The Nobel

Feel free to discuss the Nobel Prize for Literature, or any of the other Nobel Prizes that pique your interest, here.

Opinions on the choice of Harold Pinter for the last prize?

With only 2 1/2 weeks to go for the announcement of this year's winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, the excitement is rising in the publishing business worldwide.
Who do you think might be the lucky one?
Whom would you chose, if the choice were left to you?

I think it's only a matter of time before Haruki Murakami gets it.

Or playwright Martin McDonagh...

I have no idea how they choose the Prize but judging from past winners... I think either of these guys are good candidates if not now, in a few years.

I'll take this opportunity to alert you to Australia's only Nobel Literature laureate - Patrick White. He wrote several excellent books, all of which I love. Although there are mutterings about the talents of current Australian authors, there is no-one who compares with White.

Last chance to place your bets as this years winner will be announced tomorrow around noon (European time)!
I've heard that Philip Roth, Ryszard Kapuscinski, Thomas Pynchon, Don DeLillo, Ko U and Orhan Pamuk are supposed to have a realistic chance. My personal guess would be Orhan Pamuk, followed by Philip Roth...
Any other opinions and educated guesses?

Haven't seen Pynchon or Delillo mentioned yet though they are very good. I don't know who Ko U is--maybe you could say something about him or her. The one article I've seen has mentioned Roth, Kapuscinski, Joyce Carol Oates, the Syrian poet Adonis, Pamuk, Amos Oz, Assia Djebar, Doris Lessing, J-M. G. Le Clezio, Mario Vargas Llosa and Milan Kundera. There's a lot to choose from there. To go further no Canadian has ever won and one might think of Michael Ondaatje, Anne Carson, Margaret Atwood. As for Pamuk that is a good guess however he's hardly a favorite son in his own country--so I don't know. I would go with Roth, then Vargas Llosa. As writers I will say I really like that Le Clezio is mentioned.

I don't believe that a woman will win the prize this year as Elfriede Jelinek has only won him two years ago and rumours have it that the prize will only be given to a woman roughly every ten years or so. The fact that Pamuk had political problems in connection with those freedom of speech lawsuits might actually be helpful in this case.
I have no idea who Ko U is, I only know that he's South Korean. Another article I just read makes mention of Adonis, Orhan Pamuk, Joyce Carol Oates, Philip Roth and Swede Thomas Transtromer, never heard of the last guy, nor has LibraryThing, apparently.

Transtromer had a stroke I believe quite some time ago and I don't believe he's produced anything in quite a while. He is Swedish though and although there haven't been any Scandinavians lately there has been a disproportionate number throughout the history of the prize. Again to Pamuk--it's possible but I don't know if it would be popular coming from the part of the world he does. Turkey borders on Asia, the Middle East and Europe and that entire region seems to be boiling over with religious and/or political dogmatism--not that that is unique or that we don't have our share of oddballs. Politics though seem very often to play into the selection. Pamuk is also still relatively young though he is an excellent candidate nonetheless and I do have a copy of Snow that he signed. As for Roth and Oates their chances might be hurt by the number of prizes in the other categories to other Americans. There may be others also. Last years was a bit of a surprise also. Anyway it's something I look forward to every year and it's great if the writer is someone you really like--like for me Coetzee--I think it was 3 years ago.

The winner will have a large body of work so I don't believe Pamuk will win. Perhaps Roth or Pynchon, or Kundera.

I think it is often hard to separate politics from literature in the award of this prize.

Bearing that in mind, Pamuk may stand a very good chance of winning. He is a Muslim, would be the first Turkish winner, and, as mentioned before, has been in dispute with Turkish hardliners (it wasn't the govt that brought the case against him) about freedom of speech. (Some cynics have suggested that he consciously raised the question about the Armenian genocide in order to promote his status as a Nobel candidate).
Likewise, because of the turmoil in the Middle East it wouldn't be a surprise if it goes to an arabic writer. Adonis may stand an even better chance since it hasn't gone to a poet in a decade.
(Having a large body is not important - see winners like Cannetti).

Roth has chance based on his recent body of work but he may be hampered by the fact that 3 of the last 5 winners have written in English. Joyce Carol Oates is a good writer but she isn't even close to being the best American writer so I would think it is unlikely that she is a serious candidate.

Le Clezio could win because no writer in French has won since Claude Simon in 1985. This reasoning could also bring Vargas LLosa into the reckoning, since it is 16 years since a Latin American winner, but VL's politics will probably go against him.

As for Kundera, he has had more of a chance of winning in the past than he does now.

As for Pinter winning last year, I can't help thinking that his strong (rabid?) anti-American stance may have mattered as much as the work. He didn't seem a particularly strong winner.

And the winner is . . . Orhan Pamuk.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_en_ot/nobel_literature_12

Bravo rfb and jargoneer for calling this one!

Congrats to Orhan Pamuk and don't anyone ever ask for betting tips from me.

I've not read Pamuk - who can give me the run-down on the good, the bad and whatever else is in there?

Well rfb was right on this one. Pamuk is a controversial figure in Turkey at this time. The Turkish government has been bent on prosecuting him for the last few years because of his calling attention to the massacre of the Armenian Turks at the beginning of the 20th century.The Turkish government has refused to acknowledge this bit of past ethnic cleansing and has made it a crime for any of its citizens to acknowledge it either. Pamuk has done so and only by subsequent international pressure over the course of quite some time have the Turks very reluctantly let him off. Winning the Nobel will probably keep them off his back for good but the more wild eyed of Turkish nationalists are probably livid.

As for Pamuk's work--I have read him only twice and there are probably others that have better opinions than mine. To me there are elements of magical realism and despite the above paragraph his books aren't inspired very much by the political situation in Turkey at all--with maybe the exception of 'Snow'. He reminds me of Rushdie a bit--Garcia Marquez a bit.
His books have always been very well recieved and there's no question that he's considered Turkey's best novelist and there's been little doubt that he would one day win the Nobel--well that day has turned out to be today.

Like Rushdie, Pamuk took the concept of magic realism and transposed into a new environment. I would argue that his work is more satisfying than Rushdie's, the more Rushdie writes, the more Midnight's Children looks like the odd book out.

His two best novels are probably The Black Book and My Name Is Red.
The leading Orientalist (and novelist) Robert Irwin likened The Black Book to Paul Auster's The New York Trilogy, insomuch that it is a metaphysical detective story set in a strong physical location, in this case, Istanbul.
My Name Is Red is again set up as a detective novel - as someone murders artists who show traces of being influenced by the new Western approach of creating art that has three dimensions.
As you can probably tell, these are big postmodern novels with all the usual tricks, and as such are not always the most straightforward read.

The best way into Pamuk is through his recent book, Istanbul. It is both memoir and paen to the eponymous city, and is written in a much more approachable style.

I feel like I should make a small correction to Iriley above. It is true that Pamuk was prosecuted this year under the law of insulting Turkey. However, it was not the Govt who brought the case, it was pursued by a nationalist group who have brought similar cases against other individuals. As I mentioned above, a number of commentators pointed out that Pamuk had never really spoken out about the Armenian situation before and saw his recent statements as a way to increase his profile with the Nobel Prize committee.

As someone who is usually turned off by "magic realism," I just want to weigh in here and say the one Pamuk book I've read, My name is red, is NOT magic realism in any kind of off-putting sense ... it's just a great book ... with fascinating insight into non-Western art.

I expect you're probably right jargoneer--it was in the news for a while recently and it made of him a cause celebre. I'm not sure though that he welcomed all the attention. I have only read Snow and The new life--they are well written and intriguing in their own way--to me they're reminiscent of Rushdie who I have read more of. To me 'Snow' (like some of Rushdie's work)loses (or changes if you will) its focus towards the latter third of the book. Having said all that the 2 books mentioned above 'The black book' and 'My name is red' (both of which I have not read) seem to be the ones that are liked the most.

Pamuk's writing in My Name is Red is nothing like Rushdie. The vast passages on art would never be found in the latter. I was fascinated by the concept that art (in the novel) must not contain anything new. These days, mostly in art and music, one must be new or one is a fool. Of course the audiences don't necessarily agree.
NOT MAGIC REALISM: this novel is about reality, the only metaphysical aspect being the opening narration by Red (who is dead).

I think the pictures/animals taking a narrative role in the story may lend it a mystical quality. (I actually can't remember if it's the illustration or the animal being illustrated who is speaking-I need to go back and look.)

I thought it was the story teller at the artists gathering place who did the actual talking (but then maybe I just got a bit confused). This is hinted at, although not explicitly stated. I hope I got that right, because it makes a nice blend: the magical quality of pictures giving their points-of-view, and the non-magical realistic aspect that it might simply be a mans voice who brings them alive.

(Also, it's interesting that all the cranky, mysterious personalities of the pictures are spoken by someone totally unconnected with the actual mystery. So, it's a bit of a red herring)

I don't think it's really clear whether the voice is the animal or the illustration. I placed it as that of the animal (or color) in the illustration, whose personality is defined by the illustration, if that makes sense.

It was a bit confusing to me. The unclear point-of-view was intentional, no? It's the source of points-of-view that's allows the story to extend beyond what might be called reality.

So, it could be magical realism, or maybe it's not.

I'm in the middle of the book now. Unless something changes as the book progresses, it is quite clear that it is the story teller in the coffehouse giving the pictures voice. I'll report back if anything changes as I get further.

All of the strange names were names of the characters involved - some of the other miniaturists, for example. But we didn't know exactly which person was speaking and this added to the whodunnit aspect. The artwork they were doing is an historical fact - re-illustrating the Koran was a real job and they were all required to do it in the same way.

23. Apologies, it must be clearer than I remember... the confusion was just in my own head. (Not for the first time)

I suspect I would have had some of the same confusion had I read the section a year ago instead of a day ago -- but I'm enjoying this book, and Pamuk strikes me as an excellent choice, both for literary and humanitarian merit, which are both supposed to be qualifications.

I bought a book today called: Nobel Lectures: From the Literature Laureates, 1986 to 2005. The publisher is Melbourne University Press, 2006 and it looks wonderful.

Over the past few years I've been trying to read at least one book by each of the Nobel laureates. I've come across some great books this way, as well as some stinkers. I know in the early years the award was given for a particular book and where this is the case, I'll read that one, otherwise I'll read whatever looks most interesting to me. Is anyone else doing this or something similar?

Yes, I am very slowly trying to cover the Nobel laureates. I have The Double by Jose Saramago on my shelf and last year I read my first Nadine Gordimer book. Who have you found to be worth a look?

Some books, off the top of my head, from Nobel laureates that I've liked: Disgrace by JM Coetzee, most of the Knut Hamsun I've read, Narziss & Goldmund & The Glass Bead Game by Hermann Hesse, The Dwarf by Par Lagerkvist, And Quiet Flows The Don by Sholokhov, Snow Country by Kawabata, Men of Corn by Asturias, Midaq Alley by Mahfouz, so many others...

Well the Nobel thing is a tall order--some of the earliest ones you might not be able to find. I'm thinking of Mommsen for one. Eucken for another. Heyse, Pontoppidan, Spitteler--on those good luck. Frankly some of them aren't that good either. I've read something by 74 of the 103 and if I were pick one above all the others it would be Laxness. Other good picks would be Faulkner, Simon, Cela, Hamsun, Beckett, Camus, Steinbeck, Pasternak, Grass, Garcia Marquez, Coetzee, Saramago, Fo, Pamuk, Heaney, Szymborska, Oe, Neruda, Eliot, Solzenhitsyn.

