Nobel Prize in Literature 2020 Speculation

[Bartleby]

It may surely just be my ignorance, but we’re seriously in need of a philosopher with the lush literary language and approach of a Nietzsche or Kierkegaard...

 

[redhead]

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.

Haha that’s an accurate quote. But doesn’t Zizek have a cult following? I could see one of his fans being in a position to nominate him.

 

[redhead]

It may surely just be my ignorance, but we’re seriously in need of a philosopher with the lush literary language and approach of a Nietzsche or Kierkegaard...

Perhaps someone working in the continental tradition could win, but a lot of philosophers in the English-speaking world seem to belong the analytic tradition. And although one of their founders (Bertrand Russell) won, I can’t see any of them winning. I’ve gotten the impression that a lot of them write in an incredibly spare style that at times seems more like a mathematical proof rather than an essay. (Although I should add a disclaimer that I am far from an expert in modern philosophy.)

 

[Bartleby]

From a Swedish news website (sometimes rather poorly automatically translated, but understandable enough):

On Thursday next week, the Swedish Academy will announce this year's nobel prize winner for literature, the 117th prize winner in the order.

According to DN's information, the Nobel Committee, which for the second consecutive year consists partly of external members, submitted its final statement to the Academy for this week's meeting. The formal decision regarding the laureate is taken hours before the announcement itself.


This year's prize marks the end of the period when the Academy included external experts in the Nobel Committee, the compromise solution that was developed during the institution's crisis. When the system is abolished, the institution will instead return to a Nobel committee consisting solely of ordinary members.

"Now there will be no external experts anymore. This was a two-year deal with the Nobel Foundation. The Academy is now replacing them with internal ones," member and committee member Per Wästberg told DN.

He does not want to speculate on whether the work on the Nobel Prize will change when the current system is abolished. Wästberg, however, praises the three external members who have participated in the work over the last two years, Rebecka Kärde, Mikaela Blomqvist and Henrik Petersen, and describes them as "very talented".

Officially, The Swedish Academy does not comment on what the new Nobel Committee will look like. The member and chairman of the committee Anders Olsson writes in a comment to DN that the composition will be presented in the second half of October.

The Nobel Foundation's CEO Lars Heikensten recommends that the Academy somehow continue to enlist the help of external experts.

"All Nobel committees have arrangements to ensure rotation and renewal. In one form or another, they also enlist the help of external experts. This is important in order to maintain the quality of the process of appointing Nobel Laureates. We in the Nobel Foundation have no idea exactly how this will happen," Heikensten says in a comment to DN, and continues:

"The Swedish Academy has announced that it will present later this autumn how the Nobel Prize work will be conducted in the future. We are confident that they will then move in this direction."

The work of the newly designed Nobel Committee was not smooth during last year's prime year. Two of the five external members, Gun-Britt Sundström and Kristoffer Leandoer, left their assignments shortly before the Nobel Prize ceremony after dissatisfaction with the way the work worked.

Leandoer has in the past week commented on his decision again, first in an Albanian online newspaper and then more extensively in a text in Svenska Dagbladet (29/9). In his speech, he writes about the election of the laureate Peter Handke and the difficulties of working in the committee:

"I realized too late that we – and by 'we' I mean both committee members and candidates – were pawns in an internal power game," leandoer, who declined to comment on the issue, told DN.

Gun-Britt Sundström writes in a comment to DN that she shares the description that Kristoffer Leandoer makes about the role of the external members. At the same time, she adds that what "happened last year belongs to history" when the composition of the Academy has changed since then:

"'Going into prepared deeds' is a pious expression that was used when someone was allowed to continue what others had created the conditions for. It also fits as a description of the role of the outsiders in the appearance of nobel laureates last year, with the difference that we could not know what we went into", writes Gun-Britt Sundström and continues:

"I share Kristoffer Leandoer's assessment of the function we gradually got in the power game. Perhaps no one in the Academy had intended or foreseen it. It was certainly not what the Nobel Foundation would have wanted to achieve by forcing the Nobel Committee to include outsiders in its discussions."


Anders Olsson has declined to comment on Kristoffer Leandoer's post. Per Wästberg says that he holds Leandoer highly as a critic and essayist, and that he has some understanding that it can be difficult to present new names in the discussions about the Nobel Prize.

"But anyone who comes up with new names, as he has done, we study that very carefully. There's time for that. If he didn't get his way, it's because others don't think they could rank as high at the time," says Per Wästberg.

The critic and translator Henrik Petersen has remained as an external committee member for 2020. He describes this year's work as "very different" from last year.

"The assignment came unexpectedly for us in the external committee and the situation was new and naturally difficult to plan for the Academy. After some time we landed in the collaboration and this year it has felt much more collected. Fewer collisions rooted in the need for assertion – not least with myself!", Henrik Petersen writes in an email response.

You external members are now terminating your appointment, how does it feel for you to leave the Nobel Committee?

"I've loved the work. The uninterrupted reading of contemporary world-class literature has meant even more to me than I thought. But I also look forward to isolating myself, working on two books I have started."

