Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 115

Thread: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    367

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkunicorn View Post
    I'd limit that to candidates between 55-75 years old, even. Over the last 25 years, that's where almost all the winners have been. Looking at the last 50 years, the academy has been awarding people in the 50-55 and 75-80 ranges reasonably frequently as well, but not in the more recent years. So this can be used as a first sieve to gauge who would be most likely (or conversely, when someone would be most likely).
    Uh..... There's been two 80+ year old winners this decade alone. It happens plenty frequently for the purposes of speculation. As noted by the Nobel's own site, the average age of a winner is 65.

    Tomas Transtromer in 2011: 81 years old

    Alice Munro in 2013: 82 years old.

    Those are "recent years."

    Orhan Pamuk was 54 when he won in 2006.

    I'll be sticking with my age range. I'm taking about the actual ages someone is likely going to win. I excluded 40s because the last was Brodsky and given the current Swedish Acadmey make up and its choices someone in their 40s seems very unlikely (I can't name anyone in that age group who could be considered a serious contender right now). There are lots of names that come up in betting odds every year who are 75+ years old and plenty in their 80s as well.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    691

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    Did you ever post your list, Isahoinp? I'd be curious to see it.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    367

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    Quote Originally Posted by redheadshadz View Post
    Did you ever post your list, Isahoinp? I'd be curious to see it.
    Of potential/likely future winners? Not yet, I could look through old notes on my phone and see if I have the name's written down still.

  4. #64

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    The betting lists have pretty much every name.

  5. #65

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    I was thinking about it today, and unfortunately, I believe Herr Bob ruined Nicanor Parra's chances. They'll probably go for someone with a high literary reputation but who's obscure (even though that's much more difficult these days with the internet and the betting lists -- Antunes, I could see), not someone who's beloved and popular (even though you probably can't find too many on the street who know him); plus, after this lecture debacle, I'm betting the Academy wants someone who will show up, and Parra will probably not travel to Stockholm. Sigh.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    367

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    He'll never win for far more easily discernible reasons: He's far too old and hasn't published anything new in ages. 88 is pretty much the cut off age you can use for a laureate (until the academy breaks this boundary, which is unlikely, considering the 86 year age Mommsen was at when he won in 1902 wasnt surpassed until Doris Lessing, over 100 years later).

    His latest "publication" in 2015 is just a book explaining analysis of his poems and use of language. He hasn't published a new collection of poems in at least 10 years.

    Also wouldn't really call Dylan's lecture or acceptance a "debacle." They chose a 75 year old man who doesn't frequently use his cell phone and is constantly touring and recording new music. The fact that he didn't show up to accept the prize isn't anything new, loads of laureates haven't shown up.

    None of the recent winners lately have been "obscure." The only time recently they were really going for actual "obscure" people was throughout the 1970s, a period during which the Academy specifically chose to focus on "forgotten masters" (this info comes straight from the Nobel site).

    Le Clezio was fairly well known when he won but I guess you could say was "obscure" because he hadn't really won any major international prizes aside from a Swedish prize the year of his victory. Aside from that Xingjian was somewhat "obscure" but Chinese people had been predicting his win for years by the time he won.
    Last edited by Isahoinp; 09-Jun-2017 at 20:23.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NYC, USA
    Posts
    4,480

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Isahoinp View Post
    Chinese people had been predicting his win for years
    Just wondering, did the entire People's Republic of China participate in this prediction?

  8. #68

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    Okay, I'm not going to argue with you on whether or not Dylan's acceptance was a debacle, or him submitting the speech less than a week before the deadline and keeping the copyright was a debacle. If you're not of that opinion at this point, then I can't add much. As for attending Stockholm, the Academy seems to spread out laureates who are bedridden or might not show up. Jelinek in '04, Tranströmer in '11, Munro in '13. The only egregious element to this pattern is Pinter '05, but he was making public appearances, writing, and performing, so I tend to think they were of the persuasion he would show up.

    Defining obscure is difficult, specifically for the privileged knowledge of users on a literary forum. I'd heard of Svetlana's name for years from the betting lists; we had heard of her name for years from the betting lists; you probably had heard of her name for years from the betting lists; but she was considered obscure to the general public. Le Clézio is far more famous than her. He was voted the best living-prose writer in French, ahead of Gracq, and there were courses on him at ENS. Once again, this is hazy because of the subjectivity of obscure. Modiano was obscure to the rest of the world but not to Spain or France. Müller was VERY underknown. MAO created a whole page on her after she won to educate the international public because people really had no idea who she was. There have been plenty of articles written on this, so I don't need to cover treaded ground.

    You're absolutely incorrect about Gao. His book sold less than two hundred copies in the first two years it was published and steadily declined. http://asiasociety.org/conversation-gao-xingjian When he got the prize, some minister said he was glad a Chinese writer finally received the award, and the Government later retracted this when they realized he was a dissident. Had they been "predicting his win for years," they would've kept their line straight: which is now ignoring him and not taking credit for him as a Chinese author. There's been a book written on this http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-4286-9780824829629.aspx The writers expected to win were people like Mo Yan, Jia Pingwa, Wang Anyi, or a Misty Poet. Some translators thought he had a shot because of his friendship with Göran but not China.

    On to this "forgotten masters" notion. I think you're misreading what the Academy said because it was more about rewarding authors passed by than obscure ones, like giving it to Grass. Singer, Bellow, Neruda, Böll, and Montale were incredibly famous both in their countries and internationally. They were all perennial contenders for the nobel, so they weren't obscure. Johnson and Martinson were widely acclaimed in Scandinavian countries. White was required reading in Australia, but was less renowned, although his name did pop up before he got the prize. Solzjenitsyn was in the news as a dissident. Elytis - yeah, pretty much only known in Greece and American universities when Seferis was touring after his win. Aleixandre was big in the Spanish literary scene, and his house was a meeting place for so many famous writers both in Spain and South America; but yeah, the average person and Spaniard didn't know who he was. (there's a funny story of a reporter calling the embassy when he won to get some information on him, and the lady who answered thought the famous actor MANUEL ALEXANDRE had won http://cultura.elpais.com/cultura/20...88_326651.html )
    Last edited by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V; 10-Jun-2017 at 00:54.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    367

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    On to this "forgotten masters" notion. I think you're misreading what the Academy said because it was more about rewarding authors passed by than obscure ones
    I'm not misreading anything. That's literally an entire section on their website. They outright say it:

    "Attention to Unknown Masters (1978- )"


    "A growing number within the Academy wanted to call attention to important but unnoticed writers and literatures, thus giving the world audience masterpieces they would otherwise miss, and at the same time, giving an important writer due attention."

    "The full emergence of this policy can be seen from 1978 and onwards, in the Prizes to
    Isaac Bashevis Singer, Odysseus Elytis, Elias Canetti, and Jaroslav Seifert
    ."

    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...ark/index.html
    You could easily include Vincente Aleixandre (1977) in there as well. Probably one of the most unknown winners from the last 50 years.

    Singer was hardly "unknown," but on the world stage he was probably far less known globally than other winners throughout the era. Singer was making well over $100,000 a year prior to winning the prize and had been interviewed by prominent literary magazines many years before winning.

    "His income, what with the Book-of-the-Month Club's purchase of his two recent novels, ''The Manor'' and 'The Estate,' and with three film contracts, now comfortably exceeds $100,000 a year. This figure, according to friends, is four or five times the level of nine years ago."

    http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/01/2...r-success.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    As for attending Stockholm, the Academy seems to spread out laureates who are bedridden or might not show up. Jelinek in '04, Tranströmer in '11, Munro in '13.
    This statement is absolute nonsense. Every single one of those authors won for logical reasons those years. Jelinek won the Kafka Prize earlier that year. Pinter also won the Kafka Prize the year he won. Transtromer published what was his last work, his autobiography, in 2011 before winning the prize. Alice Munro published her last book and officially retired in 2012. None of those wins or the years in which they won had anything remotely to do with their ability to show up and give a speech and accept the prize in person. People have been skipping the prize ceremony for decades.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    Defining obscure is difficult
    Yes, but "obscure" and "not known to the general public who aren't literary enthusiasts" are not the same thing. By truly "obscure" I mean, not widely translated, have not won major international literary awards, have not won lots and lots of domestic awards, have not been given honorary degrees, would hardly ever come up in English-language or Western European or English language book news and reviews. A lot of names in the Nobel Predictions threads here are absurdly obscure to the point that them winning is laughable. Those are the type of people I consider "obscure."

    "The general public" usually aren't concerned with reading serious literature or anything that isn't a best-seller, so that's not really a good scope of "obscure" in a literati sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    Svetlana

    Won the national Books Critics Circle Award in 2005.
    Won the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade in 2013.
    Had books available in English (amongst other languages) prior to winning the Nobel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    Müller was VERY underknown
    Herta Muller won the International Dublin Literary Award, a very famous English language literary prize worth 100,000, more than 10 years before winning the Nobel. Orhan Pamuk also won it prior to winning the Nobel, as have numerous other candidate who appear on betting lists, her name was easily out there before she won.

    She had 5 novels available in English prior to winning.

    Due to leaks her name also shot up in betting odds prior to the announcement of who won, so it's not like when they made the announcement it was some shocking nobody that hadn't been rumored leading up to the Prize who ended up with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    Modiano was obscure to the rest of the world
    He won the Austrian State Prize for Literature in 2012. Again, not obscure that someone who won a famous literary prize went on to win another.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    You're absolutely incorrect about Gao. His book sold less than two hundred copies in the first two years it was published and steadily declined. http://asiasociety.org/conversation-gao-xingjian When he got the prize, some minister said he was glad a Chinese writer finally received the award, and the Government later retracted this when they realized he was a dissident. Had they been "predicting his win for years," they would've kept their line straight: which is now ignoring him and not taking credit for him as a Chinese author. There's been a book written on this http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-4286-9780824829629.aspx The writers expected to win were people like Mo Yan, Jia Pingwa, Wang Anyi, or a Misty Poet. Some translators thought he had a shot because of his friendship with Göran but not China.
    Here you're citing a book I'm guessing you haven't even read based on a blurb on the publishers website. Nowhere in that blurb does it say that Xingjian wasn't predicted by Chinese scholars and literary figures as a future winner. The book is about the Chinese State Party's quest for a Chinese (citizen/party member) winner and how Gao Xingjian, a French citizen who left China, won the prize, which didn't satisfy the government's quest for a laureate.

    You don't seem to understand what the Chinese government and that minister said. They said that they were glad a writer writing in Chinese language using Chinese characters won the prize, but that Gao Xingjian wasn't "Chinese," as in he wasn't a Chinese citizen. Which is true. He became a French citizen in 1998. He renounced his Chinese citizenship and left the state party in the 1980s. He was not a Chinese citizen when he won.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    Had they been "predicting his win for years," they would've kept their line straight: which is now ignoring him and not taking credit for him as a Chinese author.
    I said "Chinese people." I did not say "the Chinese Government and the official State Party." You're making statements about things I never said. Film director Li Hsing amongst others began pushing forth the idea of Gao Xingjian as a nobel winner throughout the 1990s. His publishing company even published new editions of Gao Xingjian's plays in Taiwan prior to his Nobel win.

    Chinese author Pan Jun also gave numerous interviews in the years leading up to Gao Xingjian's win insisting that within the next decade he would win the Nobel (he also stated that Mo Yan was likely).

    I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove with the sales figures you linked. An incredibly dense, difficult to read, novel by a non-citizen in exile sold a very small number of copies in its first publication in Taiwan years before he won the Nobel. What is that supposed to prove? That he wasn't a best-selling author in Taiwan? Great.

    Many of Gao Xingjian's plays and been translated and performed across Europe and the United States prior to his Nobel win. His novel Soul Mountain was available in translation prior to his Nobel win. In 1992, a full 8 years before he won the Nobel, he was awarded the French Ordre des Artes et des Lettres.

    Again though, I said he was "somewhat obscure." I never said he was a best-selling author known far and wide across the globe.

    This is all subjective, "obscure" means different things to different people, but my standards, the above aren't "obscure."
    Last edited by Isahoinp; 10-Jun-2017 at 03:03.

  10. #70

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    1. Why did you say above "The only time recently they were really going for actual ‘obscure’ people was throughout the 1970s" and now you're giving the specific time period of the last two years of the 70s? Would have saved me time in writing my response if you could properly cite things. This is like the Murakami thread all over again wherein you misread an article and incorporated erroneously its thesis into your posts.

