played a vital role in Hauptmann's victory, though he was praised for been one of the finest naturalist in Europe. Hence for Nobel in 1911 and 1912, Materlinck and Hauptmann were chosen.
From me, looking at the recipients in this period of Wirsen, there are so many winners who have gone into obscurity: Heysee, Bjorson, Mistral and Echegaray, Eucken and of course Prudhomme. I read Maeterlinck's The Blind and Poems, and can say that he's very underrated. Kipling's Kim is a beautiful book, but I feel his poems are somewhat not my cup of tea. Sienkiewicz's Quo Vadis seems to me one of the finest historical works I read in my teens, and I agree that it displayed the power of Tolstoy l addressing a turbulent time in Roman history (in the age of Emperor Nero) and Lagerolf's Nils is also very interesting, but I can see why people called the period (one of the worst in Nobel history. Seriously, I don't know which decade is worse, this or the 30s). There are some writers I would love to read: Hauptmann and more of Lagerolf.
It seemed that the period 1900---1939, the committee expressed no interest in the innovations taken place on literature. It wasn't till 1946 that the reward for modernism started to pay off. And for what I said earlier about Freud, it seemed that the Academy was tired of awarding writers in the non-fiction areas. And since dawn of 21st century, only one writer from the non-fiction area has been awarded: the oral historian Alexevich. What I really think is that a prize recognizing writers mainly in the non-fiction field: philosophers, Travel writers, diarists, literary/art critics, historians, biographers/memoirists, linguists/semioticians, anthropologists, nature writing e.t.c. in this way, it could have provided equity for intellectuals in other fields. It seems now that the Nobel doesn't recognize other fields of knowledge but literature. I also feel that if the Nobel literature prize is awarded to two writers instead of one, maybe it might ameliorate things. The Nobel can't go to everybody, that's for sure, but at least the list of deserving names (am not talking of writers like Joyce, Woolf, Proust, Kafka, Lorca, writers that weren't even nominated), like Moravia, Nabokov and Kazantzakis could have, maybe, been awarded.
As I have concluded with the report/evaluation of the committee between 1907---1912, I have officially come to the end (or to the beginning) of every deliberation the Nobel committee and Swedish Academy have had.
Last edited:
