WLF Prize in Literature 2021

[Leseratte]

Unfortunately, despite being one of the users who suggested a WLF Prize a year ago, I won't take part in the voting or the discussions. The year has been brutal around here - my mind is a complete mess, I must have read around 10-12 books this year (mostly poetry), none of which are from the authors we chose to discuss and nowadays I can't focus enough to read an entire novel from beginning to end. It's been months since I last read something.

That said, I love reading all your commentaries on the books and authors, so thank you for sharing your views and criticisms here. I intend to take part in the discussion next year, hopefully. Speaking of which: I suggest we start voting for next year's authors as soon as the winner of this year is announced. Another suggestion: things would be more interesting if we completely avoid repeating shortlists for back to back years. What about a rule in which the chosen authors can't be exactly the same as the previous year?
[/UOTE]

 

[namelesshere]

 

[namelesshere]

The journalists are gathering; the live stream has begun...

 

[Bartleby]

Sorry for leaving you waiting, guys!

I've been consulting some people concerning the ranking system, and I'm clarifying an issue I've spotted, but really soon I'll be handing the results. Thanks for your patience

 

[namelesshere]

Sorry for leaving you waiting, guys!

I've been consulting some people concerning the ranking system, and I'm clarifying an issue I've spotted, but really soon I'll be handing the results. Thanks for your patience

Haha I don't mean to imply impatience, the idea of suggesting some build up similar to next Thursday's just entertained me. It can take as long as you need it to, it's your own free time after all!

 

[Bartleby]

Ok, so to speed things up, let me know, everyone, this being a democratic deliberation, which of the two methods you prefer (there's a voting poll above, you may just check option 1 or 2 there, no need to respond):

1) A ranked system akin to the Oscars' preferential ballot, in which we take a look at what writer got fewer 1st place rankings, and we remove this writer from consideration, and whoever had him/her as their first pick we then consider their second choice as a 1st place, whittling it down until we get to the candidate with most votes and declare a winner.

or

2) A reversed points sort of strategy, so for instance if someone ranked an author in 1st place this writer would get 4 points, their 2nd pick gets 3 points, and so on and so forth.

I hope it's all clear enough. Any doubts, please ask

 

[namelesshere]

Ok, so to speed things up, let me know, everyone, this being a democratic deliberation, which of the two methods you prefer (there's a voting poll above, you may just check option 1 or 2 there, no need to respond):

1) A ranked system akin to the Oscars' preferential ballot, in which we take a look at what writer got fewer 1st place rankings, and we remove this writer from consideration, and whoever had him/her as their first pick we then consider their second choice as a 1st place, whittling it down until we get to the candidate with most votes and declare a winner.

or

2) A reversed points sort of strategy, so for instance if someone ranked an author in 1st place this writer would get 4 points, their 2nd pick gets 3 points, and so on and so forth.

I hope it's all clear enough. Any doubts, please ask

I have voted for number 2 but really only because that sounds much less labour-intensive for you to have to deal with!

 

[Bartleby]

I have voted for number 2 but really only because that sounds much less labour-intensive for you to have to deal with!

don't worry about it, really it's (mostly) all taken care of anyway. I just need to know the majority's preference, but thanks for your concern ?

 

[redhead]

As a helper, I believe the work’s pretty much all done for both options

 

[Leseratte]

I voted for number 2 which seems much simpler to me.
If non voters aren´t allowed to chose the system, just tell me Bartleby and I´ll take my vote back.

 

[Bartleby]

I voted for number 2 which seems much simpler to me.
If non voters aren´t allowed to chose the system, just tell me Bartleby and I´ll take my vote back.

no problem
___

I forgot to opt for the votes to appear publicly and now I can't edit it, but just so you know I'm not voting, it'd be impartial of me having calculated the votes in both ways beforehand.

 

[Stevie B]

Ok, so to speed things up, let me know, everyone, this being a democratic deliberation, which of the two methods you prefer (there's a voting poll above, you may just check option 1 or 2 there, no need to respond):

1) A ranked system akin to the Oscars' preferential ballot, in which we take a look at what writer got fewer 1st place rankings, and we remove this writer from consideration, and whoever had him/her as their first pick we then consider their second choice as a 1st place, whittling it down until we get to the candidate with most votes and declare a winner.

or

2) A reversed points sort of strategy, so for instance if someone ranked an author in 1st place this writer would get 4 points, their 2nd pick gets 3 points, and so on and so forth.

I hope it's all clear enough. Any doubts, please ask

I prefer the second option.

 

[Stevie B]

I prefer the second option.

Just voted properly this time.

 

[Bartleby]

Just voted properly this time.

thanks ?

 

[redhead]

but just so you know I'm not voting, it'd be impartial of me having calculated the votes in both ways beforehand.

Ditto

 

[Cleanthess]

Everybody so far has voted for the same option. I'm curious did the two options produce a different winner?

 

[Bartleby]

Everybody so far has voted for the same option. I'm curious did the two options produce a different winner?

since there were 13 voters, I guess you're right. We have a majority. The problem with the use of difference methods it that one user (and I'm not blaming him, it's my mistake, I should have asked for an amendment earlier) chose to split one of his positions between two writers, causing in, in the first method of ranking, a tie (I've asked the user a couple of hours ago if he'd like to rearrange his vote, but he's not been online since).

Anyway, again, there seems to be a strong preference for the second method, so I guess the winner can be revealed using this system.



——————

So here we go—

the votes were:

1) Ngugi wa Thiongo
2) Krasznorkhai / Kadaré
3) Can Xue

1) Krasznorkhai
2) Ngugi Wa Thiong'o
3) Can Xue
4) Kadaré

1) Ismail Kadare
2) Laszlo Krasznahorkai
3) Can Xue
4) Ngugi Wa Thiong'o

Kadare
Krasznahorkai
Thiong'o
Can Xue

#1 Krasznakorkai
#2 Ngugi wa Thiong'o
#3 Kadare
#4 Can Xue

1) Ngugi
2) Kadare
3) Krasznahorkai
4) Can

1. Can Xue
2. László Krasznahorkai
3. Ngugi wa Thiong’o
4. Ismail Kadare

1. Laszlo Krasznahorkai
2. Ismail Kadare
3. Ngugi Wa Thiong'o
4. Can Xue

Kadare
Krazhahorkai
Thiongo
Can

1. Kadare
2. Ngugi
3. Can Xue
4. Krasznahorkai

1. Krasznahorkai
2. Can Xue
3. Ngugi
4. Kadare

1 - Kadare
2 - Thiong'o
3 - Krasnahorkai
4 - Can Xue

1. Can Xue
2. Krasznahorkai
3. Thiong'o
4. Kadare

Below you can see a breakdown of, in the first column, how many votes each candidate got in each positions, and next to it, the respective points the writer received:

Ngugi wa Thiong'o (total=32 pts)
1st 2 7pts
2nd 4 12pts
3rd 6 12pts
4th 1 1pts

Ismail Kadare (total=34 pts)
1st 5 20pts
2nd 3 8pts
3rd 1 2pts
4th 4 4pts

Can Xue (total=24 pts)
1st 2 8pts
2nd 1 3pts
3rd 4 7pts
4th 6 6pts

Laszlo Krasznahorkai (total=38 pts)
1st 4 16pts
2nd 6 17pts
3rd 2 4pts
4th 1 1pts

Therefore, by this means, the winner is clearly Laszlo Krasznahorkai.

You should feel free to check the counting by yourselves, should there be any mistake. I'd like to thank you all again for participating in this project, in whatever way you could; enormous thanks specially to @redheadshadz for helping me in this last process!

What remains now is to, maybe, come up with a citation for the winner =P

 

[Cleanthess]

For having "his last name yield the highest number of points in a Scrabble board in comparison to other writers' last names."

I mean, he beat former high scoring champions, Sienkiewicz, Szymborska, Witkiewicz and Tokarczuk...

 

[hayden]

Very interesting!

Kadare got the most #1s
Krasznahorkai got the most #2s
Thiong'o got the most #3s
Can Xue got the most #4s

—but the final result has the top two switched in place of the cumulative.

It is very difficult ranking writers... I mean, it's not exactly a competitive sport... but it is (I'm going to use the word) reassuring to see how scattered the results were and that not one writer ever had a '0' next to their name. I think I only spot two users with the same ranking, and everyone else had something unique. Looks like Kadare was the most divisive of the bunch too.

Neat. (Very glad with the result too).

Appreciate this being put on. If anything, it gave an excuse to dive further into the works of these writers. Made it a bit of fun. Whenever I see one of their names pop up, I'll probably think back to this (and their grouping).

 

[Bartleby]

Very interesting!

Kadare got the most #1s
Krasznahorkai got the most #2s
Thiong'o got the most #3s
Can Xue got the most #4s

—but the final result has the top two switched in place of the cumulative.

I know, right? Given how greatly everyone was talking about Ngugi I was expecting him to have gotten more #1s

And if we had chosen the first ranking method we'd have seen either a tie between Krasznahorkai and Kadare, or, should the user I mentioned opted to rearrange his votes in a certain way, we could have seen Kadare as the winner.