    2. I don't know why you say the statement is “nonsense.” While I don't believe it's an overwhelming factor for determining the prize, you can't deny the pattern I presented. All you've continued to express is a vague notion of people not attending the lectures for decades, without actually a) stating the laureates and b) showing the dates to see if a skein emerges. Once again, I must caution you: I don’t find this of inordinate import – but surely you can imagine them giving the prize five-years in a row to no-shows would have consequences, and they’re aware of that. If they choose a moron of a candidate this year following Señor Bob, then, of course, this thesis is null because they would no longer have any interest in the prestige of the award.

    3. Congratulations on posting prizes that the authors have won. I'm standing by the fact that one would consider Müller or Alexievich more obscure than Tranströmer or Mario Vargas Llosa or Alice Munro. So, so many articles were published in English about the obscurity of Modiano winning the prize. The mature thing would be to accept that, yes, people found him obscure. That’s not to say YOU can’t be knowledgeable and have been aware about him. I can list dozens of poets who have won a handful of awards as well, but that doesn't signify that they're very visible authors. Obviously, this is futile argument, and I'm not going to get much out of defining the specifics of obscurity. If you want to make a topic elsewhere, go ahead. You even seem to agree with me but do not want to admit it. “Herta Muller won the International Dublin Literary Award, a very famous English language literary prize worth €100,000, more than 10 years before winning the Nobel. Orhan Pamuk also won it prior to winning the Nobel, as have numerous other candidate who appear on betting lists, her name was easily out there before she won.” YES. HELLO. I’ve been saying lists! “"The general public" usually aren't concerned with reading serious literature or anything that isn't a best-seller, so that's not really a good scope of "obscure" in a literati sense.” People knew Böll, Grass, Lessing, Gabriel García Marquéz – to name a few – before they got the prize. Müller was catapulted by the award. There’s a tangible difference between a big, household name getting the prize, and someone famous in two or three countries. That’s all I’m getting at, and I know you agree.

    4. Lol, I don't know why you assume I haven't read the book. I have. Why are you so desperate to defend your point that you need to attack me for citing a book? It's been years, but I recall the government placing a ban for two or three days on any reports after him winning. They subsequently banned his oeuvre in its entirety. Maybe YOU should read the book before you start talking because it doesn't seem like you have a clue about anything that happened when he was awarded.

    This is from http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-...-nobel-complex

    “The Prime Minister at the time, Zhu Rongji, happened to be giving a press conference the day it was awarded, and he congratulated the laureate: “I am very pleased that a literary oeuvre written in Chinese was awarded the Nobel Prize. Chinese characters have a history of several thousand years and the Chinese language has an inexhaustible appeal.” Except the Premier hadn’t gotten the official line yet: Gao, it turned out, had criticized the Communist Party in the past, and so the government was not at all pleased with his Nobel. The Foreign Ministry spokesperson declared that awarding it to Gao “shows again the Nobel Literature Prize has been used for ulterior political motives, and it is not worth commenting on.” And though some Chinese writers—including this year’s winner, Mo Yan—applauded it, the Writers’ Association said Gao’s win “proves that the committee is very ignorant.” To this day, there are Chinese books on the Nobel Literature prize that simply omit the year 2000 from the history. (Sebastian Veg has a terrific piece on the legacy of Gao’s prize.)"

    Please, you can be sure it’s not just about him having French citizenship that they don’t consider him a Chinese author or even bother putting him in history books. I don’t know why in your free time you’ve decided to become an apologist for China, but had he just been someone who moved to France and continued to write about the amazing, heavenly, superior State that is China, they wouldn’t care about his French citizenship and would be erecting theme parks, like they do for Mo Yan. We can all have a laugh at T.S. Eliot being the best British poet born in Missouri. It’s more sinister if we laugh at Gao being the best French novelist born in China writing in Chinese. There's a reason why he's more renown in Taiwan than Mainland China; and if you don't know, go do some reading.

    5. Let's look at what you posted above. "Aside from that Xingjian was somewhat 'obscure' but Chinese people had been predicting his win for years by the time he won." If you're now claiming that the two Chinese people you named are the basis for Gao not being obscure, then this is some horribly flaccid, inane, stupid comment. So, Liam and another Russian can both mention a random Russian, and in the future, you can say "Russian people had been predicting his/her win for years by the time he/she won"? Do you see how silly you sound when you backtrack? This is exactly why I mentioned his sales because you portrayed it like the he was the Philip Roth of China, and people were waiting with bated breath for him to take it home. Also, honestly, please show me these figures of his plays being performed across Europe and the US. How many nights did they run for? In how many cities? He was not that celebrated. Give me a break with your hyperbole.
    Last edited by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V; 10-Jun-2017 at 05:33.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    367

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    1. Why did you say above "The only time recently they were really going for actual ‘obscure’ people was throughout the 1970s" and now you're giving the specific time period of the last two years of the 70s? Would have saved me time in writing my response if you could properly cite things. This is like the Murakami thread all over again wherein you misread an article and incorporated erroneously its thesis into your posts.
    I didn't cite anything incorrectly and I really have no clue what you're trying to argue. Considering you blatantly misread my post earlier it seems like you're doing it again. I said that recently none of the laureates they chose were obscure or unknown. Then I cited a time where they specifically were looking for obscure and unknown writers. A time frame that ended and that they've acknowledged as no longer being the Swedish Academy's modus operandi.Nothing was improperly cited. You're the one citing the back cover of a book you haven't read that doesn't even remotely mention what you're claiming "there's been a book written about this."