One thing I'm curious about: Are there any writers who people feel should have won the Nobel, but didn't? Who won the Nobel, but shouldn't have?
In the first category, for example, I personally would include Auden, Iris Murdoch and Lawrence Durrell. In the second I would include Toni Morrison, Pearl S. Buck and Hemingway, all of whom I think are grotesquely overated as writers.

I'll support Toni Morrison as deserving. Not only is she a good writer but she has a large body of work. And she writes about African-American women. Isn't part of the Nobel criteria that the author must contribute something new?? I'm sure one LT member has written about this before. Must check Nobel Prize website.

Toni Morrison won the Nobel Prize in 1993.

It appears they have a number of different criteria to consider....Nobel Criteria, which could explain certain awards.

There is always a presentation speech on the winner that reveals why the panel decided to award him/her.

I have mixed emotions about Toni Morrison, I have enjoyed some of her novels, and I realise her subject matter was new, but I'm not 100% convinced by her body of work. Buck won it, for her writing on China.

IMO, none of Auden, Murdoch or Durrell deserved to win it. Even in terms of the UK, there have been superior poets and novelists - Ted Hughes, Graham Greene, Henry Green, Larkin, etc.

The Prize is littered with people who should have won it, and people who shouldn't have. Tolstoy should have been the first winner. Henry James probably deserved it more than Kipling, etc.

No list is going to make everyone happy and that's probably as it should be. The most notable missing from it may be James Joyce. Politics and prejudice have played a part at times. Early on was the fear that Emile Zola might win--that is before he died or was murdered. I've read comment that Graham Greene mentioned above was the victim of anti-catholic bias even though he was also sympathectic to Marxism. An unusually high number of Scandinavians--many of them obscure have won.

I'm going to expose my ignorance here--why a "fear" that Zola might win?

#37
Perhaps because he was controversial in his subject matter and treatment, but also perhaps because of his major role in the Dreyfus affair, which split French society in the antebellum period, and for which Zola took much of the blame due to his article 'j'accuse'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_Affair

#35
Jargoneer, I agree with you about Graham Green, Tolstoy, Hughes and James: of course they should have won it. I"m not so sure about Larkin, though. To me he always sounds like sub-Auden. IMO Auden's voice had more range, his concerns were more metaphysical and his outlook more international. Larkin seems to suffer from narrowness of soul. This year is Auden's centenary, and I have been rereading more of his work. It always seems fresh and newly minted to me. Any other Auden fans out there?

Interestingly, there's an article from the Guardian on Larkin and Auden and difficulty in poetry.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2021381,00.html

#36 Ditto James Joyce.

Turn of the 20 century and Zola had opinions inclining towards socialism. Considered a radical. There is a question in fact whether his death by carbon monoxide poisoning was an accident or not--he had taken on the military and the French establishment in the Dreyfuss affair and had to flee the country for some time to avoid going to prison. Being right did not enter into it. He was in other words a very controversial figure by the time of his death. Have to say I think Zola is a wonderful writer of historical fiction not so much in describing actual events of his time but in describing an entire era in France as seen through a wide variety of angles. Some of the Rougon-MacQuart series are not that good but some are great works of art.

Iriley, I agree with you about Zola: the Rougon-MacQuart series is a fascinating portrait of an era but some are better than others. Germinal-brilliant, Therese Raquin- overblown. It's a shame that the whole series is not available in English (as far as I know).Another French writer who is overdue for a new translation of his entire oevre is Balzac. The few books available of his in Engish are mostly in unreadable translations, IMO.

My favorite actually is 'The Earth'--though you can't go wrong with Germinal, The debacle, The ladies paradise, L'Assommoir. I have read most of them and some are very very old translations.

re # 28, 29, 31 about reading something by each Nobel laureate - have you come across Bertha von Suttner? An Austrian, she won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1905 - the first year of the Prizes and knew Alfred Nobel. Author of Lay Down Your Arms. (If I bracket the title it comes up as Hemingway's book of a similar title.) I realize you were talking about the prize for Literature, but am still hoping someone here may have familiarity with her writing.

so who do we reckon is up for the prize this year?

It won't be a Swede.
Hardly a Scandinavian author at all.
There will naturally be a decidedly political flavour to the choice.
Hence, clearly not an American.
Might be a woman.
A French author would be an interesting and welcome choice.

I wish: Margaret Atwood
I fear: Updike, Roth, etc.
Most probably: someone I've never heard of, which is fine by me, since it broadens the horizons!

Margaret Atwood?! Let's just give it to Brad Pitt and get it over with.

It looks relatively open this year, in so much that there aren't any major political events dominating the news - Pamuk and Pinter awards were tied up with the invasion of Iraq (IMO).

It is interesting that there hasn't been any Spanish speaking winners for 17 years and there hasn't been a poet for 11.

The leading Spanish candidates would appear to be Mario Vargas Llosa and Javier Marias. Since the panel appear not to like Vargas Llosa's politics that would leave Marias in pole position. The problem for Marias could be that in profile he seems a little too similar to Pamuk.

I don't know enough about world poetry to hazard a guess.

Personally I think it will be a left-field winner this year, like Jelinek, which will make very hard to predict.

You've apparently called it before, so I will go along with the leftist prediction.

I just bought a book called Nobel Lectures from the Literature Laureates, 1986-2006, which doesn't seem to be touchstoning so here is the link.

If we have to look at what backgrounds are missing from the Nobel lists, it is true that there has not been a French-speaking winner for over two decades and there has not been a Spanish speaking winner for almost two decades (though there was a rash of Spanish-speaking winners ending with Paz). But there has not been an Indian winner since Tagore, and there is quite a lot of Indian writing out there, though it may be that the bulk of the potential candidates are simply too young. There's no obvious candidate from India (Rushdie? Too much piling on on traditional Islam after Pamuk). Also, it's been a long time without a Russian winner.

I think the best US candidate is going to be Kushner, though he is likely too young. He fits the idealistic mode, has produced a work that is not just compelling and unique but also popular, and isn't just another big, mass-market US writer with a host of OK work. Pynchon's Against the Day wasn't strong enough (though I enjoyed it), and Delillo and Foster Wallace aren't ground breaking enough in Pynchon's shadow. As to Roth and Updike - I stopped reading them about 20 years ago when their books all started to merge in a single unidentifiable blob - have I missed anything?

I actually think Roth or Vargas Llosa would be great choices but they have always been in the running. As for Atwood a Canadian has never won it--so it wouldn't be a big surprise if she or say Michael Ondaatje got it this year. Another often mentioned is the Syrian poet Adonis. I'll also mention Le Clezio from last years mentions. Few people have heard of him but I like him a lot. He would definitely be a long shot though. Milan Kundera. Umberto Eco. William Trevor--all IMO have a solid backlog of books to make them Nobel worthy.

I say to hell with all contemporary authors, and demand nothing less from the Swedish Academy than the presentation of a posthumous award for Jorge Luis Borges and, while they are at it, Mikhail Bulgakov.

Not that I have any strong opinions on the subject...

If your average Swede got his/her way, Astrid Lindgren would be a Nobel laureate. Let's hope for better things.

if it's got to be a Canadian, I would prefer to see it go to Robertson Davies rather than Atwood or Ondaatje, neither of whom can really cut the mustard.

tomcat--Davies died in 1995 and I believe there is a cut off point of 5 years after an authors death--hence there will never be a Joyce, Kafka, Borges or Davies for that matter ever winning the Nobel. In any case I think the committee is reluctant to give the honor to someone even recently deceased as they like to maximise as much as possible publicity for their awards. It's one of the things about the award--the ones who got it that really deserved it and those that got it that didn't deserve it and there is a lot of different opinions about that everywhere.

As for Sweden I always hear the name of Tomas Transtromer although apparently he hasn't written anything since he suffered a stroke several years ago.

That's not quite true - Tranströmer's stroke was in 1990, and since then he has published some poetry, including the very beautiful collections Sorgegondolen (written in 1996), and Den stora gåtan (2004), which I've read in German translation (Das große Rätsel).
I would be very happy to see him win it.

(puzzled as to what people have against Margaret Atwood, who has more intellectual clout than bloody Jelinek and just as much as Pinter or Pamuk... hmm).

I myself have nothing against Margaret Atwood, and would consider her a perfectly respectable candidate compared to others mentioned in the English-speaking world (e.g., I'd want her long before either Roth or Updike). She has written some books that are simply atrocious (e.g., The Edible Woman may qualify as one of the most facile and trite books since The Great Gatsby, and it's not as well written), but sometimes a novelist should take risks - much of Melville fails.

But on the same intellectual plane as Pamuk or Pinter? No. I don't see that. (No opinion on Jelinek - still on my to be read list).

#56--gladly stand corrected on Transtromer. Not a big Atwood fan. I actually prefer Ondaatje however if Atwood were to win there would and have been far worse. As for Pamuk, Pinter and Jelinek--of what I've read of each--they are all good writers--maybe even deserving but not a huge fan of them either. Roth would be one that I'd really like. Vargas Llosa would be another. Le Clezio's name mentioned last year seems to be a real long shot but believe it or not he's had 9-10 novels translated into English and I think I have every one of them. Anyway I've lived through choices that I think were very bad too and I'll probably see a few more. C'est la vie. What makes one person happy doesn't always work for others. Anyway my favorite of all Nobel literature laureates is Halldor Laxness.

#55 He died already? Golly, where have I been.....

Sorry tomcat--but if he were still alive he'd be around 94 right now. I have a couple friends who were huge fans of his and also would lament his not having won the Nobel.

I, of course, would be more than pleased to see Margaret Atwood win a Nobel - I think there is much more to consider than just her novels - there's her poetry and essays; and she has been an outspoken advocate for Canadian literature, both within her own country and outside of it.

But the Nobel prize for literature rarely goes to women. That has been discussed on another thread here.

>58 lriley: I'm with you, I'd be happy with any of the three you mentioned - Roth, Vargas Llosa, Le Clezio. They are all writers who have a decent body of work and are still, more or less, at the peak of their powers. Roth especially has overturned the perception that writers decline with age, I was never a big fan but his novels since 1990 changed that, it is probably the best sequence of novels of any (living) writer in English.

Vargas Llosa deserves to win as well, he is the equal of Garcia Marquez, and more flexible in style and subject matter. I did read somewhere that one of the problems with VL is that he has had innumerable translators and that has meant that his work has been seen as very variable. Not to mention the politics, as I stated elsewhere on this thread.

Jargoneer:

Alfred Nobel is responsible for the politics issue: he made it clear that the Nobel wasn't just for good literature, it is for good "idealistic" literature. The inscription on the medal says, "They bettered life on earth by their newly found mastery".

I have not read either Vargas Llosa or Le Clezio, so I don't know the case to be made that either of them is in an idealistic tradition. But I'd be upset by the choice of Roth - I don't see him filling that part of the bill.

I actually think Le Clézio would be a delightful choice.

>63 A_musing: - that criteria has not been used for decades. You can read the developing criteria for the literature prize at the Nobel site - Nobel Criteria.

