Nobel Prize in Literature 2020 Speculation

[Americanreader]

Now that I think about it, Chekov, and William Carlos Williams were doctors, and they wrote great works, thought I'd just point out some exceptions to my general idea.

 

[JCamilo]

Dawkins is such a bore. Probally thinking he would be the awarded. It is the guy that gets hysterical when someone from a different area of knowledge talks about biology, but he loves to talk about literature, ignoring completely that he sucks at it. His book about Keats rainbow is awful. The guy cannot see the difference of poetic language and be inspired by the natural world.

 

[namelesshere]

Hayden, I did not, in any way, take your message as an insult. Not even as negative. I was just curious to know why you thought that it was more understandable and I kind of expected that you would bring up the relatively limited amount of speakers/readers of the Dutch language. In which case I would have reacted that those numbers are usually underestimated. There are roughly 25 million native speakers, and about another 15 million who master it as a second (or third) language. But you're right with the 'tower figure' argument. On the other hand, the Nobel is often awarded to not so well-known authors. Who knows one day it will go to a Dutch or an Argentinian that no one outside their country of origin has ever heard about.

I've enjoyed the two Gerbrand Bakker novels I read very much. A Dutch Per Petterson.

 

[redhead]

and as for scientists... well if we consider social sciences... it’s been recently brought up again that it was rumoured that Derrida would win the prize the year he died (it can all be lies, but still).

Horace Engdahl said Derrida would’ve been a worthy winner. Who knows if he was actually close to winning the year he died, but he was probably in the running.

Btw, a few pages ago there was some discussion about a philosopher winning. It looks like Derrida’s two biggest fans in the academy are Engdahl and Olsson. As chair of the committee, I wonder if Olsson would ever try to push for a continental philosopher or a literary critic (continental meaning the philosophical school)?

 

[DouglasM]

Now I’m curious to know why, never heard of the guy...

You probably have stumbled upon his name and books in libraries and probably just don't remember. His books still sell very well. Pinker is a good debater. He plans and develops his arguments well and writes in a clear manner. But that's not enough, and it's a common trait essential to every scientist. It's basically how science works. The difference here is that Pinker writes for a wider, and mostly lay, audience too, which makes him more known.

Wanna know a researcher and thinker who should've won the Prize? Claude Lévi-Strauss, mainly for Tristes tropiques. Nowadays I like Julia Kristeva's writing very much. She can be so poetic.

 

[hayden]

Now that I think about it, Chekov, and William Carlos Williams were doctors, and they wrote great works, thought I'd just point out some exceptions to my general idea.

Bulgakov too. As for those alive, Nawal El Saadawi is a medical doctor as well.

Albeit, I think a scientist winning the Nobel for Literature on the merit of their scientific writings is as ridiculous as a lawyer winning for their writings on criminal cases. I'm shocked people are even nominating scientists for this award. I would truly be very disappointed if one won (not just this year, but any). They have a few other Nobels to aim for.

EDIT: Or worse... an economist.

 

[Bartleby]

To give a WLF Award for lifetime achievement in literature would be a fun way to start the decade in these boards. We could discuss the rules and democratically choose a winner. Who knows, it could even make more users join the conversations throughout the year.

Perhaps we could do it by narrowing it down, by voting, to a 3 writers shortlist, and then read some 4 to 5 books by each, so at most some 15 books throughout a year... sounds kinda possible

Ok, so let’s just focus back to the nobel speculation, and once the post-announcement talk settles I’ll open a thread about it to see if anyone else is interested

 

[hayden]

I was just curious to know why you thought that it was more understandable and I kind of expected that you would bring up the relatively limited amount of speakers/readers of the Dutch language. In which case I would have reacted that those numbers are usually underestimated. There are roughly 25 million native speakers, and about another 15 million who master it as a second (or third) language.

All good. Just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was taking a jab at Dutch literature. I would have never countered with the language argument. Didn't even come to mind. Iceland's won, and there's less people who speak Icelandic than there are people living in Utrecht alone. I'm not just sold the Netherlands has had their Laxness, if that makes sense.

 

[nagisa]

You probably have stumbled upon his name and books in libraries and probably just don't remember. His books still sell very well. Pinker is a good debater. He plans and develops his arguments well and writes in a clear manner. But that's not enough, and it's a common trait essential to every scientist. It's basically how science works. The difference here is that Pinker writes for a wider, and mostly lay, audience too, which makes him more known.

Wanna know a researcher and thinker who should've won the Prize? Claude Lévi-Strauss, mainly for Tristes tropiques. Nowadays I like Julia Kristeva's writing very much. She can be so poetic.

Pinker is a linguist who has stumbled into recently becoming a defender of "Progress" and vastly overextending the argument that violence has overall declined worldwide and "things are better". It's lenifying pop "science" that has an unfortunately deep hold but will hopefully fade...

...like structuralism and psychoanalysis did. ?

 

[meepmurp]

Horace Engdahl said Derrida would’ve been a worthy winner. Who knows if he was actually close to winning the year he died, but he was probably in the running.

Btw, a few pages ago there was some discussion about a philosopher winning. It looks like Derrida’s two biggest fans in the academy are Engdahl and Olsson. As chair of the committee, I wonder if Olsson would ever try to push for a continental philosopher or a literary critic (continental meaning the philosophical school)?

I can imagine a year when they give a two or three-way prize to some combination of contemporary philosophers like Jacques Ranciere, Jean Luc-Nancy, Giorgio Agamben, etc.

 

[Sevastefo]

I’ve found out that Wästberg has written a book about the Portuguese wars in Angola and Mozambique. That could make him particularly fond of Lobo Antunes’ work...

Or may well help him to bring the other members to vote for Pepetela or for Agualusa, both of them Africans lusophones. I think their profiles are more interesting than Antunes one.

 

[DouglasM]

Pinker is a linguist who has stumbled into recently becoming a defender of "Progress" and vastly overextending the argument that violence has overall declined worldwide and "things are better". It's lenifying pop "science" that has an unfortunately deep hold but will hopefully fade...

Yes, that's my main reservation about Pinker, I just didn't want to get into that discussion for now because life is too short.

...like structuralism and psychoanalysis did. ?

That's where we disagree (at least as far as psychoanalysis is concerned). ?

 

[Corswandt]

Chekov, and William Carlos Williams were doctors

Also Lobo Antunes.

 

[nagisa]

I can imagine a year when they give a two or three-way prize to some combination of contemporary philosophers like Jacques Ranciere, Jean Luc-Nancy, Giorgio Agamben, etc.

This would be very interesting. I think Habermas would be at the front of the line, however.

I would give a tooth for Agamben's Nobel lecture...

 

[redhead]

What’re people’s thoughts on Zizek?

 

[Uemarasan]

I think Zizek is pretty much a hack when it comes to film criticism. I am unfamiliar as to whether his philosophy is considered seriously among his colleagues in the field, or if he is simply another Stephen Greenblatt.

I do like Pinker and what he stands for, but I agree that his writing has yet to transcend into the sphere of Nobel worthiness. Among scientists, I have a fondness for the writings of Peter Medawar.

 

[namelesshere]

Lyudmila Ulitskaya used to be a scientist...

 

[nagisa]

What’re people’s thoughts on Zizek?

Excavated from internet, which made me laugh many moons ago: "Zizek is a racoon who lived in a dumpster behind a university library who got transformed into a human by a witch." From what I've read, he combines the worst traits and topoi of "continental" philosophy and palms it off with a shiny veneer of pop culture. And from what I understand, other philosophers don't engage much with his weird mix of Lacanian-Marxian-Hegelianism.

 

[Americanreader]

Or may well help him to bring the other members to vote for Pepetela or for Agualusa, both of them Africans lusophones. I think their profiles are more interesting than Antunes one.

He could sway the other members to vote for Mia Couto too, if we're thinking about African lusophones.

 

[Sevastefo]

What’re people’s thoughts on Zizek?

Lyudmila Ulitskaya used to be a scientist...

Sincerely I don't think neither Pinker, nor Zizek are worthy contenders for the Nobel Prize in Literature. Each one has a very exciting philosophical work, but I don't think their merits in this field concern the Nobel Academy. I don't think either their works have a particular literary quality (merit that might be well regarded by the Nobel Academy).
The late Oliver Sacks is the only name that comes to me when I try to think of a scientific with a literary production focused on his own work (because the case of Ulitskaya is very different; she was scientific, but her novels - those that I've read at least - don't have a particular relationship with her past experience; the other similar example is Sabato's.)