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    2. I don't know why you say the statement is “nonsense.” While I don't believe it's an overwhelming factor for determining the prize, you can't deny the pattern I presented. All you've continued to express is a vague notion of people not attending the lectures for decades, without actually a) stating the laureates and b) showing the dates to see if a skein emerges. Once again, I must caution you: I don’t find this of inordinate import – but surely you can imagine them giving the prize five-years in a row to no-shows would have consequences, and they’re aware of that. If they choose a moron of a candidate this year following Señor Bob, then, of course, this thesis is null because they would no longer have any interest in the prestige of the award.
    No, it's nonsense. There's no pattern. They don't chose laureates based on who might show up to a ceremony. They don't chose faceless, anonymous authors like Pynchon and Ferrates, but that has nothing to do with showing up at ceremony. I clearly showed the reasons these authors won in those specific years and what pushed them towards winning those years. I'm also not sure why you mentioned Transtromer here, he showed up to the Nobel ceremony, in his wheelchair, in person.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    3. Congratulations on posting prizes that the authors have won. I'm standing by the fact that one would consider Müller or Alexievich more obscure than Tranströmer or Mario Vargas Llosa or Alice Munro. So, so many articles were published in English about the obscurity of Modiano winning the prize. The mature thing would be to accept that, yes, people found him obscure. That’s not to say YOU can’t be knowledgeable and have been aware about him. I can list dozens of poets who have won a handful of awards as well, but that doesn't signify that they're very visible authors. Obviously, this is futile argument, and I'm not going to get much out of defining the specifics of obscurity. If you want to make a topic elsewhere, go ahead. You even seem to agree with me but do not want to admit it. “Herta Muller won the International Dublin Literary Award, a very famous English language literary prize worth €100,000, more than 10 years before winning the Nobel. Orhan Pamuk also won it prior to winning the Nobel, as have numerous other candidate who appear on betting lists, her name was easily out there before she won.” YES. HELLO. I’ve been saying lists! “"The general public" usually aren't concerned with reading serious literature or anything that isn't a best-seller, so that's not really a good scope of "obscure" in a literati sense.” People knew Böll, Grass, Lessing, Gabriel García Marquéz – to name a few – before they got the prize. Müller was catapulted by the award. There’s a tangible difference between a big, household name getting the prize, and someone famous in two or three countries. That’s all I’m getting at, and I know you agree.
    What you don't seem to understand is that I'm saying not being a "house-hold" name doesn't matter at all for this prize. It's not a prize for household names. It's a prize for literature. The vast majority of people who actively read literary fiction and care about literary prizes are going to know most of the names. "The general public" and people who only know "household names" are not the types of people who care about this prize to begin with. Except for the years when a very large author or someone from their home country wins most people who are not "in the know" on the world literature scene aren't going to even register that the award has been awarded to begin with. They're not going to read articles about it or care.

    Take Bob Dylan for instance, "household name" and all that: The only reason it's gotten media attention is because he's a very famous, American, English-speaking, musician. This doesn't happen nearly any other year. You can be damned sure that most of the people covering the story in opinion pieces, newspaper articles, and angry rants decrying his worth as literature probably didn't care about the prize any other year and haven't read many Nobel laureates, let alone the poets.

    From what I remember the "obscurity" thing with Modiano really didn't come about because he's actually that obscure, it came about because the French Minster of Culture said in an interview that day that she had no clue who he was and had never read him.

    This hardly means he's "obscure" though. If someone who's fairly well known to literature enthusiasts (or anyone who's read a New Yorker magazine) like William Vollmann won I doubt most Americans or most American government officials would have a clue who he is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    Lol, I don't know why you assume I haven't read the book. I have. Why are you so desperate to defend your point that you need to attack me for citing a book? It's been years, but I recall the government placing a ban for two or three days on any reports after him winning. They subsequently banned his oeuvre in its entirety. Maybe YOU should read the book before you start talking because it doesn't seem like you have a clue about anything that happened when he was awarded.
    Because you cited a $60 University academic book, explained incorrectly the events that happened and how the Chinese government commented on it, and offered not a single quote, citation, or sentence from it as evidence. "They subsequently banned his oeuvre in its entirety." All of his his works have been banned in China since 1989. This ban wasn't something new that was enacted after he won the Nobel. Again, you're insisting I'm wrong and then stating things that are factually incorrect. These are not signs that lead me to believe you read a $60 academic work on this topic.

    This is from http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-...-nobel-complex

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    “The Prime Minister at the time, Zhu Rongji, happened to be giving a press conference the day it was awarded, and he congratulated the laureate: “I am very pleased that a literary oeuvre written in Chinese was awarded the Nobel Prize. Chinese characters have a history of several thousand years and the Chinese language has an inexhaustible appeal.” Except the Premier hadn’t gotten the official line yet: Gao, it turned out, had criticized the Communist Party in the past, and so the government was not at all pleased with his Nobel. The Foreign Ministry spokesperson declared that awarding it to Gao “shows again the Nobel Literature Prize has been used for ulterior political motives, and it is not worth commenting on.” And though some Chinese writers—including this year’s winner, Mo Yan—applauded it, the Writers’ Association said Gao’s win “proves that the committee is very ignorant.” To this day, there are Chinese books on the Nobel Literature prize that simply omit the year 2000 from the history. (Sebastian Veg has a terrific piece on the legacy of Gao’s prize.)"
    I'm not sure what you're citing this for? This is again, what I've already stated happened. They applauded an author for winning because he writes in Chinese. They also stated that he was not "Chinese" anymore and then decreed his win. His works had been banned in China for over a decade at this point, he wasn't a citizen, and he was an escaped political dissident. Considering most average Chinese citizens couldn't read his banned books them saying that he isn't "Chinese" (in a political sense) makes sense, because nobody in China can technically read his works.

    As you've acknowledged, there's discord between an author writing in Chinese language and what the communist government of China considers "Chinese" writing. They don't consider his works "Chinese."

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    There's a reason why he's more renown in Taiwan than Mainland China; and if you don't know, go do some reading.
    I own his novels and posted a review of Soul Mountain on this site. He's not more renown in Taiwan than in Mainland China or say France. His work also has nothing even remotely to do with Taiwan. It's just a convenient place for Chinese dissident writers to publish their banned works (like Mo Yan did with his earlier works). I'm not sure where you're getting info that he's somehow bigger in Taiwan than in China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    5. Let's look at what you posted above. "Aside from that Xingjian was somewhat 'obscure' but Chinese people had been predicting his win for years by the time he won." If you're now claiming that the two Chinese people you named are the basis for Gao not being obscure, then this is some horribly flaccid, inane, stupid comment. So, Liam and another Russian can both mention a random Russian, and in the future, you can say "Russian people had been predicting his/her win for years by the time he/she won"? Do you see how silly you sound when you backtrack? This is exactly why I mentioned his sales because you portrayed it like the he was the Philip Roth of China, and people were waiting with bated breath for him to take it home.
    At no point did I even remotely imply he was China's Philip Roth. Again, you're reading very clear-cut statements I've made and then twisting them until they become completely different than what I stated, just like when somehow you took "Chinese people" to mean "the Chinese government."

    You know who mentions Philip Roth every year as a "future Nobel winner?" White, male literary bros from the US East Coast who have probably never read the vast majority of Nobel laureates and don't read works in translation. People who regurgitate his name every year in magazines based out of New York City just because they know the article will stick with their American-centered readers.

    The figures I'm mentioning are other Chinese authors and other East Asian artists. People in the Chinese literary scene. I didn't day that "every year newspapers throughout China were exclaiming with bravado that he deserved a Nobel!"