As it suggests that literary quality is the prime criteria now Roth should definitely be considered. His latest novels have also dealt with the major issues - race, death, religion, etc.

jargoneer: So you don't see any political connotations to the choice of Coetzee and Pamuk, for example?

Before last year's award I said Pamuk would win it because of politics, especially after the furore following his speaking out about the Armenian genocide, a topic he had never mentioned before. It also helped he was a Muslim, etc. That said, Pamuk is a good novelist.

I'm not sure that Coetzee was that political, by the time he had won he had a succession of major literary prizes to his name. If it was about giving the prize to an African, then choosing a white African seems to defeat the purpose.

The most political decision in recent years was giving the prize to Harold Pinter, he seemed to win it more for his rants against the US than his plays.

A_musing--fairly recent translations of Le Clezio include The Mexican dream (non-fiction about the ancient Mayan civilizations if I remember correctly), The prospector (a novel based out of Mauritius) Onitsha (a novel set in Africa--I'm thinking Nigeria), Wandering star (a novel about the holocaust with a Mediterranean setting), The round and other cold hard facts (an early short story collection of his). They are all very good--I particularly like The Prospector and Wandering star and The round. My favorite of his books though is The Giants which is an earlier work of his--an almost anti-globalization rant--and IMO his most experimental novel.

On Vargas Llosa--Conversation in the Cathedral is a masterpiece IMHO. The feast of the Goat, The war of the end of the world, The time of the hero are all great books and he has several other novels that are close to great. I actually do prefer him to Garcia Marquez.

To mention another writer very deserving of the Nobel at least IMO--that would be Antonio Lobo Antunes. He is Portugese however and the Saramago award came in the not too distant past. Not likely someone from Portugal is going to win that for at least another 10 years.

Thanks - I always like the book recommendations, and one thing this thread is great for is mining good authors. Just to add a touchstone to the list, anyone think Ismail Kadare has a shot?

I will have to look up Antonio Lobo Antunes - I've not heard of him.

Jargoneer - that's a great page you link to on the Nobel site; it looks like the "ideal" criteria is still there, just interpretted loosely and more in the context of the development of world literature generally.

Re Vargas Llosa - a good place to start is Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter, a very funny partly autobiographical novel about a young man's love of his aunt, and a writer of radio soaps. The book interchanges between reality and the stories written by the scriptwriter, which get more and more surreal. Perhaps doesn't have the depth of the novels mentioned by Iriley but a very engaging, and funny, read.
He also wrote an excellent account of his failed attempt to run for President of Peru, A Fish in the Water.

Kadare has been mentioned before as a potential winner, he won the first International Man Booker award in 1985. From what I have read the issue that dogs Kadare is whether he supported the Communist regime in Albania or not - he himself has said he didn't, he was neutral but many commentors have pointed out that he had a very good life under the dictatorship. This would make the award of the prize to Kadare quite controversial and unpopular in much of Eastern Europe.

#70 Kadare: 2005, I think (not 1985)

>71 amandameale: you're correct, I must have been thinking of something else at time to be 2 decades off.

Did anyone following this terrifc Nobel thread catch Orhan Pamuk on "Charlie Rose" last week to discuss amongst other things the release of Other Colors ? It was a fantastic interview IMO and the first time Charlie's had a fiction writer on for the whole hour in what seems like AGES! If I hadn't already been a huge fan of OP before seeing the interview I would have become one that evening. I found him completely engaging and fascinating throughout.

For those that missed it/interested, the show has finally put the video up on their site:

Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk on Charlie Rose 09-18-07

Odds posted on this year's Nobel. Claudio Magris and Les Murray are the top picks. I've read neither - any thoughts?

http://www.ladbrokes.com/lbr_sports?action=go_type&category=SPECIALS&typ...

Oh my, I'd be delighted with either of them...

>74 A_musing:

A_musing:

Thanks for the latest Nobel odds scoop. I had never gotten around to purchasing or reading any Magris but reading that bookie sheet has spurred me on to order 4 titles this afternoon. Better late than never I guess!

October 11th apparently is the day:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071005/people_nm/nobel_literature_dc_2

Googling around a little--the mention of these names:

Claudio Magris-Italy
Les Murray-Australia
Philip Roth-USA
Tomas Transtromer-Sweden
Adonis-Syria
Maryse Conde-France
Jaan Kaplinski-Estonia
Don Delillo-USA
Haruki Murakami-Japan
Antonio Tabucchi-Italy
Amos Oz-Israel
Ko Un-South Korea
Carlos Fuentes-Mexico

Thanks for the heads-up lriley.

I had no idea Maryse Conde was in the running. I have to admit, I would be ECSTATIC if she won this year or in the future! She's just such a fine and brilliant writer and I wish she had a larger audience. I love Philip Roth's and DeLilo too but have no problem admitting that I would be perfectly fine with Maryse being named the Laureate as I feel her work is just as deserving.

I had not heard of Conde--bookjones--also unfamiliar with Murray, Kaplinski and Ko Un. I've read Magris, Transtromer, Adonis and Murakami once and Oz twice. Tabucchi I like a lot as well as Roth and Delillo. Fuentes has some fine work also but is hit and miss with me. Latin American wise I'd prefer Vargas Llosa. Anyway those were just names mentioned in two different articles--for all we know it may turn out to be someone else but the day is fast approaching.

I never met a person in Mexico who really liked Carlos Fuentes. Most thought he was a bit of a show-off. Some thought he was O.K. but didn't read much of his stuff. He is definately not in the same league with Octavio Paz. In the US we know him from the movie Jane Fonda made (The old Gringo) from his story about the disappearance of Ambrose Bierce. Philip Roth, John Updike, Don Delillo are all SO much better.

Not disputing what you say about Fuentes but I think some see MVL at times as a bit of a showoff too. Yet I really really like Vargas Llosa. On Fuentes--I liked Artemio Cruz--The good conscience was going along fine but I didn't like how it ended. I've read several others including the Old Gringo--he's kind of a writer to me that so far I don't see ever reading any work more than once. Mexican writers I prefer maybe more--Paco Ignacio Taibo, Rosario Castellanos, Homero Aridjis. Saying that I'm not a big fan of Paz though either. Nicanor Parra IMO is the best Latin American (anti)poet I've ever read.

I've started up a blog on Nobel Laureates. If anyone would like to join, please visit: http://readnobels.blogspot.com

See you there!

And the prize went to Doris Lessing. Very well deserved, imo.

Surprised by Doris Lessing. She's a good writer but I would be hard pushed to say she's one of the best in English.

This is the tag line of their site regarding Lessing -
"that epicist of the female experience, who with scepticism, fire and visionary power has subjected a divided civilisation to scrutiny"

Whooo! I'm just tickled that all your speculations were foiled;-)

And I'm delighted they chose a woman.

Wow, a rank outsider, but a good choice imo.

> 85 - only the 11th woman to win it.

Not surprised we got it wrong - even if we had been told the winner would write in English I doubt Doris Lessing would have named. If we knew it was a women who wrote in English she may have been 4th or 5th favourite.

4 out of the last 7 winners have now been writers in English. With more people speaking English in Europe, does it mean that English language writers now have a major advantage? It certainly means that they don't have fewer problems with translations.

I don't know that she'd have been fourth or fifth among women writers in speculation. In thinking about other English language writers, who is indeed better? The rumor mill liked Joyce Carol Oates and Margaret Atwood, but I like Lessing's choice better than either.

I am surprised that it was an English language writer - so many great choices in other languages, so many questionable ones in English. I'd like to see Tony Kushner move to the fore some day. And am fascinated by the relatively new "candidacy" of Les Murray.

Snooty attack dog Harold Bloom has already criticized the decision: "Although Ms. Lessing at the beginning of her writing career had a few admirable qualities, I find her work for the past 15 years quite unreadable ... fourth-rate science fiction..."

This from a man who has made his career by courageously praising acknowledged masterpieces in properly worded but uninspired and overly turgid prose.

I'm coming to like the choice even more as I think about it.

Have never read Lessing so I'm not qualified to offer an opinion on the choice--at least for now. I know she has won many other awards that could be seen as precursors so she's not entirely out of left field though I hadn't seen her name mentioned at all. Not the first time the Nobel committee has chosen someone around which no hype was circulating. They do know how to keep things interesting. In any case congratulations to her.

You can read some of his poems on his website - Les Murray.

>89 A_musing: - to be fair to Bloom, which I'm not sure I like doing, her last few novels have been critically blasted in the UK. The last one was reviewed on a BBC arts show and you could see that the reviewers, fellow writers ets, wanted to be nicer but the novel was a mess. (Mind you, she is 88 this week).

A_Musing - you're mentioned Tony Kushner before but apart from Angels in America what else has he done? I can't think of anything.

The most commercially prominent of Tony Kushner's other work would be his screenplay for Munich (it won an academy award, for what it is worth). The most interesting would probably be his operatic works and his translations /adaptions of other plays (including A Dybbuk). But I suspect his time would come only after having a stronger second (third?) act out there.

But Angels in America is one of the few truly ground breaking works I can think of from the last three or four decades. Epic performance work in a European language?

I have to agree with A_musing, I like the choice better than Atwood and Oates and I very much like all three writers. Was Toni Morrison the last woman so honored?

I did not realize that Lessing was born in Iran, I thought she was born in Zimbabwe. Interesting also that she was self-taught until the age of 15. I have read her work and much criticism of her work but never really looked into her biography.

Off the top of my head at least two others after Morrison Avaland--Wislawa Szymborska and Elfriede Jelinek.

Doris Lessing was mentioned as a possible candidate in message #7 of this thread, exactly a year ago (confusingly listed by the LT robot as "Today"). I think it's a good choice: her writing is powerful and astonishingly varied, and has an international (if not an interplanetary) breadth.The Marriages of Zones Three, Four and Five would be on my personal list of top 100 novels.

Watched the BBC news tonight - the Nobel Committee failed to inform Doris Lessing so she ended up being told by the BBC while out shopping. It's safe to say she is not exactly overwhelmed.
Video on sidebar - Doris Lessing BBC

At least they didn't call her a women's writer, that does upset her.

I have to admit, the selection of Doris Lessing was surprising to me when I read it this morning I think mostly because they just awarded a Brit back in 2005 with Pinter. I am neither pleased nor displeased with the Nobel Committee's choice as I read some Lessing in my younger days and thought her to be a very fine writer. She has admittedly dropped off my radar though and so maybe that's another reason she "appeared" to come out of left field for me---I am normally only thrown for a loop when they select poets because I don't read any poetry for pleasure/leisure. :-)

However I'll also be a bit petty and admit that if the intent was to award a woman this year, I personally and selfishly would have gone with Maryse Conde, Alice Munro, Mavis Gallant, Oates, Rosario Ferre or Proulx.

Congrats to lriley for nailing Lessing as a candidate a year ago:-)

While I don't know the minds of the Nobel committee, it seems that they not only honor a distinguished career in literature but also honor voices who struggle against oppression (I'm thinking Pasternak), who pioneer in some way in literature (or perhaps is outside the mainstream)...this is not articulated terribly well, but I think you catch my drift. This doesn't explain all of their choices, of course.

And I'm intrigued by Lessing's comments about being told back in the 60's that the committee didn't like her (and, yes, well, "well-behaved women rarely make history"*).

*Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

>91 Jargoneer:, I rather like your "to be fair to Bloom, which I'm not sure I like doing..." comment.