Do you think it would be good if the Academy continues with external members?

"It would be with us if so! It is a special situation with secrecy, difficult already as it is, but even more difficult if more are involved."

For Nobel Prize discussions, special secrecy, which has posed challenges during the Corona pandemic, is a matter of special confidentiality. The Swedish Academy's IT policy states that "nothing related to the Nobel Prize should ever be communicated via e-mail. Everything should be taken in analogue form or over the phone."

Henrik Petersen describes that the work this year has also changed in practical terms. There have been fewer meetings and instead they have sometimes had to be replaced by phone calls using code words.

"Above all it has meant more individual work and more written than oral. Everyone submitted their tome on September 1, texts were added completely independently of each other," Petersen writes.

As previously reported, the Corona pandemic has also affected the regular work of the Academy. The meetings were held in the spring by e-mail but have resumed this autumn. Those Members who are unable to physically attend can instead participate using digital solutions, including via video link.

The Nobel ceremonies are also affected by the pandemic. Only a few journalists can be present in börssalen when the Academy announces the prize winner next week. It is already known that the Nobel Banquet is cancelled while the award ceremony takes place digitally.

"The pandemic has required adjustments on a number of points, but the work of the Nobel Committee and the Academy has been able to continue according to plan," Anders Olsson wrote in a commentary.

 

[JCamilo]

Several academics from many areas have tryied to make some money trying to sell to a broader publish (Russell even). They usually simplify their most complex theories, this includes Harold Bloom or Umberto Eco, Dawkings, Stephen Gould, Pinter etc. Some are better eassayist than the others. I dont think the Nobel would be hurt by Derrida, Habermas, Barthez, Strauss Walter Benjamin, Adorno, and a few others who were good writers and worked somehow under some literary-philosophic tradition and thinkers. But some scientists are just hacks, Darwin was just bad, for example. Durkheim bad as hell.

 

[Mise Eire]

They might do some on the side, but their job is to be a scientist.

C.P. Snow, much praised by Anthony Burgess, straddled both worlds.

 

[Deleted member 83959]

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.

In college my best friend attended an event about space/possibilities of life in space where Dawkins was a featured speaker. This was being live-streamed online and on several science television channels. During a question and answers sections my friend brought up some study that discussed the possibility of life on Venus and Dawkins (despite not being an expert on space) grabbed the mic and launched into this demeaning, mocking rant about how stupid the idea was.

Of course now the potential for Life on Venus is very much in the news and is being investigated by NASA and a few weeks ago my friend and I both brought up this incident and couldn’t stop laughing over how much of an ass Dawkins had been.

I can’t see the man winning a Nobel. He writes popular science works that for the most part are aimed at those trying to leave organized religion. They’re fine for what they are but there’s really no depth to them.

 

[kpjayan]

No, never. Nein. Não. No. Nee. Ne. Nej. Non. Nei. Tidak. Naeh. Nie. Illai. Nahin. Dim.
Please, don't.

Like the Vsevolod Nkerasov Poem..

------
no no
no and no


no and no and no and no
and no and no and no and no
and no
and I no

----

 

[namelesshere]

Literary Saloon thoughts are up from MAO

the Literary Saloon at the complete review - a literary weblog

the Literary Saloon at the complete review - a literary weblog

www.complete-review.com

This quote made me laugh very loudly: "Online debate has been pretty limited, with the exception of the Nobel Prize in Literature 2020 Speculation-thread at the World Literature Forum, which certainly goes on at great length"

Personally I would have thought that Ngugi wa Thiong'o would fall into the category of a consensus candidate...

 

[Bartleby]

Literary Saloon thoughts are up from MAO

the Literary Saloon at the complete review - a literary weblog

the Literary Saloon at the complete review - a literary weblog

www.complete-review.com

This quote made me laugh very loudly: "Online debate has been pretty limited, with the exception of the Nobel Prize in Literature 2020 Speculation-thread at the World Literature Forum, which certainly goes on at great length"

Personally I would have thought that Ngugi wa Thiong'o would fall into the category of a consensus candidate...

And of course he finds an opportunity to nag once more about Dylan

 

[Verkhovensky]

Looking at my bookshelf I remembered that Spanish writer Javier CERCAS was never mentioned - if I'm not mistaken - in this thread?
Does anyone think he have a shot? He won Independent Foreign Fiction Prize for Soldiers of Salamis and two other novels were shortlisted for International Dublin Award. I've read two of his, aforementioned Soldiers of Salamis, about Falangist politican and writer Rafael Sanchez Mazas, and The Speed of the Light, about American crimes in Vietnam. Both I think were very good and were pretty short (around 200 pages or so). I'm yet to tackle his longer books, like The Anatomy of a Moment (about failed 1981 Spanish military coup) or The Impostor (about a guy who lied for decades that he was a Holocaust survivor).
I think he would also be interesting because of his style, which mixes facts, fiction and autobiographical elements.