    He was a major figurehead in reactionary theater and experimental theater in China. Regardless of how well or how highly selling his plays and their performances were (they sold out in China before being banned and shut down) it doesn't mean he was unknown. The very fact that in China his performances were closed door affairs being screened by government officials gave him renown. You can be an important literary figure without selling a lot. In a way it makes you infamous (think of Dario Fo's blasphemy). His works opened new paths for Chinese literature, specifically, his pioneering of experimental, reactionary theater in China and his use of language, pronouns, and a combination of folklore, political dissidence, and personal tell-all in Soul Mountain.

    "Gao’s advantage over his Chinese peers made him a central figure inChinese experimental theater in the early-to mid-1980s, which led Li Longyun 龍雲 (1948–2012), a contemporary playwright of Gao, to praise Gao as having had “an unprecedented advantage in establishing himself as leader of the ‘secondwave’ of literary renaissance in the post-Mao period” by virtue of his mastery ofthe French language. By the time Gao leftChina, the sensational impact of his plays Alarm Signal, Bus Stop, Yeren (Wildman, 1985), and Bi’an 彼岸 (The other shore, 1986), had earned him the title: “undisputed leader of Chinese experimental theater.”

    https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/41041/wl394.pdf?sequence=1

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    Also, honestly, please show me these figures of his plays being performed across Europe and the US. How many nights did they run for? In how many cities?How many nights did they run for? In how many cities? He was not that celebrated. Give me a break with your hyperbole.



    There's no hyperbole here. I really don't get where you're getting this. I didn't exaggerate any claims. You're the one interpreting all of my statements as vast, global-spanning declarations. I very clearly said:

    "Many of Gao Xingjian's plays and been translated and performed across Europe and the United States prior to his Nobel win. His novel Soul Mountain was available in translation prior to his Nobel win. In 1992, a full 8 years before he won the Nobel, he was awarded the French Ordre des Artes et des Lettres. Again though, I said he was 'somewhat obscure.' I never said he was a best-selling author known far and wide across the globe."

    He's best known as an experimental playwright. Experimental plays typically do not sell out hundreds of nights in theater residencies. I said his Novel and plays were translated prior to his win, they were.

    Wikipedia or just some general Googling can give you a breakdown of when his plays were performed and where.
    Last edited by Isahoinp; 10-Jun-2017 at 07:07.

  12. #72

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    1. I truly do not understand why you are continuing this particular argument, which must be en embarrassment for you having to defend it, but whatever. Your first post said the Academy was actively seeking to award obscure authors THROUGHOUT THE 70S. THE ENTIRETY OF THE 70S. Your subsequent posts have shown this to be from 78-. How are the years 1978 and 1979 all of the 70s? Is this improper citing? Or are you an illiterate moron? Please tell me. I'd love to know.

    2. People who don't frequent literary forums but read books know who Doris Lessing is. People who go on these forums have constant posters revealing new names. You're wrong thinking people who care about the prize are going to know all the names. Professors I've spoken with don't recognize all the names on betting lists, nor do they really care. They're focused on their specific authors or countries. If someone they like wins the prize, it's great for them because their papers or books will get more attention. Are you saying literature professors aren't a demographic for the prize? …But they can nominate candidates?

    Your dubious, specious thought of only elitists caring about this prize is exactly the reason why I - and others - have bemoaned Dylan getting the prize. It's the one time of the year when literature is at the forefront, and sales do show how the prize affects what people read. I’m sure you’re well aware that people in English-speaking countries don't read as much translated fiction; this doesn’t mean they don't care about literature; and this is why people can be devotees to books and not know the laureate.

    I don't see what's difficult about this discrepancy. I was posting earlier that I think it will not be a big name for the prize this year after Dylan. That's all. We can drop this line because this is really a point where I see no resolution, and it doesn't matter if we have different opinions on it.

    3. You are completely wrong about Gao, and I'm not here to educate you or to encourage you to go to your library and pick-up a book. Thanks a lot for either questioning if I’ve read a book or questioning if I spend money on books I’m interested in reading, lol. Sometimes you come across as very pathetic. Soul Mountain was first published in Taiwan (which was said in the article you must have not read); that's why he had a larger readership there. You can read way more about this from the book I mentioned, which has free pages on google books.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=US...ngjian&f=false

    Look at page 171. Julia Lovell states China banned his works after he got the prize. You must be flattering yourself if you think I'm going to trust you over a noted scholar on Chinese literature. So no, I haven’t misrepresented the chronology. (This coming for a person who doesn’t know the importance of the Taiwan, Mainland-China distinction. Rich.)

    He's not best known as a playwright now, either. People know him for Soul Mountain, which is all they talk about on the Nobel site in interviews and articles.

    4. Again, this argument about Gao came about because, unlike you suggesting I'm "interpreting all of [your] statements as vast, global-spanning declarations," you're very loose and sloppy with your sentences, which leave them open to interpretation. You mentioned three people. Yes, three people now who have had an interest in Gao and who happen to be Chinese. As Liam made a joke about it, you seem incapable of admitting that your sentence left so much open that one would think you were making a strong claim for his popularity. Anyhow, as I showed up thread, your arguments to back this up with more specificity are hilarious.

    5. You seem to be tone deaf to this argument about no-shows. I mentioned bedridden people, but let’s follow your names of Ferrante and Pynchon. How does not giving it to them because they’re “faceless” and wouldn’t show-up differ in that they might spread out the sickly who might not show up? You told me to look back in the thread, and this is your post, “Pynchon is never going to win. He's a complete recluse. It's why he hasn't received any literary awards (aside from a National Book award 40 years ago) or honorary degrees because of it. Nobody is going to award an unresponsive recluse who doesn't make public appearances and refuses to be photographed. For this reason Elen Ferrante is also never going to win.” Wow, someone might not show up to the photoshoot and therefore isn’t getting the prize? Is that not what someone’s been saying in this thread?

    This is like when you claimed to read French but in your introductory post you said, “Currently I'm trying to read works by every Nobel laureate. It's slow work as many of the older laureates aren't widely available in English translations.” Why must one confine himself to only the English translations if you’re so fluent in French? Mendacious, dare I profess?


