Stevie B
Current Member
I know it's all in fun. ?
Nobel Prize in Literature 2022 Speculation
- Thread starter The Common Reader
- Start date
- Status
HaveOneOnMe
Reader
By the way, speaking of gay writers and the Nobel, I recently read for the first time James Baldwin's fourth novel, Tell Me How Long The Train's Been Gone, and I was taken aback by how pulpy and cheap it is. I mean, it's so angry and bitter, but in a very unsophisticated way. He literally uses phrases like "Lady Cunt-face." It's way too long, the story's awful and the writing isn't great at all. Shocking because I love Baldwin. Giovanni's Room is possibly---by way of contrast---the most perfect novel I've ever read, and his non-fiction is superb. But damn, that fourth novel's a stinker.
Morbid Swither
Well-known member
I feel so dumb! ? I mean REALLY dumb, embarrassed. But believe me, if this wasn’t the most shocking example of the Mandela effect I’ve ever experienced.
HaveOneOnMe
Reader
I'm not sure I can think of any living gay writers who truly deserve the prize. I can't comment on Hollinghurst as I haven't read him but I do feel that Holleran, Cunningham, and White are too middlebrow. With White, for instance, I don't think his early novels (like A Boy's Own Room, The Beautiful Room is Empty, etc.) are much better than the potboiler later ones, like Our Young Man. David Malouf is gay and has been touted as a possible Nobel winner, but, like his fellow Australian (& Nobel winner) Patrick White, who was also gay, Malouf's work doesn't directly deal with homosexuality. I think Malouf's work is very good, by the way. I think Gary Indiana's brilliant but he's too radical for the academy. Who else is there? There seems to me to be a paucity of high quality gay literature out there at the moment. I mean, Less winning the Pulitzer? Embarrassing...
I think that all that speaks to is the obvious fact that some writers win more awards than others.
And, also, all awards are not created equal - nor are they exempt from electioneering, marketing, politicking, and other fun systemic influences. There's a book I highly recommend about this called The Economy of Prestige by James English.
In my reading, it appears to me this constant questioning of whether or not Gurnah was a "compromise pick" seems to be an attempt to devalue or question the validity of his prize, as if his Nobel Prize were any different from Louise Gluck's or Peter Handke's or Olga Tokarczuk's. It's all the same Nobel! And I wonder, for those insistent on pursuing this line of questioning, why it matters to you whether or not he was a "compromise." So you don't love his books as much as you love Tomas Transtromer's. Cool. But, obviously, enough people in the organization that decide this prize liked his work enough to think he should have it. A "compromise pick" makes it sound like this perfectly intelligent, well-paid academy of highly regarded professionals just threw their hands up and went, "Meh! Just give the $1 million to that guy! Who cares?!" If you don't think Gurnah's books deserved the Nobel prize, why does that become a critique of him and not the tastes/process of the awarding body? He didn't give it to himself.
Though I don't think the *point* of a discussion board is necessarily *critique* - in fact, I just come here to nerd out on literature and look for book recs - I should point out that I don't have an issue with anyone's opinion of Gurnah and I certainly don't think I'm here to invalidate them. I'm just pointing out some issues I have here with this rhetoric. No one's sitting around asking if Ishiguro or Gluck was a "compromise pick - and they very well could have. We don't know! That's the point! So why I'm merely asking why Gurnah.
And I get upset about all kinds of things on this forum - about as many as the things I get excited about! Nothing unique there. But no one's calling Pamuk or Mo Yan, despite some weird optics, a "compromise candidate." That's what I'm specifically "discussing" on this "discussion board."
HaveOneOnMe
Reader
Just looked up the English book on the 'economy of prestige'. Please tell us the jush on Toni Morrison and the Booker feuds...
Bartleby
Moderator
I don't mean to get you more upset, but actually Ishiguro was thought at the time, and still is by some to this day (go check Mary Morose's blog posts), as a compromise pick also... I feel you, tho...
Last edited:
Since Southeast Asian writers are seldom mentioned whenever it’s this time of year, I can think of three Philippine writers who deserve serious consideration. Unfortunately, nearly all of the great writers of the country write in the vernacular and are untranslated.
1. Lualhati Bautista
She is very much ensconced in the social realist tradition that is enshrined in the country as the most “serious” kind of literature, but she is perhaps its best practitioner. A popular writer whose themes are very much like those of Ernaux: the socio-political dimension of women’s lives, but with an added sense of urgency as she writes about life and survival under the most oppressive of political and economic structures. Unfortunately, still untranslated into English.
2. Virgilio S. Almaro
Like Adonis, he is a poet preoccupied with the preservation and resuscitation of local poetic traditions. He is very much a “language poet” who possesses an unfathomable ocean of knowledge of literary and linguistic history. Unsurprisingly, he has also produced a considerable volume of literary criticism. A jack-of-all-trades: writer, editor, publisher, scholar, translator, historian, teacher. He does incredible things with the Filipino language, a playfulness not so different from that of Jelinek or Bei Dao in their native tongues. Again, untranslated into English.
3. Jose Y. Dalisay, Jr.
Probably the most accessible among the three as he writes in English as well and slightly controversial for ghostwriting speeches for presidents. In the Philippines, there still remains a deep-seated stigma among the literati against writers, artists, filmmakers, musicians, dancers, photographers, anyone in the creative and performing arts who veers a little too closely to the highest echelons of power. This is of course due to recent history under the first Marcos regime. Dalisay at least acknowledges the levers of authoritarianism and corruption - the predominant theme - in his writings and, as a political insider, perhaps knows about and understands the hierarchies of power the best. Work is available in English, but strangely enough literature in English from Asia rarely gets any meaningful press. Singaporean writers get barely a whiff of a mention, for example. The wonders of marketing, eh?
1. Lualhati Bautista
She is very much ensconced in the social realist tradition that is enshrined in the country as the most “serious” kind of literature, but she is perhaps its best practitioner. A popular writer whose themes are very much like those of Ernaux: the socio-political dimension of women’s lives, but with an added sense of urgency as she writes about life and survival under the most oppressive of political and economic structures. Unfortunately, still untranslated into English.
2. Virgilio S. Almaro
Like Adonis, he is a poet preoccupied with the preservation and resuscitation of local poetic traditions. He is very much a “language poet” who possesses an unfathomable ocean of knowledge of literary and linguistic history. Unsurprisingly, he has also produced a considerable volume of literary criticism. A jack-of-all-trades: writer, editor, publisher, scholar, translator, historian, teacher. He does incredible things with the Filipino language, a playfulness not so different from that of Jelinek or Bei Dao in their native tongues. Again, untranslated into English.
3. Jose Y. Dalisay, Jr.
Probably the most accessible among the three as he writes in English as well and slightly controversial for ghostwriting speeches for presidents. In the Philippines, there still remains a deep-seated stigma among the literati against writers, artists, filmmakers, musicians, dancers, photographers, anyone in the creative and performing arts who veers a little too closely to the highest echelons of power. This is of course due to recent history under the first Marcos regime. Dalisay at least acknowledges the levers of authoritarianism and corruption - the predominant theme - in his writings and, as a political insider, perhaps knows about and understands the hierarchies of power the best. Work is available in English, but strangely enough literature in English from Asia rarely gets any meaningful press. Singaporean writers get barely a whiff of a mention, for example. The wonders of marketing, eh?
Last edited:
ministerpumpkin
Well-known member
FWIW, I don't see "compromise pick" as having an inherently negative connotation.
Daniel del Real
Moderator
I agree Killing Commendatore is not good but I think 1Q84 is one of his best works. Colorless was just OK.
Being said that, I'll be celebrating if Murakami Haruki wins, even tough this means millions of people will also celebrate claiming to their friends they know about literature.
By the way, wouldn't it be great if tomorrow, Mr. Roboto comes out of these white doors and announces the 2022 Nobel Prize in Literature goes to Murakami...RYU!
Daniel del Real
Moderator
What about another English language Caryl to win it all: PHILLIPS
Hamishe22
Well-known member
Oh, this is not a factor. The foreign language book market is not regulated, I've bought Rushdie, Hitchens, and de Sade. It's just that he's completely unknown among book readers.
Edit, Sorry, I have replied to the wrong post
Last edited:
Liam
Administrator
I don't think that's how it happens at all. Presumably all of the names are drawn from the same shortlist, and if they have made it this far, the academy obviously considers all of them to be more or less equal in terms of quality. But if one half of the Nobel Committee votes for one candidate, and the other half votes for another, and nobody is willing to change their mind (in favor of the opposing side), they ultimately go to the third name on the list to break the tie. But it would be a mistake to think that the third, fourth and fifth names on the shortlist (or however many) are somehow "lesser," like I said, to have made it on the shortlist is proof enough of literary quality. But certainly, it'd be interesting to learn about this decade's deliberations, if we get the chance,
Hamishe22
Well-known member
Well, I might be a pleb, but I think King can be a better writer than at least half of the Nobel laureates from 2000 to 2022. (He can be bad too, of course). I just don't think that Nobel has very high standards. And I care very much about Booker.
Morbid Swither
Well-known member
From a 2021 Speculation post:
“Other Afro-Caribbean names that stand out to me are Patrick Chamoiseau, Franketienne, Edwidge Danticat, and Caryl Phillips.”
I love his Crossing the River!
Daniel del Real
Moderator
Last edited:
Hamishe22
Well-known member
What is literature?
Daniel del Real
Moderator
You really care about the preservation of the woods, don't you?
Or Ivan Wernisch
HaveOneOnMe
Reader
Novels and poems, which, with subjugating power, uncover the abyss beneath our illusory sense of connection to the forum threads.
- Status