Nobel Prize in Literature 2021 Speculation

[hayden]

I hope that brining this topic up again isn’t too tedious, but I’d like to hear some thoughts on awarding joint prizes in Literature.

I'm cool with it, as long as it's not completely random (i.e. Thiong'o/Carson split or something). Wish they had done it a bit more in the past 45+ish years. Borges/Cortazar, Soyinka/Achebe, Walcott/Brathwaite, Gordimer/Coetzee, Alegria/Cardenal, Herbert/ Szymborska, Klima/Kundera, etc. Maybe Grass/Frisch. Pair Calvino with someone. Maybe Fuentes with Paz or Vargas Llosa. Plenty pre-1974 too, but I won't go into that.

I'm not sure they would do a Thiong'o/Couto split, but I wouldn't be against it. Styles might be slightly too different between the two though.

I think there's somewhat decent odds that if a split does happen sometime soon, it'll be for two Chinese laureates.

And, yeah, it might piss off some winners that they're sharing that bagful of prize money, but I don't think it sullies the prize any. Look at Peace. I don't think anyone remembers/cares that Nelson Mandela, Malala, or Jane Addams were split awards. You still think of it as a full award.


On the Dylan front, I'm very glad he won, and it's one of my favourite choices the prize has ever made.

 

[namelesshere]

I hope that brining this topic up again isn’t too tedious, but I’d like to hear some thoughts on awarding joint prizes in Literature. When contrasted with the Nobel prize’s in other categories, which seem more often than not, shared prizes or, less so, but even in Peace, there are organizations/collectives.
This makes sense, since the specific efforts of these individuals normally supports collaboration, which ultimately yields breakthrough discoveries and applications thereof. In times past, on such rare occasions, and never in my lifetime, there have been a handful of these instances.
I hope that someone in the forum with a better knowledge of the award’s history could share some insight about the joint prizes in Literature.
Are there any duos or trios, that you would find appropriate to honor with a Nobel?
Is a literary achievement, or, let’s just say: a distinctive and profound body of literary art, much too singular to be shared?
As I have previously stated, I would never want to see frequent or back-to-back shared prizes in Literature. But from time to time, definitely wouldn’t mind it.
I wonder if laureates in one of the sciences ever feel snubbed if they are awarded a shared prize, or if the nations they represent get offended, or if the world at large even really bats an eye? Why do I get the feeling this wouldn’t at all be the case if we’re talking the Literature prize?

I really rather like the idea. As long as both are deserving, it's fine with me. As far as I'm concerned the more deserving winners the prize can elevate, the better. (That being said, I'd not welcome more than two...)

 

[Leseratte]

It was definitely his songs, but it was the “poetic expression” of his songs that was the important bit. There is no doubt there are better musicians but Dylan’s strength has been his ability as a lyricist and storyteller. We’re also back there of course to discussions about whether literature has to be written down, oral traditions of classic Greek literature etc. He’s clearly a divisive winner which I understand but it was certainly a courageous decision. My fear for this (and other literary prizes) is that they will become watered down where political correctness will become more important than literary merit. We’ll see.

I understand you, but Dylan definitively belongs to another scene. He himself seemed to think so because he didn´t go to the Nobel ceremony. And if one wants to include good song writers among the Nobel candidates, SA would have a lot of additional homework to do because they are so many in several countries. But it seems the forum already went through this discussion.

 

[Dante]

Pair Calvino with someone.

That's easy: Queneau or Perec.

 

[redhead]

I hope that brining this topic up again isn’t too tedious, but I’d like to hear some thoughts on awarding joint prizes in Literature. When contrasted with the Nobel prize’s in other categories, which seem more often than not, shared prizes or, less so, but even in Peace, there are organizations/collectives.
This makes sense, since the specific efforts of these individuals normally supports collaboration, which ultimately yields breakthrough discoveries and applications thereof. In times past, on such rare occasions, and never in my lifetime, there have been a handful of these instances.
I hope that someone in the forum with a better knowledge of the award’s history could share some insight about the joint prizes in Literature.
Are there any duos or trios, that you would find appropriate to honor with a Nobel?
Is a literary achievement, or, let’s just say: a distinctive and profound body of literary art, much too singular to be shared?
As I have previously stated, I would never want to see frequent or back-to-back shared prizes in Literature. But from time to time, definitely wouldn’t mind it.
I wonder if laureates in one of the sciences ever feel snubbed if they are awarded a shared prize, or if the nations they represent get offended, or if the world at large even really bats an eye? Why do I get the feeling this wouldn’t at all be the case if we’re talking the Literature prize?

I think split prizes are a great idea. In the past, they’ve usually been used when the two laureates are either so geographically close or thematically similar that one winning would preclude the other, and I don’t see any real downsides to sharing the literature award compared to their current system. It could help prevent some egregious snubs (there was a proposal to split the price between Asturias and Borges in the mid 60s).

(That said, split prizes haven’t helped the science awards avoid controversy. And only three people can be awarded, which is not reflective of how collaborative modern science is.)

 

[Morbid Swither]

I think split prizes are a great idea. In the past, they’ve usually been used when the two laureates are either so geographically close or thematically similar that one winning would preclude the other, and I don’t see any real downsides to sharing the literature award compared to their current system. It could help prevent some egregious snubs (there was a proposal to split the price between Asturias and Borges in the mid 60s).

(That said, split prizes haven’t helped the science awards avoid controversy. And only three people can be awarded, which is not reflective of how collaborative modern science is.)

Very interesting…

 

[Leemo]

To play the contrarian to recent posts, I dislike the idea of joint winners, especially as a random one-off for a country/continent that does not frequently win, as I think it inherently implies that neither winner was a special enough writer to have won on their own right.

 

[Leseratte]

I agree that it would be somewhat disappointing in the case of the Literature award. For me it might make sense to offer the prize of peace in the case of a NGO or a fondation that contributed to humanitarian issues. The Nobel of Science was also divided between three scientists in one of the last edition. But in the case of Literature even the wonderful Olga T. remained in the shadow of the discussion about Handke.

 

[namelesshere]

I agree that it would be somewhat disappointing in the case of the Literature award. For me it might make sense to offer the prize of peace in the case of a NGO or a fondation that contributed to humanitarian issues. The Nobel of Science was also divided between three scientists in one of the last edition. But in the case of Literature even the wonderful Olga T. remained in the shadow of the discussion about Handke.

While that's true, it's probably quite a specific case given the reasons for the Handke discussion. Plus, I'm not so sure that in the long run Olga T will suffer. (Appreciating that it wasn't really a "joint" prize, albeit it felt like one.)

 

[Leseratte]

While that's true, it's probably quite a specific case given the reasons for the Handke discussion. Plus, I'm not so sure that in the long run Olga T will suffer. (Appreciating that it wasn't really a "joint" prize, albeit it felt like one.)

Thanks, namelesshere, that´s the point: "it wasn't really a 'joint' prize, albeit it felt like one".

 

[namelesshere]

Thanks, namelesshere, that´s the point: "it wasn't really a 'joint' prize, albeit it felt like one".

The point you made was that OT's win felt overshadowed by PH's? My point is that PH being so controversial is a particular and specific case, and while it will have felt like that at the time, I don't think it will necessarily prove true in a decade. (Personally I think PH is likely to become the more "obscure"of the two winners over time, for want of a better word, at least in the more popular consciousness.)

 

[Leseratte]

The point you made was that OT's win felt overshadowed by PH's? My point is that PH being so controversial is a particular and specific case, and while it will have felt like that at the time, I don't think it will necessarily prove true in a decade. (Personally I think PH is likely to become the more "obscure"of the two winners over time, for want of a better word, at least in the more popular consciousness.)

Yes. You may be right about PH. I don´t have an personal opinion about him as yet, as I am still at the beginning of the first book. But OT´s Books of Jakob is maybe the best book I read in the last years. I hope she will get all the fame she deserves.

 

[Verkhovensky]

As far as I know (someone can correct me) those were the reasons for split prizes:

1904 and 1917 are simple - F. Mistral/Echegaray and Gjellerup/Pontoppidian were just ties, i.e. both receiving same amount of votes. I believe that ties like that are impossible today because of the way they are voting. Plus they didn't award anyone in 1918 (they awarded some other prizes) so they maybe even tought about them as winners for both 1917 and 1918? I'm not sure why there was no award in 1918. On the other hand, back then they routinely skipped years (no medicine in 1914-1918 at all, no chemistry in 1916-17, no physics in many years both in 1910s and 20s) so maybe the fact there was no award in 1918 is not connected to 1917 split at all. Anyway, precedents from 100 years ago are hardly relevant for today.

1966 - during the sixties they were toying with the idea of joint winners that would both represent same "literature". Asturias/Borges (Latin American), Akhmatova/Sholokhov (Russian) and Agnon/Sachs (Jewish) were proposed. For some reason, in 1965 they decided to award just Sholokhov, and in 1967 just Asturias, but in 1966 they awarded both Agnon and Sachs.

1974 - controversial Johnson/Martinson win. They were both members of the Academy at that time, I suppose other members wanted to award their friends but didn't want to spend two years on them so they just squeezed them in in the same year. Or maybe they were thinking about some other pairs from other countries and just picked Swedish pair on purely literary grounds, we will see in 2024.