    6. You seem to take way too much credence into this anyhow. I don’t care if I guess who the laureate is for the year. You seem to stake your reputation and credibility as a reader on guessing how the springs of the Academy work and trying to pretend that you know everything about the award in an attempt to ennoble yourself as a reader. Lighten up.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NYC, USA
    Posts
    4,480

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Isahoinp View Post
    No, it's nonsense.
    At the risk of stating the obvious, Isa, discussion ought to be about conceding certain points to your fellow-conversationalist, who is, remember, NOT your enemy.

  14. #74

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    I'm starting to think you get all your points from wikipedia lol.

    “The political Fugitives (1989), which makes reference to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, resulted in all his works being banned from performance in China.” From being performed does not equal from being published. Another strange reading, misreading, misquoting on your part.

    “Before 2000, a dozen Chinese writers and scholars already predicted Gao's winning the Nobel Prize for Literature, including Hu Yaoheng (Chinese: 胡耀恒)[7] Pan Jun (潘军)[8] as early as 1999.” WOW! A FULL YEAR BEFORE HE GOT THE PRIZE! Those are some soothsayers up in China. So much discussion before he got it! Decades, right?

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    691

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    What the hell is going on in here?

    Isa, I would be wary of looking to closely to try to find patterns in the Nobel, even on their website. I used to be like you. If you go back to some old posts on here, I'm sure you can find me trying to impose some pattern on previous winners where I come out looking like a total idiot.

    Also, that bit on their website suggests that Unknown Masters thing is an ongoing project, where some years they'll make it a point to award obscure writers, and not a period in the 70's/80's where they only awarded lesser known writers (after all, Marquez and Golding won in that period).

    Quote Originally Posted by Liam View Post
    At the risk of stating the obvious, Isa, discussion ought to be about conceding certain points to your fellow-conversationalist, who is, remember, NOT your enemy.
    You're gonna say this to Isa for saying something's nonsense but ignore ALRV calling him pathetic and an illiterate moron?

  16. #76

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    Liam may have posted before he got to my last message. Or he may agree with me that Isa should have conceded a point instead of calling it "nonsense" without providing the references I asked for.

    Additionally, you just corrected him again about this whole forgotten authors business, redhead. While I could have couched my sentence in wooly, comfy phrasing, you have to admit: it's ridiculous he can't concede the point that he misread what he then tried to incorporate into an argument. This is exactly what he did when he was extolling the greatness of Murakami vs Oe. He misread an academic’s thesis. He restated it, trying to pass it as his opinion. Then after we pressed him, he said, "oh, I get all my stuff from papers!" He posted the paper. We then remarked that he had misread it.

    Harking back to that thread, he made sweeping claims about the translatability of Oe, and I countered this with comments from one of Oe's translators and a huge academic in the Japanese scene. He decided to ignore that. Just like this Gao thing, he spews "facts", hoping no one's going to call him out on his codswallop. I wouldn't have a problem biting my tongue; I rarely post; but when he's performing his cock of the walk and dispensing his arbitrations on all things Nobel, all the while insulting other members, enough's enough. I think it's great he's injected life into the board. I like seeing his roundup of books like any other poster, but this superior attitude whilst making vacuous misreadings has needled long enough.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    367

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    I truly do not understand why you are continuing this particular argument, which must be en embarrassment for you having to defend it
    You're the one continuing the argument. If you didn't care to continue you it you would have stopped responding by now. Instead you've continued it and responded multiple times with aggressive, egotistical posts. You've even gone to the effort of looking at months old posts in other threads to find things I've said to continue this argument with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    I don't see what's difficult about this discrepancy. I was posting earlier that I think it will not be a big name for the prize this year after Dylan. That's all. We can drop this line because this is really a point where I see no resolution, and it doesn't matter if we have different opinions on it.


    And yet you posted about Nicanor Parra, someone who isn't even remotely a "big name." He may be big in the Spain for a poet but he's hardly "bigger" internationally than any of the other numerous Spanish-language authors who could potentially win the prize these days (Javier Marias, Antonio Munoz Molina, Cesar Aira, Enrique Vila-Matas, etc). I guess "big" means different things to us.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    f I’ve read a book or questioning if I spend money on books I’m interested in reading, lol. Sometimes you come across as very pathetic.
    You cited a book you found on Google and then proceeded to post an example of it from free, open-sourced Google Books. I come across as pathetic? You're repeatedly posting insults and making aggressive comments while incorrectly citing academic sources.

    Let's discuss this book then, specifically the passage you insist proves your point. It doesn't.

    "An immediate ban on publishing or discussing Gao followed."

    That doesn't mean his literary works. It means there was a state media ban on discussing him winning the prize, on publishing his interviews, his Nobel speech, etc. As I've said numerous times at this point, his works had been banned in mainland China since the late 1980s, since he published plays that discussed politics. Him winning the prize had no effect on his works being banned because they were already banned prior to him winning it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    You must be flattering yourself if you think I'm going to trust you over a noted scholar on Chinese literature
    You didn't even understand what the sentence said. You completely misread it. You Googled a book and then misinterpreted what it said.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    This coming for a person who doesn’t know the importance of the Taiwan, Mainland-China distinction. Rich.
    Uh? Not sure where you're getting this. I have a degree in international relations. Chinese authors who are banned in mainland China publish their works in Taiwan. You don't seem to understand this distinction and somehow you're equating abiltiy to publish with popularity.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    You told me to look back in the thread
    I never told you to look back at old posts in the thread. What are you talking about?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    This is like when you claimed to read French but in your introductory post you said, “Currently I'm trying to read works by every Nobel laureate. It's slow work as many of the older laureates aren't widely available in English translations.” Why must one confine himself to only the English translations if you’re so fluent in French? Mendacious, dare I profess?
    There's a difference between being able to read and speak French at a conversational level and being able to read complex works of literature in French. I never said "fluent in French." I said I could speak and read it. That doesn't imply fluency. Again, you're reading things and then blatantly misinterpreting them, as you've done with most of your citations and most of the clear statements I've made. Stop inferring things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liam View Post
    At the risk of stating the obvious, Isa, discussion ought to be about conceding certain points to your fellow-conversationalist, who is, remember, NOT your enemy.
    I'm not the one repeatedly making aggressive, insulting statements. Why don't you redirect this comment towards Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V?


    Quote Originally Posted by redheadshadz View Post
    Isa, I would be wary of looking to closely to try to find patterns in the Nobel, even on their website.
    Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V is the one insisting the Swedish Academy picks their winners based on who will be able to attend the ceremony. Citing ages and publishing times aren't patterns. They're statistical facts. A pattern would be like "every 20 years an Asian writer will win" etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by redheadshadz View Post
    You're gonna say this to Isa for saying something's nonsense but ignore ALRV calling him pathetic and an illiterate moron?