I haven't read Lessing's more recent stuff, so he may well be right about that; of course, his put down of her earlier work ("a few admirable qualities"), was the quintessential and common worst side of Bloom.

On 98--I come up with the names out of articles I google with search words such as Nobel literature and maybe the year so it's no big deal. Her name hadn't come up this year--there were about 50 others though one story had one of the electors taking the betting institutions to task for sometimes just being lucky as with Pamuk last year--that they really didn't have anything real to go by.

Lessing's quote when informed that she had won is priceless. Oh Christ, I couldn't care less. That one has got to be remembered.

Has anyone read any Ivo Andric? I just finished The woman of Sarajevo about a woman miser in the aftermath of wwi in Sarajevo. Even in translation, the writing was brilliant. Are there any other of his books you would recommend?. i am going to get The bosnian chronicles.

Almigwin--I've read Andric twice--The Devil's yard and The Bridge over the Drina. The second one to is his best known book I believe and is the better of the two.

Jolly interesting article by John Sutherland in today's Guardian about the Nobel Prize in general, based on a look at previous Nobel acceptance speeches: Ink and Spit.

About Ivo Andric, I once came across a reference once that he had some questionable ideas about ethnic Bosnias/Albanians. I haven't heard about it anywhere else, but I'm curious if it's true and how it might play in his works (esp. The Bridge on the Drina). Maybe someone here knows something?

I don't know who you mean by "ethnic" Bosnians. There are at least three "flavours" of Bosnians, of which Andric was one himself, a Bosnian Croat. However, he declared himself all his life as a Yugoslav--somewhat necessarily during the monarchy, when he was a high-ranking diplomat, but entirely in harmony with his personal convictions and ideals.

I don't know anything special (or specific, really) about his opinions on Albanians, nor do I recall coming across any "questionable" politics in his entire work (which I read several times). He certainly describes many instances of religious and national hostilities--many would call that one of his major themes--but his personal stance of deep and all-encompassing humanism is, as far as I know, uncontested and "unquestionable".

By Bosnians I meant Muslims in Bosnia (who are not Albanian... I think). I'll try to hunt down my reference. I found it in the end notes here: Kosovo: a short history by Noel Malcolm (author is English and very critical of Serbia).

Well, Bosnian Muslims aren't in any way more "ethnic" or "Bosnian" than any other kind of Bosnians.

Since the breakup of Yugoslavia there has been a tendency (or a program) to refer to them as "Bosniaks", in order to properly balance the ethnic (not religious) categories of "Serb" and "Croat", but I don't know how widely it's used and known.

That book has a footnote ascribing to an article by B. Krizman the idea that Andric advocated forced emigration of Albanians to Turkey (he refers to "sending" the Albanians to Turkey - implying force). The article is not in English, but what I've found of Krizman's that is in English seems to base a claim that Andric advocated emigration (I don't see anything about "forced") of Albanian's to Turkey on a 1939 Article Andric wrote saying that following a partition of Albania there would be no obstacles to emigration of Muslims in Albania or Kosovo to Turkey, and his advocacy as a diplomat of Yugoslavia's policy of seeking to divide Albania (with Greece, which also advocated the elimination of Albania).

I don't see much surprising here. There is no shortage of debate over making and remaking states in the Balkans in the period, and there was ongoing discussion of both forced and unforced emigration and population exchanges. He was a diplomat, and engaged in those debates. But the distance from advocating the division of Albania to the footnote in that book seems a ways to travel - I hope there's more foundation for the point and I just can't read it because it's in a Balkan language. But the guy looks more like a journalist than an historian - I'd be wary. And Krizman (in the stuff that is translated) clearly has an act to grind, and seems to stretch the 1939 Andric article, only to have it stretched further by Malcolm.

A_musing - That is the reference (Chapter 14, endnote 47). Thanks so much for your investigation and explanation! Complicated region. Apologies to Andric's legacy.

I just HAVE TO mention Knut Hamsun: Nobel Prize 1920.

Some of his GREAT novels:
Hunger
Mysteries
Growth of the Soil
Wayfarers
The Women at the Pump
Victoria
Pan

With the 2008 Nobel prize only 6 weeks away, is it too early to start speculating as to this year's winner?
Anyone know who the nominees are?

According to the Nobel site, they don't announce nominees, only the winner. The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later. (see here)

Some of the UK online gambling sites will post some odds. That won't tell us what the Nobel committee is thinking but what the odds makers are thinking. I can't remember, bit it seems Lessing was 20:1 and Pamuk was 5:1.

Both good picks, but I am a huge fan of Pamuk.

#113 well I know that, obviously. Perhaps I should have written 'nominees' in inverted commas. I meant, does anyone have any ideas about who is in the running. last year an LTer predicted the winner spot on.

We need jargoneer - he's pretty good at predicting the Nobel winner. I'll ask him to drop by.

114, Pamuk was at 5:1 odds on winning his SECOND Nobel Prize??? I would bet the farm against that one. Surely you are referring to years past.

Years past. Pamuk had 7:1 odds the year he won about three days before the prize was announced. This list is from 2006 from that period. I think Pamuk got closer to 5:1 a little later on.
Lessing wasn't even on this house's list for 2006 so the odds makers can be off. Some thought her chances to win had passed. There might be a list on this board somewhere from 2007. I think I remember reading it here. Pamuk winning wasn't a surprise to many but the Lessing win did surprise many.

One 2006 List
Adonis 3/1
Joyce Carol Oates 6/1
Orhan Pamuk 7/1
Jean Marie Gustav Le Clezio 8/1
Thomas Transtromer 8/1
Haruki Murakami 9/1
Inger Christensen 9/1
Amos Oz 12/1
Ko Un 14/1
Philip Roth 16/1
Ryszard Kapuscinski 16/1
Antonio Tabucchi 20/1
Assia Djebar 20/1
Cees Nooteboom 25/1
Claudio Magris 25/1
Bei Dao 28/1
Hugo Claus 28/1
Don DeLillo 33/1
Milan Kundera 33/1
Thomas Pynchon 33/1
Willy Kyrklund 33/1
John Updike 40/1
Salman Rushdie 40/1
Bob Dylan 50/1
Chinua Achebe 50/1
Eeva Kilpi 50/1
Gerald Murnane 50/1
Harry Mulisch 50/1
Herta Muller 50/1
Mahmoud Darwish 50/1
Mario Vargas Llosa 50/1
William H Gass 50/1
Gitta Sereny 66/1
Cormac McCarthy 80/1
Umberto Eco 80/1
Adam Zagajewski 100/1
Ian McEwan 100/1
Janette Winterson 100/1
Julian Barnes 100/1
Margaret Atwood 100/1
Olga Tokarczuk 100/1
Patrick Modiano 100/1
Paul Auster 100/1

VisibleGhost, do you recall the website from which you gleaned this information? Thanks.

I think those odds came from Ladbrokes, which publishes odds under their "specials" bets each year. Nothing is posted yet for this year.

There's some great reading in these lists.

PAST WINNERS:

2007
DORIS LESSING that epicist of the female experience, who with scepticism, fire and visionary power has subjected a divided civilisation to scrutiny.

2006
ORHAN PAMUK who in the quest for the melancholic soul of his native city has discovered new symbols for the clash and interlacing of cultures.

2005
HAROLD PINTER who in his plays uncovers the precipice under everyday prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms.

2004
ELFRIEDE JELINEK for her musical flow of voices and counter-voices in novels and plays that with extraordinary linguistic zeal reveal the absurdity of society's clich s and their subjugating power

2003
JOHN MAXWELL COETZEE who in innumerable guises portrays the surprising involvement of the outsider

2002
IMRE KERTÉSZ for writing that upholds the fragile experience of the individual against the barbaric arbitrariness of history

2001
V. S. NAIPAUL for having united perceptive narrative and incorruptible scrutiny in works that compel us to see the presence of suppressed histories.

2000
GAO XINGJIAN for an oeuvre of universal validity, bitter insights and linguistic ingenuity, which has opened new paths for the Chinese novel and drama.

1999
GUNTER GRASS whose frolicsome black fables portray the forgotten face of history.

1998
JOSE SARAMAGO who with parables sustained by imagination, compassion and irony continually enables us once again to apprehend an elusory reality.

1997
DARIO FO who emulates the jesters of the Middle Ages in scourging authority and upholding the dignity of the downtrodden.

1996
WISLAWA SZYMBORSKA for poetry that with ironic precision allows the historical and biological context to come to light in fragments of human reality.

1995
SEAMUS HEANEY for works of lyrical beauty and ethical depth, which exalt everyday miracles and the living past.

1994
KENZABURO OE who with poetic force creates an imagined world, where life and myth condense to form a disconcerting picture of the human predicament today.

1993
TONI MORRISON who in novels characterized by visionary force and poetic import, gives life to an essential aspect of American reality.

1992
DEREK WALCOTT for a poetic oeuvre of great luminosity, sustained by a historical vision, the outcome of a multicultural commitment.

1991
NADINE GORDIMER who through her magnificent epic writing has - in the words of Alfred Nobel - been of very great benefit to humanity.

1990
OCTAVIO PAZ for impassioned writing with wide horizons, characterized by sensuous intelligence and humanistic integrity.

1989
CAMILO JOSÉ CELA for a rich and intensive prose, which with restrained compassion forms a challenging vision of man's vulnerability.

1988
NAGUIB MAHFOUZ who, through works rich in nuance-now clearsightedly realistic, now evocatively ambigous-has formed an Arabian narrative art that applies to all mankind.

1987
JOSEPH BRODSKY for an all-embracing authorship, imbued with clarity of thought and poetic intensity.

1986
WOLE SOYINKA who in a wide cultural perspective and with poetic overtones fashions the drama of existence.

1985
CLAUDE SIMON who in his novel combines the poet's and the painter's creativeness with a deepened awareness of time in the depiction of the human condition.

1984
JAROSLAV SEIFERT for his poetry which endowed with freshness, sensuality and rich inventiveness provides a liberating image of the indomitable spirit and versatility of man.

1983
SIR WILLIAM GOLDING for his novels which, with the perspicuity of realistic narrative art and the diversity and universality of myth, illuminate the human condition in the world of today.

1982
GABRIEL GARCÍA MÁRQUEZ for his novels and short stories, in which the fantastic and the realistic are combined in a richly composed world of imagination, reflecting a continent's life and conflicts.

1981
ELIAS CANETTI for writings marked by a broad outlook, a wealth of ideas and artistic power.

1980
CZESLAW MILOSZ who with uncompromising clear-sightedness voices man's exposed condition in a world of severe conflicts.

1979
ODYSSEUS ELYTIS (pen-name of ODYSSEUS ALEPOUDHELIS), for his poetry, which, against the background of Greek tradition, depicts with sensuous strength and intellectual clear-sightedness modern man's struggle for freedom and creativeness.

1978

ISAAC BASHEVIS SINGER for his impassioned narrative art which, with roots in a Polish-Jewish cultural tradition, brings universal human conditions to life.

1977
VICENTE ALEIXANDRE for a creative poetic writing which illuminates man's condition in the cosmos and in present-day society, at the same time representing the great renewal of the traditions of Spanish poetry beween the wars.

1976
SAUL BELLOW for the human understanding and subtle analysis of contemporary culture that are combined in his work.

1975
EUGENIO MONTALE for his distinctive poetry which, with great artistic sensitivity, has interpreted human values under the sign of an outlook on life with no illusions.