 

[namelesshere]

And of course he finds an opportunity to nag once more about Dylan

Indeed... I mean, I don't approve of the Dylan choice and I don't think it did the prize any favours, but come on... I'm not sure one (large) mistake should entirely zap anyone's enthusiasm for/interest in the prize. You've just got to chalk it up as a severe mis-step and get over it, as far as I'm concerned (if that is indeed your view).

If you're reading this...

 

[namelesshere]

Looking at my bookshelf I remembered that Spanish writer Javier CERCAS was never mentioned - if I'm not mistaken - in this thread?
Does anyone think he have a shot? He won Independent Foreign Fiction Prize for Soldiers of Salamis and two other novels were shortlisted for International Dublin Award. I've read two of his, aforementioned Soldiers of Salamis, about Falangist politican and writer Rafael Sanchez Mazas, and The Speed of the Light, about American crimes in Vietnam. Both I think were very good and were pretty short (around 200 pages or so). I'm yet to tackle his longer books, like The Anatomy of a Moment (about failed 1981 Spanish military coup) or The Impostor (about a guy who lied for decades that he was a Holocaust survivor).
I think he would also be interesting because of his style, which mixes facts, fiction and autobiographical elements.

I'd say perhaps, but only if the committee are actively looking for an alternative Spanish writer to Marias because they'd rather award someone slightly less well known and popular, and are happy that Cercas comes up to scratch. (I appreciate Cercas is still relatively well known, but not sure he's as well known across the world as Marias? I may be wrong).

Personally I've found the couple of books I've read by Cercas far less striking and a little more lightweight than Marias' work.

 

[Uemarasan]

And of course he finds an opportunity to nag once more about Dylan

It must have been a very traumatic experience for him. It’s quite hilarious at this point. He’s beginning to sound like a raving lunatic.

I would love for Marias to get it, but it seems like there’s been a leak with regard to Ulitsakaya? It’s all very suspect. Maybe she’s on the shortlist.

 

[nagisa]

Haha that’s an accurate quote. But doesn’t Zizek have a cult following? I could see one of his fans being in a position to nominate him.

I think it would be a very dark horse nomination, even if they were going for a philosopher. I don't see any of Zizek's ideas being coherent or relevant enough for the Nobel, never mind the dubious style (completely abstruse, decorated with badly-digested pop culture, and recycled book to book). Like I said, I think Habermas (who can be abstruse, yes), who has been a pillar of European philosophy for over 50 years, exploring and refining his concepts of the public sphere, communicative action, normativity, and European democracy, would be the more obvious (and rightful) choice.

Perhaps someone working in the continental tradition could win, but a lot of philosophers in the English-speaking world seem to belong the analytic tradition. And although one of their founders (Bertrand Russell) won, I can’t see any of them winning. I’ve gotten the impression that a lot of them write in an incredibly spare style that at times seems more like a mathematical proof rather than an essay. (Although I should add a disclaimer that I am far from an expert in modern philosophy.)

I'm far from an expert as well, but this view may be a bit outdated. The scope of both has widened, and both have dialogued and even cross-pollinated to some extent. Here's a small piece I don't entirely agree with but is a good explainer; or to put it in an image, "as Bernard Williams [apparently] famously pointed out, cross-classifying the main division within contemporary Western philosophy in the mixed, geographical-cum-methodological terms analytic and Continental is rather like trying to sort cars into two (would-be) mutually exclusive groups, those “with an automatic transmission,” on the one hand, and those “made in Germany,” on the other." (Thomson (2019) "Rethinking the Analytic/Continental Divide" in The Cambridge History of Philosophy, 1945–2015)

 

[Bartleby]

Can Xue and Annie Ernaux made their way into the (still exiguous) Ladbrokes list. They haven’t yet taken Oz out of there, tho. Nor have they fixed Atwood’s and Delillo’s name LOL

 

[namelesshere]

Can Xue and Annie Ernaux made their way into the (still exiguous) Ladbrokes list. They haven’t yet taken Oz out of there, tho. Nor have they fixed Atwood’s and Delillo’s name LOL

I suppose theoretically it's not really in their interest to remove him once he's there. If anyone has placed a bet on him in ignorance of him dying, they're definitely not going to need to pay out

 

[redhead]

Can Xue and Annie Ernaux made their way into the (still exiguous) Ladbrokes list. They haven’t yet taken Oz out of there, tho. Nor have they fixed Atwood’s and Delillo’s name LOL

looks like they added Cormac McCarthy, Jon Fosse, Yu Hua, and Marilynne Robinson too.

 

[hayden]

Can Xue and Annie Ernaux made their way into the (still exiguous) Ladbrokes list. They haven’t yet taken Oz out of there, tho. Nor have they fixed Atwood’s and Delillo’s name LOL

Cormac McCarthy, Fosse and Robinson too. (And Yu Hua? Was he on there before?).

 

[namelesshere]

Cormac McCarthy, Fosse and Robinson too. (And Yu Hua? Was he on there before?).

No, he wasn't.