    Thank you for pointing this out. I may be arguing but I'm not constantly trying to insult other users on this board.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    it's ridiculous he can't concede the point that he misread what he then tried to incorporate into an argument.
    You yourself have done this numerous times during this argument, as I've pointed out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    Then after we pressed him, he said, "oh, I get all my stuff from papers!" He posted the paper. We then remarked that he had misread it.
    This is exactly what you just did with Gao Xingjian.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    codswallop
    I wasn't aware that anyone in 2017 still used the word "codswallop."


    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    all the while insulting other members
    This is literally what you're doing now. Do you realize how much of a hypocrite you are? Get over yourself. You seriously need to calm down. You're taking everything way too personally and overreacting When did I insult you? You're the one making insulting statements. I said you hadn't read a book because you posted it from Google books.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    whilst making vacuous misreadings
    More hypocrisy. You consistently misread things about Gao Xingjian and misinterpreted them. Much like how you keep quoting me then making statements about what I've said that are vastly different to what is stated.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    He misread an academic’s thesis
    You've misread, by your own definition, "a noted scholar on Chinese literature."

    Gao Xinjiang's works were banned in 1989. Not after he won the Nobel. Nowhere in the book you've cited does the author say his works were banned after the Nobel. You're claiming I don't know the difference between China and Taiwan yet you seem to have little knowledge or understanding of how the Chinese state party or state controlled media operates.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    WOW! A FULL YEAR BEFORE HE GOT THE PRIZE! Those are some soothsayers up in China. So much discussion before he got it! Decades, right?
    Wow! Almost like how speculation in the year and months leading up to prizes recently has given prediction claims of people like Alexievich, Modiano, and Muller winning it. "So much discussion." Yes, discussion, leading up the prize, much like you'd see on this board in any of the numerous Nobel Prediction threads.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    He's not best known as a playwright now, either. People know him for Soul Mountain, which is all they talk about on the Nobel site in interviews and articles.
    Nearly every source I've posted has greatly emphasized his work as a playwright. In China he is best remembered as a pioneer in Chinese theater. Additionally, the Nobel site and Academy members comment on his work as a playwright. For all your "misreadings" nonsense here again, you've misread or disregarded statements:

    "Gao Xingjian points out himself the significance for his plays of the non-naturalistic trends in Western drama, naming Artaud, Brecht, Beckett and Kantor. However, it has been equally important for him to “open the flow of sources from popular drama”. When he created a Chinese oral theatre, he adopted elements from ancient masked drama, shadow plays and the dancing, singing and drumming traditions. He has embraced the possibility of moving freely in time and space on the stage with the help of one single gesture or word - as in the Chinese opera. The uninhibited mutations and grotesque symbolic language of dreams interrupt the distinct images of contemporary humanity. Erotic themes give his texts feverish excitement, and many of them have the choreography of seduction as their basic pattern. In this way he is one of the few male writers who gives the same weight to the truth of women as to his own."

    https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2000/press.html

    In this Essay written by Horace Engdahl, former Secretary of the Swedish Academy, he discusses in numerous paragraphs Gao Xingjian's plays:


    https://www.ou.edu/clt/05-01/engdahl...formation.html



    Quote Originally Posted by Ater, Lividus, Ruber, & V View Post
    I'm starting to think you get all your points from wikipedia lol. “The political Fugitives (1989), which makes reference to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, resulted in all his works being banned from performance in China.” From being performed does not equal from being published. Another strange reading, misreading, misquoting on your part.
    I got that info from the Nobel website and various news articles discussing him, not Wikipedia. His works were banned outright, both publications and performances. I have misread nothing. Here you're trying to place sources in front of me that I've never claimed to have gotten info from. Stop making inferences. Nearly your entire argument seems to be based on misinterpreting things I've said and then insisting that I don't know how to read.

    "After publication of La fuite/Fugitives, which takes place against the background of this massacre, he was declared persona non grata by the regime and his works were banned."

    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...0/gao-bio.html

    You can find the same info across numerous sources:

    "
    Yet since 1989 all his work have been banned in mainland China (most has been published in Taiwan)."

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/aug/02/gao.xingjian

    Look, the United Nations has the same info too:

    "After the Tiananmen Square massacre that ended the pro-democracy protests of 1989, he resigned from the Communist Party. He published "Fugitives", a love story that unfolds against the backdrop of the events in Tiananmen Square. Its publication caused him to be declared persona non grata in his absence. In China, his apartment was seized and his books banned."

    http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/about-us/promref/3b7255171c/gao-xingjian.html

    From the BBC in 2000:

    "But Beijing's ban on his works, imposed during one of the ideological retrenchments of the 1980s, still stands - even when other once-criticised writers can publish again. One major reason is the play Fugitives, which he wrote in response to the bloody suppression of the 1989 Tiananmen protest movement."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1064016.stm

    I clearly am correct in my stating that his works have been banned in China since 1989. Stop debating this. You're wrong. This is a pointless discussion. Stop commenting on it. It has nothing to do with future Nobel winners that won't win for years. I was fine letting it die until I saw that you'd responded 3 separate times to it today. We've each said our part. We've each said "misread" enough times for one week.


    Last edited by Isahoinp; 11-Jun-2017 at 03:39.

  18. #78

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    1. “Wow! Almost like how speculation in the year and months leading up to prizes recently has given prediction claims of people like Alexievich, Modiano, and Muller winning it. "So much discussion." Yes, discussion, leading up the prize, much like you'd see on this board in any of the numerous Nobel Prediction threads.”

    We’re not talking about discussion on literary boards; don’t be coy and try to misdirect. My comment was in reference to you saying, “but Chinese people had been predicting his win for years by the time he won”. Where is the specific mention to you framing this in a discussion-board setting?

    2. I read that book three or four years ago, and I specifically remember the chapter on the aftermath after he won. You’re portraying it like I magically and conveniently encountered it last night. You stated I hadn't read the book, so lo and behold, I saw that pages were available for you – the person who hadn't read it – to go ahead and check it out. I wasn't posting it for my benefit.