 

[Leseratte]

As far as I know (someone can correct me) those were the reasons for split prizes:

1904 and 1917 are simple - F. Mistral/Echegaray and Gjellerup/Pontoppidian were just ties, i.e. both receiving same amount of votes. I believe that ties like that are impossible today because of the way they are voting. Plus they didn't award anyone in 1918 (they awarded some other prizes) so they maybe even tought about them as winners for both 1917 and 1918? I'm not sure why there was no award in 1918. On the other hand, back then they routinely skipped years (no medicine in 1914-1918 at all, no chemistry in 1916-17, no physics in many years both in 1910s and 20s) so maybe the fact there was no award in 1918 is not connected to 1917 split at all. Anyway, precedents from 100 years ago are hardly relevant for today.

1966 - during the sixties they were toying with the idea of joint winners that would both represent same "literature". Asturias/Borges (Latin American), Akhmatova/Sholokhov (Russian) and Agnon/Sachs (Jewish) were proposed. For some reason, in 1965 they decided to award just Sholokhov, and in 1967 just Asturias, but in 1966 they awarded both Agnon and Sachs.

1974 - controversial Johnson/Martinson win. They were both members of the Academy at that time, I suppose other members wanted to award their friends but didn't want to spend two years on them so they just squeezed them in in the same year. Or maybe they were thinking about some other pairs from other countries and just picked Swedish pair on purely literary grounds, we will see in 2024.

The 2018 edition of the Nobel in Literature was cancelled because of the scandal:

Nobel prize in literature 2018 cancelled after sexual assault scandal

Swedish Academy says it needs to ‘commit time to recovering public confidence’ after string of resignations and wide-ranging scandal

www.theguardian.com

 

[hayden]

The 2018 edition of the Nobel in Literature was cancelled because of the scandal:

Nobel prize in literature 2018 cancelled after sexual assault scandal

Swedish Academy says it needs to ‘commit time to recovering public confidence’ after string of resignations and wide-ranging scandal

www.theguardian.com

2019 wasn't a split. Handke and Tokarczuk both got full awards. (Just, at the same time).


And Verkhovensky, that all sounds about right. The 1974 archives are definitely going to be interesting. And possibly quite sad.

 

[tiganeasca]

There is a clear cut case to be made for Ngugi being deserving of the prize. His novel A Grain of Wheat is a masterpiece for me. I find as a whole that his novels are far more satisfying and complex than Achebe's.

Just goes to show you. I find exactly the opposite: I have never been impressed with Ngugi whereas I find Achebe's books, taken either singly or together, to be more satisfying, more complex, and simply better written.

Glad we're both on this board

 

[garzuit]

I don´t like the idea of a joint prize to two authors only because they were born in the same geographical region. They may not be from the same generation, literary movement or even the same genre. I don´t see any similarities or common themes between Asturias and Borges, for example. A shared prize between, say, García Márquez and Carlos Fuentes would have made more sense.
A shared prize sounds like they say "meh, Asians/Latin Americans/Africans must be writing about the same things, right? Let's give them 2 prizes!" It makes it sound like it's their country of origin what defines them, not their actual literary career.

 

[Americanreader]

Meh, I'd personally call both Ngugi and Le Clezio much better writers than Achebe.

Ignoring that, the man essentially gave up on writing full, meaningful works by the end of the 1980s and just spent the rest of his life dabbling in poetry and shorter essays. Had he kept up at it and continued producing lengthier works he likely could have won. It seems hard to make a case for Achebe winning in 2008 when he basically hadn't produced anything of note in 20 years. His nonfiction book from 2012 was great but he died right after that so it's hard to know if he was being considered before he died.

I've always liked Achebe. I definitely agree with your point here, but I think another issue, at least in the United States, is that Achebe is viewed a lot like William Golding, everyone reads Things Fall Apart, but seem to be unaware that Achebe ever wrote anything else, as if he's Harper Lee or something. I would have liked to have seen him win in the 80s or 90s just to get his later works some attention. For the record, I think Things Fall Apart is his 4th best out of 5 novels, even though I really like it.

 

[Americanreader]

The point you made was that OT's win felt overshadowed by PH's? My point is that PH being so controversial is a particular and specific case, and while it will have felt like that at the time, I don't think it will necessarily prove true in a decade. (Personally I think PH is likely to become the more "obscure"of the two winners over time, for want of a better word, at least in the more popular consciousness.)

I agree, I think Handke's work has less popular appeal since it's much more difficult than Tokarczuk's, and his political views will only serve to make him less and less popular over time. (A shame, I think he's a fine writer disregarding his politics)

 

[Septularisen]

I really enjoyed his historical trilogy about the conquest and foundation of Colombia: Ursúa, El país de la canela & La serpiente sin ojos.

Yes. They are the books translated in french tongue... So I will start with that!

Yes, and that's the issue, WE ARE discussing him, and judging based on the last African laureate in 2003, THEY ARE NOT.

Unfortunately, you have probably right here!
So maybe is better that we start looking for an European laureate!