1974
The prize was divided equally between:
EYVIND JOHNSON for a narrative art, farseeing in lands and ages, in the service of freedom.
HARRY MARTINSON for writings that catch the dewdrop and reflect the cosmos.

1973
PATRICK WHITE for an epic and psychological narrative art which has introduced a new continent into literature.

1972
HEINRICH BÖLL for his writing which through its combination of a broad perspective on his time and a sensitive skill in characterization has contributed to a renewal of German literature.

1971
PABLO NERUDA for a poetry that with the action of an elemental force brings alive a continent's destiny and dreams.

1970
ALEKSANDR ISAEVICH SOLZHENITSYN for the ethical force with which he has pursued the indispensable traditions of Russian literature.

1969
SAMUEL BECKETT for his writing, which - in new forms for the novel and drama - in the destitution of modern man acquires its elevation.

1968
YASUNARI KAWABATA for his narrative mastery, which with great sensibility expresses the essence of the Japanese mind.

1967
MIGUEL ANGEL ASTURIAS for his vivid literary achievement, deep-rooted in the national traits and traditions of Indian peoples of Latin America.

1966
The prize was divided equally between
SHMUEL YOSEF AGNON for his profoundly characteristic narrative art with motifs from the life of the Jewish people.
NELLY SACHS for her outstanding lyrical and dramatic writing, which interprets Israel's destiny with touching strength.

1965
MICHAIL ALEKSANDROVICH SHOLOKHOV for the artistic power and integrity with which, in his epic of the Don, he has given expression to a historic phase in the life of the Russian people.

1964
JEAN-PAUL SARTRE for his work which, rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth, has exerted a farreaching influence on our age. (Declined the prize.)

1963
GIORGOS SEFERIS (pen-name of GIORGOS SEFERIADIS ), for his eminent lyrical writing, inspired by a deep feeling for the Hellenic world of culture.

1962
JOHN STEINBECK for his realistic and imaginative writings, combining as they do sympathetic humour and keen social perception.

1961
IVO ANDRI´C for the epic force with which he has traced themes and depicted human destinies drawn from the history of his country.

1960
SAINT-JOHN PERSE (pen-name of ALEXIS LÉGER), for the soaring flight and the evocative imagery of his poetry which in a visionary fashion reflects the conditions of our time.

1959
SALVATORE QUASIMODO for his lyrical poetry, which with classical fire expresses the tragic experience of life in our own times.

1958
BORIS LEONIDOVICH PASTERNAK for his important achievement both in contemporary lyrical poetry and in the field of the great Russian epic tradition. (Accepted first, later caused by the authorities of his country to decline the prize.)

1957
ALBERT CAMUS for his important literary production, which with clear-sighted earnestness illuminates the problems of the human conscience in our times.

1956
JUAN RAMÓN JIMÉNEZ for his lyrical poetry, which in Spanish language constitutes an example of high spirit and artistical purity.

1955
HALLDÓR KILJAN LAXNESS for his vivid epic power which has renewed the great narrative art of Iceland.

1954
ERNEST MILLER HEMINGWAY for his mastery of the art of narrative, most recently demonstrated in The Old Man and the Sea ,and for the influence that he has exerted on contemporary style.

1953
SIR WINSTON LEONARD SPENCER CHURCHILL for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values.

1952
FRANÇOIS MAURIAC for the deep spiritual insight and the artistic intensity with which he has in his novels penetrated the drama of human life.

1951
PÄR FABIAN LAGERKVIST for the artistic vigour and true independence of mind with which he endeavours in his poetry to find answers to the eternal questions confronting mankind.

1950
EARL BERTRAND ARTHUR WILLIAM RUSSELL in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought.

1949
WILLIAM FAULKNER for his powerful and artistically unique contribution to the modern American novel.

1948
THOMAS STEARNS ELIOT for his outstanding, pioneer contribution to present-day poetry.

1947
ANDRÉ PAUL GUILLAUME GIDE for his comprehensive and artistically significant writings, in which human problems and conditions have been presented with a fearless love of truth and keen psychological insight.

1946
HERMANN HESSE for his inspired writings which, while growing in boldness and penetration, exemplify the classical humaitarian ideals and high qualities of style.

1945
GABRIELA MISTRAL (pen-name of LUCILA GODOY Y ALCA-YAGA), for her lyric poetry which, inspired by powerful emotions, has made her name a symbol of the idealistic aspirations of the entire Latin American world.

1944
JOHANNES VILHELM JENSEN for the rare strength and fertility of his poetic imagination with which is combined an intellectual curiosity of wide scope and a bold, freshly creative style.

1943-1940
The prize money was allocated to the Main Fund (1/3) and to the Special Fund (2/3) of this prize section.

1939
FRANS EEMIL SILLANPÄÄ for his deep understanding of his country's peasantry and the exquisite art with which he has portrayed their way of life and their relationship with Nature.

1938
PEARL BUCK (pen-name of PEARL WALSH née SYDENSTRICKER ), for her rich and truly epic descriptions of peasant life in China and for her biographical masterpieces.

1937
ROGER MARTIN DU GARD for the artistic power and truth with which he has depicted human conflict as well as some fundamental aspects of contemporary life in his novelcycle Les Thibault.

1936
EUGENE GLADSTONE O'NEILL for the power, honesty and deep-felt emotions of his dramatic works, which embody an original concept of tragedy.

1935
The prize money was allocated to the Main Fund (1/3) and to the Special Fund (2/3) of this prize section.

1934
LUIGI PIRANDELLO for his bold and ingenious revival of dramatic and scenic art.

1933
IVAN ALEKSEYEVICH BUNIN for the strict artistry with which he has carried on the classical Russian traditions in prose writing.

1932
JOHN GALSWORTHY for his distinguished art of narration which takes its highest form in The Forsythe Saga.

1931
ERIK AXEL KARLFELDT The poetry of Erik Axel Karlfeldt.

1930
SINCLAIR LEWIS for his vigorous and graphic art of description and his ability to create, with wit and humour, new types of characters.

1929
THOMAS MANN principially for his great novel, Buddenbrooks, which has won steadily increased recognition as one of the classic works of contemporary literature.

1928
SIGRID UNDSET principially for her powerful descriptions of Northern life during the Middle Ages.

1927
HENRI BERGSON in recognition of his rich and vitalizing ideas and the brillant skill with which they have been presented.

1926
GRAZIA DELEDDA (pen-name of GRAZIA MADESANI née DELEDDA), for her idealistically inspired writings which with plastic clarity picture the life on her native island and with depth and sympathy deal with human problems in general.

1925
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW for his work which is marked by both idealism and humanity, its stimulating satire often being infused with a singular poetic beauty.

1924
WLADYSLAW STANISLAW REYMONT (pen-name of REYMENT ), for his great national epic, The Peasants.

1923
WILLIAM BUTLER YEATS for his always inspired poetry, which in a highly artistic form gives expression to the spirit of a whole nation.

1922
JACINTO BENAVENTE for the happy manner in which he has continued the illustrious traditions of the Spanish drama.

1921

ANATOLE FRANCE (pen-name of JACQUES ANATOLE THIBAULT), in recognition of his brilliant literary achievements, characterized as they are by a nobility of style, a profound human sympathy, grace, and a true Gallic temperament.

1920

KNUT PEDERSEN HAMSUN for his monumental work, Growth of the Soil.

1919
CARL FRIEDRICH GEORG SPITTELER in special appreciation of his epic, Olympian Spring.

1918
The prize money for 1918 was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section.

1917
The prize was divided equally between:
KARL ADOLPH GJELLERUP for his varied and rich poetry, which is inspired by lofty ideals.
HENRIK PONTOPPIDAN for his authentic descriptions of present-day life in Denmark.

1916
CARL GUSTAF VERNER VON HEIDENSTAM in recognition of his significance as the leading representative of a new era in our literature.

1915
ROMAIN ROLLAND as a tribute to the lofty idealism of his literary production and to the sympathy and love of truth with which he has described different types of human beings.

1914
The prize money for 1914 was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section.

1913
RABINDRANATH TAGORE because of his profoundly sensitive, fresh and beautiful verse, by which, with comsummate skill, he has made his poetic thought, expressed in his own English words, a part of the literature of the West.

1912
GERHART JOHANN ROBERT HAUPTMANN primarily in recognition of his fruitful, varied and outstanding production in the realm of dramatic art.

1911
COUNT MAURICE (MOORIS) POLIDORE MARIE BERNHARD MAETERLINCK, in appreciation of his manysided literary activities, and especially of his dramatic works, which are distinguished by a wealth of imagination and by a poetic fancy, which reveals, sometimes in the guise of a fairy tale, a deep inspiration, while in a mysterious way they appeal to the readers' own feelings and stimulate their imaginations.

1910
PAUL JOHANN LUDWIG HEYSE as a tribute to the consummate artistry, permeated with idealism, which he has demonstrated during his long productive career as a lyric poet, dramatist, novelist and writer of world-renowned short stories.

1909
SELMA OTTILIA LOVISA LAGERLÖF in appreciation of the lofty idealism, vivid imagination and spiritual perception that characterize her writings.

1908
RUDOLF CHRISTOPH EUCKEN in recognition of his earnest search for truth, his penetrating power of thought, his wide range of vision, and the warmth and strength in presentation with which in his numerous works he has vindicated and developed an idealistic philosophy of life.

1907
RUDYARD KIPLING in consideration of the power of observation, originality of imagination, virility of ideas and remarkable talent for narration which characterize the creations of this world-famous author.

1906
GIOSUÈ CARDUCCI not only in consideration of his deep learning and critical research, but above all as a tribute to the creative energy, freshness of style, and lyrical force which characterize his poetic masterpieces.

1905
HENRYK SIENKIEWICZ because of his outstanding merits as an epic writer.

1904
The prize was divided equally between:
FRÉDÉRIC MISTRAL in recognition of the fresh originality and true inspiration of his poetic production, which faithfully reflects the natural scenery and native spirit of his people, and, in addition, his significant work as a Provençal philologist.
JOSÉ ECHEGARAY Y EIZAGUIRRE in recognition of the numerous and brilliant compositions which, in an individual and original manner, have revived the great traditions of the Spanish drama.

1903
BJØRNSTJERNE MARTINUS BJØRNSON as a tribute to his noble, magnificent and versatile poetry, which has always been distinguished by both the freshness of its inspiration and the rare purity of its spirit.

1902
CHRISTIAN MATTHIAS THEODOR MOMMSEN the greatest living master of the art of historical writing, with special reference to his monumental work, A history of Rome.

1901
SULLY PRUDHOMME (pen-name of RENÉ FRANÇOIS ARMAND ), in special recognition of his poetic composition, which gives evidence of lofty idealism, artistic perfection and a rare combination of the qualitites of both heart and intellect.

http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/literature/

I thought this list of past winners and the single statement of what they contribute to literature very compelling. Anyone care to write a similar statement for one of your favorite nominees?

Impressive.

wow! thanks avaland for doing this!

it's interesting how many of the statements mention the words idealism, lofty, noble (no pun intended) and so on.

A link to the European gambling site Ladbrokes. They have the odds on the winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Literature.

http://www.ladbrokes.com/lbr_sports?action=go_generic_link&level=EVENT&k...

Who is Claudio Magris? Touchstones don't know.

Robert

The gender and Continent odds are interesting this year also. Bob Dylan keeps showing up on these odds lists, albeit with pretty long shots. Does anyone really expect him to win someday? Would he be the first poet/songwriter to win a Nobel?

#121 A_musing said, "There's some great reading in these lists."

I agree. I did a quick count of the sixty names on this year's list and I've read something by eighteen of the authors. I think I'll add twelve more to my 2009 TBR list and that will bring me up to having read at least one work by thirty of these authors.

"American authors are too parochial"...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/oct/02/nobelprize.usa

Does he seriously expect anyone to agree with him?

"Does he seriously expect anyone to agree with him?"

I'm sure the rest of the world takes delight in his dross. Never mind the fact that the charter of the Nobel committee explicitly states that the country of the writers not be considered.

The US is too isolated, too insular. They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature ...That ignorance is restraining.

I find that ironic, there are some amazing American authors. Perchance it's not the US whose ignorance in restraining? (I'm from the UK, so no bias!)

To describe Europe as the 'centre of the literary world' does a huge disservice to all the great literature that is created worldwide. To lump 'Europe' into one pot does a great disservice to the literature of individual European countries - written in a myriad of different languages and styles. It just makes him sound all the more ignorant.

>129 tomcatMurr: Interesting article though, with some interesting points. We, as a nation, have a poor record of reading translated literature, although I am seeing a lot more of it reviewed in Publishers Weekly - if that is any indication of an improvement. I would be interested to hear him expound more on his use of parochial; narrow in what way? (I suppose he was suggesting narrow in scope or vision, yes?)

#132, I also think that what he's possibly not taking into account is how incredibly culturally diverse Europe is as a block. The Scandanavians, the English, the Spanish, the French, the Russians etc. etc. are all nations with their own absolutely distinct character, very different from even their nearest neighbour, but close enough geographically to have overflowing influences. Also we have an extremely broad Europe-wide immigrant community (in the UK alone, as a throwback from our Empire days). America is a single country (I'm not implying it's without ethnic diversity but I think there is more depth to it in Europe). You have to question whether the comparison is really valid.

Interestingly, there was an article in The Independent recently that I blogged about here, that takes on the question of whether literary innovation is being stifled by a trend towards a reading monoculture.

Nonetheless, I still think that his statements come across as rather shallow and Euro-centric. Maybe it was the intention to be controversial and shock?

So just a publicity stunt, then, to get us all talking? Or perhaps he was just having a bad day?

all interesting comments.

There are some fairly parochial American authors on Ladbroke's list. Then there are some others.

But Ian MacEwan can give Cormac McCarthy a run for his money in that contest any day.

Comparing this year's list to the last one, it seems recently published English translations help you on the list. I see several authors from smaller countries who have recently had translations published, including Kadare, someone I rather like. Or it may just be that Ladbroke's is taking the money. Certainly, while Bob Dylan has gotten mentioned a few times in the past, he's only on the list today so that Ladbroke's can take a few people's money.

The winner will be selected, and announced October 9.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081003/ap_en_ot/eu_sweden_nobel_literature

I do find those comments on American literature as too "parochial" interesting... but mainly because, I realise to my shame, I don't actually read much literature in translation (OK, not much gets published, but I read even less).

If you'd asked me 10 years ago I would have said I definitely preferred to read American writers (contemporary ones, anyway) as they were so much less uptight, angsty and concerned with their own importance than the UK ones. (I no longer have time to analyse my own reading preferences so I couldn't perform a comparative exercise without a bit more preparation :-)) But then - my point of comparison is UK rather than any other country. And it is notable quite how many writers on the Nobel list are not native speakers of English. I feel very ashamed of my own cultural myopia.

(edited to fix a typo!)

I was curious to see how many of the writers I have read on the ladbroke betting list. I have read 40 of them so I seem to be in pretty good shape about reading writers in translation. That's about two thirds.

I think we have some great writers who deserve the Nobel, first of whom is Philip Roth, especially for his increasing power, his world view, and his large body of work. From a whiny adolescent start, he has become a very great writer, imo.

Without considering country of origin, I would be glad to see one of the following writers win: Thomas Pynchon, Mario Vargas Llosa, Carlos Fuentes, Margaret Atwood, Joyce Carol Oates, Michael Ondaatje, Milan Kundera, Peter Carey, Harry Mulisch, Chinua Achebe, Amos Oz, Adam Zagajewski, A. B. Yehoshua, William Gass, Paul Auster, Alice Munro, Beryl Bainbridge, Ian McEwan, and Salman Rushdie. Of this bunch only Auster, Gass, Oates and Pynchon are American.

Murakami and Le Clezio have been mentioned for the prize, but their greatness escapes me.

Two names not mentioned.

Portugal's--Antonio Lobo Antunes. Lebanon's--Elias Khoury.

I'm a big fan of Le Clezio. Also Ondaatje, Vargas Llosa, Roth. Unlikely but would like to mention Chile's Nicanor Parra as well. Djebar or McCarthy wouldn't be bad choices either. I've read 37 of them including one book by Claudio Magris--Inferences with a Sabre which was okay.

I'd be glad to see Chinua Achebe, Ian McEwan, Salman Rushdie, Milan Kundera or Haruki Murakami.

>117 amandameale: - thanks for dropping me a line. Unfortunately I decided to change broadband providers and found myself without any connection for over 2 weeks: life without tv - OK; life without the web - now I know what happens in hell.

I would be shocked if it was another writer in English - with 8 in 16 years, I'm surprised there hasn't already been protests about Anglo-favouritism. If an English writer was to win, my choice would be Roth (although I recognise Les Murray would be a decent winner) - it seems the academy would favour Joyce Carol Oates. (I like Oates but can't see how she can be heavyweight if Roth is lightweight - and where does leave McEwan?). And I think we know it won't go to an American writer unless it is a very critical American writer - politics more than literature.

It is worth remembering that politics often matters as much as literature.

Magris seems the safe bet - he exudes a pan-Europeanism which is a very popular idea at present. (If people still cared about Africa, Achebe would also be a safe bet).

If I was really going out, and I mean really out, on a limb I would choose Amos Oz and Adonis to share the award - to create an 'artistic bridge' between Israel and Syria.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the winner writing in Spanish - not Vargas Llosa (his politics don't fit) but someone like Fuentes, or Cardenal, who promotes a Latin America free from the influence of the US. (Possibly even Javier Marias but it may be too early for him...).

Personally I would be happy to see Kundera to win - he has produced a number of excellent novels (in both Czech and French).

If Murakami wins then I will be posting a "disgusted" message!

Thanks jargoneer. Can't wait to see who wins.

Sorry jargoneer, I'd love to see Murakami win! I think that it's more likely to go elsewhere though. Kundera, OK but not so much. I haven't read enough from the Spanish-language possibles but an interesting take on the politics issue (so true for so many awards). I'd love to see a non-English language winner. I'm just excited about the Chemistry to GFP award today (being a geneticist it's an invaluable tool for me).

Live broadcast of the announcement will be available at:

http://nobelprize.org/prize_announcements/literature/

The broadcast channel will open 30 minutes before the announcement which will be given at 1.00 pm CET tomorrow, Oct 9 2008. That's 7 am LT-time.

Thanks for that, Annix!

(Why do they show a picture of Pamuk and not Lessing?!)
*scratches head and walks away*

By the way, I'll also be unhappy if Murakami wins.
Don't want Kundera to get it, though... I'm hoping for Achebe.

I'd be tickled to see Magris get a Nobel (wonder if I'm still the only one to have "faved" him?), but he seems to me to be "one of these things is different from the rest" choice. He's not primarily a fiction writer (personally, I'd call his fiction unimportant in relation to his non-fiction) and I can't recall any recent instance of a literary Nobel going to someone of that profile.

Anyone BUT Kundera, please.

ETA a high-five to citizenkelly in re: Kundera odium

I would be happy to see Kundera win - think he is great.

AND THE WINNER IS....

Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio!

(edited for touchstones)

It hadn't occurred to me that the announcement would be in Swedish... I kept hearing 'Kundera' in the post-announcement interview and being very confused.

Off to look up Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio....

Le Clezio has been linked with the prize for the last 5/6 years so it's not a surprise to see him win.

Perhaps some English language publisher will now make some of books available....

I ordered three of Mr Le Clezio's books online just after this morning's announcement: "War" and "Fever" from Alibris, and "Wandering Star" from AbeBooks. According to the press release on the Nobel Prize website, 12 of his books have been translated into English. Hopefully some of these can be reissued soon!

I only went to the Ladbrokes betting site last night and Nobel Prize for Literature was already taken off. They don't accept bets too close to the event, I suppose. Anyone remember what odds they were giving on LeClezio? And who were the betting favourites?

Anyone out there a LeClezio fan?

Claudio Magris 3/1
Adonis 4/1
Amos Oz 5/1
Joyce Carol Oates 5/1
Philip Roth 5/1
Don DeLillo 7/1
Haruki Murakami 7/1
Les Murray 7/1
Yves Bonnefoy 10/1
Inger Christensen 14/1
Jean Marie Gustav Le Clezio 14/1
Michael Ondaatje 14/1
Thomas Pynchon 14/1
Arnošt Lustig 20/1
Ismail Kadare 20/1
Mario Vargas Llosa 20/1
Thomas Transtromer 20/1
A.B Yehousha 25/1
Assia Djebar 25/1

kidzdoc, how did you figure out which ones had been translated - is it in the press release? I could only find three titles in English and none of them were the ones you've mentioned!

If you go here, there is a biography and a list of publications showing what has been translated.

#154 A bio-bibliography of the laureate can be found here:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2008/bio-bibl.htm

FlossieT, this is the link I used:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2008/press.html

The translated books are:

The Interrogation / translated from the French by Daphne Woodward. – New York : Atheneum, 1964.

Fever / translated from the French by Daphne Woodward. – New York : Atheneum, 1966.

The Flood / translated from the French by Peter Green. – London : H. Hamilton, 1967.

Terra Amata / translated from the French by Barbara Bray. – London : Hamilton, 1969 ; New York : Atheneum, 1969.

The Book of Flights : an Adventure Story / translated from the French by Simon Watson Taylor. – London : Cape, 1971 ; New York : Atheneum, 1972.

War / translated from the French by Simon Watson Taylor. – London : Cape, 1973 ; New York : Atheneum, 1973.

The Giants / translated from the French by Simon Watson Taylor. – London : Cape, 1975 ; New York : Atheneum, 1975.

The Mexican Dream, or, The Interrupted Thought of Amerindian Civilizations / translated by Teresa Lavender Fagan. – Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1993.

The Prospector / translated from the French by Carol Marks. – Boston : David R. Godine, 1993.

Onitsha / translated by Alison Anderson. – Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press, 1997.

The Round & Other Cold Hard Facts = La ronde et autres faits divers / translated by C. Dickson. – Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press, 2002.

Wandering Star : a Novel / translated by C. Dickson. – Willimantic, CT : Curbstone Press, 2004.

Well this is great news because I know nothing of Le Clezio. Now I have a new author to read.

I just ordered Onitsha and The Round and Other Cold Hard Facts from U of Nebraska Press:

http://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu

#159: those were the two I'd found (thanks Book Depository); I'm guessing the others are now out of print? I'd found a few copies of The Giants on Amazon and Alibris.

Nice to see so many that say 'London' for place of publication - increases my chances of getting hold of them!

New author to become acquainted with.....I like that!

Interestingly, in addition to Wandering Star and The Round and other cold hard facts, my local public library also a Korean translation of Voyage au pays des arbres.

Holy Smokes!!! I think I have everything of his--at least what's translated. One of my favorites.

My favorite work of Le Clezio's is The Giants--but it's his most experimental and some might not care for that. I did a review of that some time ago. His first work was The interrogation which won the Prix Renaudot. Fever is a short story collection. I'd recommend The Prospector, The round and other cold hard facts (short story collection), Onitsha and Wandering Star. They are all great. Terra Amata and The book of flights are IMO his two weakest. The Mexican Dream is not fiction--it's more a meditation on the lost Mayan civilization.

A couple links:

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/leclezio.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Gustave_Le_Cl%C3%A9zio

lriley, great to get a personal recommendation to go with the Nobel committee! I ordered The Round and Onitsha after the announcement; managed to punch myself away from the computer before blowing my monthly budget on Wandering Star as well :-)

Out of interest, how did you come across Le Clezio in the first place? I may be setting myself up for derision here, but I had never even heard of him before today, and I read Eng Lit at a major UK university (and one that makes you take a foreign language paper too). 2009 looks like it might need to be the year of Outstanding Literary Translations.

Somewhat by happenstance if I remember. It's been a long time--maybe 20 or more years ago. My mother comes from a French heritage so there's an interest. I would think I actually first ran into his works at a library sale. The Flood, The Giants. A lot of his earlier works were more experimental--he was part of another wave of nouveau romanists--following in the footsteps of Claude Simon, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Michel Butor, Nathalie Sarraute. Some of his earlier (translated) works will probably be hard to find at least for now--as they came out in short hard cover print runs. I think a lot of people may like his later works better--they're much more plot driven anyway. The Prospector would be an excellent one to start with.

The odds for the Nobel Prize I posted yesterday were somewhat out of date. According to an article in yesterday's Guardian:

"The odds on the French author winning had originally been 14/1, but Ladbrokes said that following a sustained gamble, they fell through 10/1, 8/1, 4/1 and 2/1 before Le Clézio closed as the odds-on 1/2 favourite. "It's the result we feared," said spokesman Nick Weinberg. "Punters were convinced that Le Clézio's time had come and they were spot on.""

From The New York Times:

"In the United States, David R. Godine, one of a handful of publishers that have released Mr. Le Clézio’s works in English, plans to issue a paperback edition of “The Prospector” (translated from “Le Chercheur d’Or” in French) and plans to publish “Désert” in English."

lriley, thanks for your valuable insights on Mr Le Clezio!

I've just ordered Poisson d'or in Norwegian ('Gullfisken'), and I'm looking forward to reading it. I think this is the only novel by Le Clezio which is translated into Norwegian (I'm not quite sure, though), but I suppose more of his works will be translated and published now.

I've never heard of this author, and I think it will be exciting and interesting to learn more about him and his authorship.

I started a LT group for just the Nobel Prize in literature, if anyone wants to talk specifics. I've only read a few authors so far, and I'd personally love to have more specific discussion threads about the winners, favorites, and/or general discussion. Just a general invite :)

Date is set for 2009--October 8th:

http://nobelprize.org/prize_announcements/literature/index.html

Herta Muller is this year's winner.

Thanks, kidzdoc. My, the oddsmakers were really off, weren't they?

Ladbrokes (the betting agency) had 7:1 for Müller—she had the fourth lowest odds after Amos Oz (4:1), Assia Djebar and Joyce Carol Oates. So that one was not far off at all.

Your right, of course. I just missed that. And apparently Complete Review posted an author page in anticipation of her being the recipient: http://www.complete-review.com/authors/mullerh.htm

I'm waiting for the discussion about Herta Muller. Has anyone read anything by her?
And what about the comment brought up in the NY Times this AM from last year - from the Nobel secretary - "There is powerful literature in all big cultures, but you can't get away from the fact that Europe still is the center of the literary world, not the United States".

That quotation leaves out the context, doesn't it? The accusation last year was that the American literary world is insular and parochial, that it fails to engage with world literature and to translate foreign authors.

And the collective response to Muller's win has been, "Herta who?" -- despite the fact that the oddsmakers had her at 7:1 -- followed by "that Eurocentric Nobel, picking European nobodies over well known and deserving Americans."

Somewhat underlines Engdahl's original point, I think.

I think that quote was from last year, and that the Nobel Sec'y who said it was right about the US being dragged down by mass culture but just totally and completely laughably ridiculously wrong about Europe being the center of literary culture. It's a reverse smugness.

>177 A_musing: - I haven't heard the "well known and deserving Americans" here, other than an occassional suggestion that it would be nice if X got it. My complaint is more that I want someone digging up some Muller's and LeClezio's from places like India and China and Egypt.

totally and completely laughably ridiculously wrong about Europe being the center of literary culture

Why?

(a) Because I don't think there's a center at all - why would there be? No offense please, but I find the idea of centers to be sort of anachronistically imperialist.

(b) Because other than English and, to a lesser extent, Spanish, European languages tend to be declining in relative use in the world

(c) Because if someone in the rest of the world seeks out a market, Europe is likely third in line (behind their home market and North America)

(d) Because Arabic and Urdu are wonderfully poetic and I love hearing my Indian friends talking about poetry in English, Hindi/Udru and Arabic interchangably

(e) Because Britain in particular is second only to the US in terms of the sheer number of mediocre writers turned out, and probably beats us on a per-capita basis

There are lots of great European writers and books, and certainly Europe is "a" center, perhaps it is even multiple "centers", but "THE" center. No. And the contemporary European literature I personally have come to like most in actually not in the old centers like France and Germany (Yea for Kadare!)

Yes, it's a bunch of biases and generalizations, but the idea that Europe is the center is just as silly as the idea that North America is the center

a) I don't disagree entirely--the world is big and round, and there's a centre anywhere one stands. It wouldn't occur to me personally to stand on the street corner and pronounce "Europe is THE cultural centre of the world!" But, it is possible, within certain parameters, to talk about "centres of culture" in the sense in which I believe they were meant in that article, and within those parameters, I think Europe is the best candidate for a global centre of culture.

b) Languages "declining": well, until this results in disappearance of cultures sustaining European primacy, and clear ascendancy of the new non-European centres (any specific candidates?), it's irrelevant.

c) Market for what? We're talking about literary centres, no? People who produce and read literature, and partake in other related cultural activities? And I don't mean Dan Brown and the usual US crapola. Also irrelevant.

d) Well, that's nice for you and your friends...

e) Er... so? We can leave out not just trash, but mediocrities entirely, if you wish.

certainly Europe is "a" center, perhaps it is even multiple "centers", but "THE" center.

Well, that's already better than the all-out sneer in your original post, but again... I think it depends on what parameters one chooses. I think it is currently THE centre, as it has been for some centuries--but I also stress that it is important to consider all the parameters IN SUM. So, Europe: it is populous, big, rich, multicultural AND multilingual (unlike the US), the literary people are better and more widely read, and the industry, while increasingly following the US bestseller crapola fashion and neoliberal business models, still provides more room for quality and the unusual and the small etc. Nowhere are more, more diverse, and better books produced and read--at the moment. That to me signifies THE cultural centre, where literature is concerned.

Finally.. . I was trying to get some discussion going about the issue. But what about the author - has anyone read anything.

Some degree of sneer is indeed appropriate to any claim of "THE" center. I hope I didn't soften it too much.

If I'm looking for literary culture, my nominations would be cultures where a literary consciousness is quite broad, and not isolated in an elite. I find it interesting that you reference "the literary people" as being better and more widely read. I'd be more interested in the breadth of culture, and its accessibility. But even if Europe could somehow claim to be one place, and thus a "center" of its own, and even if it had more of literary characteristics "A", "B" and "C" deemed important by the literary priesthood, that would not make it a center to those not immersed in its culture, only for those who were of its culture. There's no global literary Mecca. And there shouldn't be.

#182

But European "literary people"--I meant readers, "book people" in the widest sense-- are vastly different from some American "elite". The point is precisely that I'm NOT thinking of an "elite". We don't reserve education for the rich. That's one of the striking differences, for anyone who lived in Europe and America (I understand the UK may be more like North America in this regard)--the level of culture among "ordinary" people. A redneck is a redneck whether from Louisiana or the Abruzzo, but boy, what a difference between, say, an American high school teacher and the European counterpart...

There's no literary Mecca.

Any big city is a literary Mecca.

I'd be more interested in the breadth of culture, and its accessibility.

Sure. If my decades-long experience counts, literary culture (that was the focus of Engdahl's criticism and the above posts, no?) has infinitely greater breadth and is more accessible in Europe. I wouldn't have poked the hornet's nest like Engdahl did (uh, Englund?), but he had a point. Americans are enthralled by their own image to the point of seeing only themselves even when they turn the gaze away from the mirror.

that doesn't make it a center for those not immersed in its culture

I don't understand what are you arguing here. I thought we assumed book-related culture and consumers as a matter of course. Non-readers are outside the discussion as much as furniture and poultry.

Anyway, I agree this is not a terribly bright proposition to discuss, and don't want to prolong it unduly, just wanted to mention some ways in which calling Europe the dominant global literary centre makes sense. If we disagree, well then we disagree. Excuse me now, there's a chappie in the Folio group likening Nobels of old like Carducci and Deledda to unknown Mongolians and Papuans--just because they are unknown in the US, as far as I can make out. Damn Internet and all the people who are WRONG on it! :)

You see, there are some things in this world I disdain, and canons and centers are among them, and arguments about whose got more culture, too. Chaos and messiness and the fringes of whatever centers people construct are what I love.

By folks not immersed in its culture, I was thinking of, for example, China. If I want to know about Chinese poetry, I'm going to head to China, not Prague. If I grew up as a little boy in Chang'an, I might not feel much need to study poetry in Rome.

Europe's got itself a nice culture. But so does Iran.

Ehhh, as a woman--I have to disagree about Iran. I think their culture stinks, what with the oppression, tyranny, antisemitism, sexism, misogyny and so on. But I wouldn't dream of denying that there's "culture" everywhere, surely that wasn't in question.

I'm not sure I grasp the meaning of your Chinese example fully, but I'm certain I could learn more about Chinese poetry in Rome than I could about Petrarca in China. (Of course, it isn't entirely fair to criticise Chinese education after the ravages of Communism.)

You seem to be confusing now the idea of Europe as a "global literary centre" with the idea of European culture (literature etc.) as a "global literary interest". Not in the least what I'm thinking and what I wrote. I can't say that firmly enough. THAT discussion I'd never have bothered with in the first place.

You seem to be confusing now the idea of Europe as a "global literary centre" with the idea of European culture (literature etc.) as a "global literary interest". Not in the least what I'm thinking and what I wrote. I can't say that firmly enough. THAT discussion I'd never have bothered with in the first place.

I don't think anyone is disputing that Europe is "a global literary centre," as you say. However, I don't see how you (or Engdahl, or anyone else) can say that Europe is "the center of the literary world."

Do you really think you can learn more about Chinese poetry in Rome than Petrarca in China? European culture has been much more widely dispersed.