    3. Onto this book, she says, “"An immediate ban on publishing or discussing Gao followed." Like I said before, I read this book three or four years ago; AND she doesn’t clarify what you’re saying, “It means there was a state media ban on discussing him winning the prize, on publishing his interviews, his Nobel speech, etc.” If I misrepresented this, I can’t say I’m surprised because there is nothing alluding to 1989 as the date when this took affect, and her sentence makes it clear it happened after the awarding. If I’m wrong, I accept that and apologize. (See, I actually concede and acknowledge when I'm wrong. Not that hard. For someone telling me to calm down, you never seem calm enough to apologize or concede or accept being wrong.)

    4. Yet. You say, “I have a degree in international relations. Chinese authors who are banned in mainland China publish their works in Taiwan. You don't seem to understand this distinction and somehow you're equating abiltiy to publish with popularity.” And also, “He's not more renown in Taiwan than in Mainland China or say France. His work also has nothing even remotely to do with Taiwan. It's just a convenient place for Chinese dissident writers to publish their banned works (like Mo Yan did with his earlier works). I'm not sure where you're getting info that he's somehow bigger in Taiwan than in China?” Uh… if he’s banned in China and people are allowed to buy his books in Taiwan… wouldn’t he be more popular in Taiwan? If he’s been expurgated from books in China and people don’t read about him, wouldn’t he be more popular in the countries with free access? This is easy logic to follow. So either 1) you’re wrong about the ban, or, 2) being right about the ban and posting with the correct facts, you failed to see how he would be more popular in Taiwan.

    5. Anyhow, this conversation wouldn’t be happening if you hadn’t misrepresented it with your statement above, “but Chinese people had been predicting his win for years by the time he won”. This latter discussion stemmed after I said you were wrong and corroborated my sentence by quoting the Prime Minister not having a clue he was a no-no author. Had you been more explicit, there wouldn’t have been a misunderstanding. (Even if now, your explanation is, laughably, saying you meant the comment in a discussion-board setting (which doesn't add up to why you posted those three Chinese names, but oh well – sense or consistency don’t have to matter to everyone)).

    6. He’s most known for Soul Mountain. I stand by this. Going by your own sources, the Nobel prospectus writes the most about Soul Mountain. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...000/press.html If you watch http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...interview.html it is basically all about Soul Mountain, which Horace singles out. In another thread, you mentioned Goodreads as being a good indicator. Well, what do we have here? Soul Mountain has over 3,000 reviews. His collection of plays… 100? What? Only 100? But… but Isahoinp said…!

    7. “There's a difference between being able to read and speak French at a conversational level and being able to read complex works of literature in French. I never said "fluent in French." I said I could speak and read it. That doesn't imply fluency. Again, you're reading things and then blatantly misinterpreting them, as you've done with most of your citations and most of the clear statements I've made. Stop inferring things.” This is sophistry at its best. I was not making a deep presumption. You said in the other thread, “And you're making assumptions knowing nothing about me. I speak and read French and to an extent I can get by with Swedish.” You portray it as you’re great in French by contrasting this with the “get by” in Swedish. At least be consistent. Or, at least, if people catch you out in your lies, don’t back pedal. Accept you lied or embellished. I can see from all your posts you never do this, so I might as well be typing into the void.

    8. Are you not going to mention your flub about the 1970s? lol ok. Or are you not going to mention how your posts about Pynchon and Ferrante are of the same ilk as what I said about infirm candidates? lol ok.

    9. “You're taking everything way too personally and overreacting When did I insult you? You're the one making insulting statements. I said you hadn't read a book because you posted it from Google books.”

    I’m not taking this personal. To use your own words, “you're reading things and then blatantly misinterpreting them” and “You've misread.” I wasn’t talking about myself. Unless you’re oblivious to others’ comments, you’ve received complaints about the way you post. Someone even stopped posting here after you insulted him/her. You probably didn’t notice. Or deflect, deflect, deflect!

    Onto deflection, let’s look at the last sentence I quoted from you, “I said you hadn't read a book because you posted it from Google books.” No. This is what you first said, “Here you're citing a book I'm guessing you haven't even read based on a blurb on the publishers website.” Then after my post, you said, “Because you cited a $60 University academic book.” Google books didn’t even come up the first two times. Nice attempt at revisionist history. Your tactic to spin things doesn’t work when ALL YOUR POSTS ARE ABOVE YOU.

    This goes again into the first sentence you quote from me, “You're the one continuing the argument.” You’re quoting me talking about how I would love to see you explaining your way out of the 1970s gaff, not about the discussion as a whole. Once again, either you misread or you spin. You deflect. You revise.

    10. “You've misread, by your own definition” What was my definition?

    11. “I wasn't aware that anyone in 2017 still used the word "codswallop." Who really cares? This is the pettiest of your posts, for real. You’re like Trump. Revisionist. Can’t apologize. Can’t take blame. Can’t leave one subject alone.

    12. “I was fine letting it die until I saw that you'd responded 3 separate times to it today.” Uh…? Why does it matter how many times I’ve responded on a message board that encourages people to post? I responded to you. That’s one. Why are you counting a message I sent to you during our discussion? I responded to Liam. That's two, and that’s because you provided no sources and Wikipedia matched with what you were saying. I responded to redhead because he posted. I don’t know why I need your permission to post, but thanks.

    13. “You've even gone to the effort of looking at months old posts in other threads to find things I've said” So… you’re mad I’ve found evidence? Or are you mad you lied or made claims that supported what I was saying and I brought them to attention? Do you know how a debate works?

  19. #79

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    Here is my shortlist for the 2017 Nobel Prize:

    1. Cat Stevens
    2. Joni Mitchell
    3. James Taylor
    4. Paul Simon
    5. Joan Baez

    Any bets?

  20. #80

    Default Re: The Next Generation: Future Nobel Prizewinners?

    Let it go. I'm kind of annoyed by all of the folks here who are trying to be funny and throwing out the names of professional songwriters as potential Nobel Prize winners. I imagine every single one of you to be kind of like Chuck, in Better Call Saul, for those who are familiar with the show. The joke was a bit funny back in October, but that horse has been beaten over and over. Yeah Bob Dylan was a pretty controversial choice, but as far as songwriters go, he is probably one of the most important and prominent in contemporary American history. Given the fiasco that their choice created, I doubt that they will be going down that road anytime soon.

Similar Threads

  1. Douglas Coupland: Generation A
    By kuzzikan in forum Americas Literature
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-Sep-2012, 22:56
  2. The future of libraries
    By Eric in forum General Chat
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-Aug-2011, 23:36
  3. OT: Top 10 Predictions for the Future
    By Liam in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 24-Apr-2009, 08:55

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •