Search results

I found 2008 and a few pre-2005 announcements on the Nobel website. I didn't look past 1997, but 2000 seems to be the earliest*. 2008 2004 2003 2000 *Edit: Just saw that Daniel posted the 1998 announcement.

^Wasn't there a guy from the radio in Sweden who used to attend the announcement and shout "At last!" when the name was read as a joke about how obscure the winner usually was?

I wouldn't think so. I imagine the groups who award the prizes covet their individuality and presumably wouldn't be too concerned with the others. It wouldn't shock me either if a friendly rivalry exists among these bodies and there's very little unnecessary coordination between them.

By the way, if anyone here is lucky enough to be in France today, the great Pat Modiano drops his new novel: https://www.gallimard.fr/Catalogue/GALLIMARD/Blanche/La-danseuse

Based on nothing but a gut feeling, all along I've felt it would be someone from either Argentina or South Korea.

Hmm, they must be filming the new season of that Addams Family reboot on Netflix.

After all, it's Nerd Christmas Eve, when every time a bell rings an author goes back in print.

Anyway, I didn't mean to kick over any hornets nests, certainly not on the eve of the big day. I don't care who wins, really, and I definitely don't want this lovely thread to end tomorrow, but c'est la vie. I guess to summarize all I've tried to say today --> I hope Claudio Magris wins!?

Seven female winners through Gordimer in 1991 is ridiculous beyond belief and smacks of conscious exclusion. But these Academy members had nothing to do with that. Let's say the next 25 winners are all women. What changes?

That's all I ask. May the best nominee win, regardless of gender.

I dearly hope it's a female winner so that we can finally put to rest the every-other-year fallacy. It's nonsense that a group who fetishize shocking people as much as they do would hold to such a predictable pattern. If they're willing to honor someone as radioactive as Handke, then I don't...

Just thought I'd repost the YouTube link to the announcement on Thursday: Be there or be ?.

Oh, no doubt. After all, the Nobel Prize winner is nothing more than a writer a small group of people like enough to give a medal to. End of story. I would never see the prize as any kind of meaningful reflection of an author's work.

That's true, but they've passed over some brilliant writers for the sake of surprise. And no doubt will continue to do so. Normal people? No. All of us? Without a doubt!?

Sadly, I think this is the case. They seem to have an adolescent-like desire to shock people.

Samuel Delany's name popped up today. Opening a can of worms with NAMBLA on the label is the last thing the SA needs. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/07/10/samuel-r-delany-profile The fact that he thinks NAMBLA has some good ideas about the age of consent tells me all I need to know...

What convenience for gamblers! Do a Google search, find out who some of the favorites are at the forum, click back, scroll down slightly, place your bet!

Trump was elected in November of 2016, after Dylan won. Edit: Regarding Rushdie, I feel that he is deserving of the prize, but if I were the SA I would be extremely concerned that awarding him such a prestigious, high-profile award would only increase the target on his back.

No question, the list of non-winners is much more impressive than the list of winners, but the availability of translations in the early years of the prize must be taken into account.

I...I honestly can't tell if he likes him or not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