I think what Engdahl was saying was that Europe is THE Literary Center, in a way that justified the generally Eurocentric choices of the Nobel Committee. He's trying to argue their accomplishing their goal of rewarding the best in the World while focusing on writers published in Europe.

I'll tell you I don't have any idea what the notion of THE literary center means, but I know I don't like it, that's he's trying to put Europe on a cultural pedestal, and that having so Eurocentric a Nobel isn't the best thing in the long run. But it's an almost inevitable limitation of the selection process and the Nobel's still the best we've got.

I'm fine with Engdahl's attack on the US. I just don't think it's a Europe/US dichotomy and that Europe is almost as deserving of his attack as the US.

As to Iran - please, let's not limit the culture to contemporary Shi'ite religion, since it is a wonderful and diverse culture that certainly has roots (including shared ones) as far back as Europe's.

#186

I've explained above, and won't repeat posts.

Do you really think you can learn more about Chinese poetry in Rome than Petrarca in China?

Absolutely.

As to Iran - please, let's not limit the culture to contemporary Shi'ite religion, since it is a wonderful and diverse culture that certainly has roots (including shared ones) as far back as Europe's.

No need to condescend and lecture me, my good friend. I don't have to "limit" a culture in order not to like it. As a woman, there are many cultures I don't like. Most. Heck, all of 'em, at times. But you keep skating from "culture" to literature, poetry etc. I love Persian classical poetry. I'm learning Farsi from an Iranian friend and colleague. I've just finished reading two books on Iran--both in French by the way, both untranslated into English. I love Iranian food. Er, why are we discussing this?

As I said, this is a transposition of the argument onto entirely different topic--the usual Internet pissing match about whose "culture" is longer, er, better etc. Not interested, I was talking about something entirely different.

Yes, tried to get it back to the Nobel Sec'ys point.

What I really want is a true Global Prize.

And for you to recommend any good Farsi poets you come across. To me and the Nobels.

At least for my reading over the years Europe has been the center. You could look at the literature of some continents as in an emerging stage. Before the 20th century for instance there were very few writers of any quality coming out of South America. The same could be said for Africa. They don't have the history of a literary culture and some of the history they've acquired in the meantime comes via an European influence of one kind or another. The United States for me is a different kettle of fish. I would say our literature fully emerged post WWII but the real quality in it is just swamped by the merchandising interests which promote simply in the interests of what sells the most.

Having said all that there are great writers everywhere and I do think Engdahl would be better served at being more careful about how he says things. He seems to have a knack for stirring up needless controversies.

interesting discussion, and for what it's worth Lola is quite right about learning more about Chinese poetry in Rome than Petrarca in China.

The Nobel Prize winning author José Saramago died earlier today:

Nobel laureate José Saramago dies, aged 87

I was so sad to see the notice about Saramango's death. Thanks for posting the link kidzdoc.

>193 kidzdoc:, 194 New Saramago translation due out in September, The Elephant's Journey:
http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Journey-Jose-Saramago/dp/0547352581

This year's announcement will take place on Thursday October 6 at 1 pm CET (7 am EST in the US).

A short podcast from the Guardian about picking winners - Picking the Winner.

Also from The Guardian:

So is it finally Philp Roth's turn? The much-touted Syrian poet Adonis sits atop the betting at 4/1, with last year's favourite, the Swedish poet Thomas Tranströmer, following at 11/2. The Hungarian novelist Péter Nádas comes next, with the Japanese novelist Haruki Murakami close behind – both seem to have important books out this year in Swedish translation. As I write, Philip Roth languishes at 25/1.

Anyone who fancies a bet – and who is foolhardy enough to pay any attention to tips from the Guardian books desk – might consider Algerian novelist Assia Djebar: the first woman cited by Ladbrokes. When the permanent secretary of the Academy, Peter Englund, came in to talk about picking the winner, he admitted that he was conscious of the lack of women laureates – though he also insisted that individual winners stood only for themselves. Surely in the year of the Arab spring a woman author writing in Arabic must be in with a strong shout.

I think The Guardian may be onto a good thing with Assia Djebar. An Arabic writer seems a likely prospect and lately the committee have been alternating between genders.

Having read Thomas Tranströmer this year I can't really see why he would be a worthy winner - there are certainly much better poets out there. And if Haruki Murakami wins I'll be burning the Swedish chef from The Muppets in effigy.

#197--I've mentioned Djebar here in another thread--covering a lot of bases. A feminist from Northern Africa who writes in French--and has some really excellent work besides. In a way she pretty much defines what the Arab spring is all about.

An article in The Guardian has Bob Dylan's odds dropping from 100/1 to 10/1.

Here's the complete odds list as of this minute from ladbrokes.com. Dylan is now the favorite.

Bob Dylan
5/1
Adonis
6/1
Haruki Murakami
8/1
Tomas Transtromer
10/1
Assia Djebar
10/1
Ko Un
14/1
Peter Nadas
16/1
Les Murray
16/1
Philip Roth
16/1
Thomas Pynchon
20/1
Nuruddin Farah
20/1
Cormac McCarthy
25/1
Joyce Carol Oates
25/1
Amos Oz
25/1
Bei Dao
25/1
Antonio Lobo Antunes
25/1
K. Satchidanandan
33/1
Mircea Cartarescu
33/1
John Banville
33/1
Colm Toibin
33/1
Don DeLillo
33/1
Adam Zagajewski
33/1
Alice Munro
33/1
A.S. Byatt
33/1
Cees Nooteboom
33/1
Ismail Kadare
33/1
Ngugi wa Thiong'o
33/1
Rajendra Bhandari
40/1
Christa Wolf
40/1
Claudio Magris
40/1
Antonio Tabucchi
40/1
Milan Kundera
40/1
Maya Angelou
40/1
E.L Doctorow
40/1
Margaret Atwood
40/1
Ernesto Cardenal
40/1
Patrick Modiano
40/1
Vaclav Havel
40/1
Yves Bonnefoy
50/1
Michel Tournier
50/1
Viktor Pelevin
66/1
Ian McEwan
50/1
Juan Marse
50/1
Carlos Fuentes
50/1
Umberto Eco
50/1
Louise Gluck
50/1
Samih al-Qasim
50/1
Antonio Gamoneda
50/1
Ferreira Gullar
50/1
Salman Rushdie
66/1
Peter Handke
66/1
Gitta Sereny
66/1
Javier Marias
66/1
William Trevor
50/1
Shlomo Kalo
66/1
Chinua Achebe
66/1
Elias Khoury
66/1
Anne Carson
66/1
A.B Yehoshua
66/1
Juan Goytisolo
66/1
Luis Goytisolo
80/1
David Malouf
80/1
Paul Auster
80/1
Per Petterson
80/1
Jonathan Littell
80/1
Jon Fosse
80/1
Mahasweta Devi
80/1
Peter Carey
80/1
Marge Piercy
80/1
Mary Gordon
80/1
William H. Gass
80/1
Yevgeny Yevtushenko
80/1
Vassilis Alexakis
80/1
Eeva Kilpi
100/1
Michael Ondaatje
100/1
Kjell Askildsen
100/1
Julian Barnes
100/1
Atiq Rahimi
100/1
F. Sionil Jose
100/1

I like Dylan as much as the next person but....jeez....

>202 Lcanon:

Same here. I thought this prize was supposed to honour and reward one whose body of literary work is held in the highest esteem. I don't think that includes song lyrics or a well thought of autobiography. Mind you, President Obama was awarded the Peace Prize wasn't he?

Tomas Tranströmer has won. Not much of a surprise.

I have two of Mr Tranströmer's collections of poems, The Sorrow Gondola (which I've read) and The Half-Finished Heaven: The Best Poems of Tomas Tranströmer, which I haven't gotten to yet. I'll bring both books with me on vacation, and look for more of his works at City Lights and elsewhere in the Bay area next week.

I'm glad that Bob Dylan didn't win, although I don't believe he was actually a serious contender.

This may be old news, but I found this article a few days ago:

http://byliner.com/alexander-nazaryan/stories/why-american-novelists-dont-deserv...

It talks about how the way American writers are taught and instructed leaves their work, as the article says, "closed and self-involved," leaving few chances for American authors to win the prize. Granted, it's a panel decision which is always subjective, but I was curious what thoughts others might have on the matter.

The winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Literature is Mo Yan.

I guess I'll have to read more works by Mo Yan. I enjoyed Life and Death Are Wearing Me Out, although it was crying out for an editor and wore me out, but I wouldn't have considered him Nobel-worthy based on it.

Hmmm. With Red Sorghum's lack of availability new from BN.COM I put Life and Death Are Wearing Me Out on my wishlist from something a New York Times article said. Should I change that?

Robert

I, for one, am very disappointed that Haruki Murakami did not win. I will try not to hold it against Mo Yan. I might even try to get my hands on some of his books.

Now I guess I should actually read my copy of Life and Death are Wearing Me Out...

Seven of Mo Yan's novels are available in the US, five of which are available for the Kindle, all but Red Sorghum and Change (SB-What Was Communism?). Three of them are currently being sold for less than $4, and Kindle Prime members may borrow all five for free. They are:

The Garlic Ballads ($3.59)
The Republic of Wine ($3.03)
Shifu, You'll Do Anything For a Laugh ($3.49)
Big Breasts and Wide Hips ($9.99)
Life and Death Are Wearing Me Out ($9.32)

I already own the hardback edition of Life and Death Are Wearing Me Out, which I had already planned to read this month, along with Change (SB-What Was Communism?), which I read and reviewed last year. I downloaded the three Kindle books that were less than $4, and I'll read them soon.

#213--I expect whatever he's had translated before will be back in print within the next couple months kidzdoc. If someone really wants to get a hard copy they can always try half.com or Alibris or Abebooks.

On the subject of #211-Murakami or whoever else some other person might have wanted to win--these things are what are. Not every Nobel choice is a great one--though that almost always comes down to personal opinion and there are plenty of great writers who never won it. I'll just mention one--James Joyce who may be the most towering figure in European literature in the 20th century.

Maybe I'll have to read the Mo Yan, I already have. I don't remember being terribly impressed, but it was so so many books ago.

I am glad to see that a Chinese writer, not living in exile, has won. It was time and it's good to see the academy stretching themselves.

>214 lriley: Your thoughts are astute, of course. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20 :-)

This is one of the awards that appears to owe as much to politics as to literature (a la Pinter). That doesn't make Mo Yan a bad writer but what may do him damage in the long run is that he is seen as being 'sanctioned' by the Chinese authorities. (Does anyone read Sholokhov any more? Is he even still in print?)

A new group titled Read Mo Yan has been created for those who would like to read and discuss the works of the 2012 Nobel Laureate in Literature, Mo Yan. Please join us!

The 2013 Nobel Prize in Literature has not been awarded yet. The date for its announcement will be set later.

Announcements of the 2013 Nobel Prizes

Literature:
Thursday 10 October 1.00 p.m. CET

The winner is Alice Munro!

Interesting choice, wouldn't have been my Nobel choice for writers in English but the Nobel committee now does seem to trying to alternate genders which probably ruled out writers like Roth. (My choice for female North American writer would have been Marilynne Robinson, despite having only written 3 novels). I wonder if it came down to a choice between her and Margaret Atwood. (Either way it looks like Atwood's Nobel chances are effectively over).

First Canadian. I've got a book by Munro but I've never read it. Atwood I've read a bit of. I was thinking a Canadian was due. Other than Munro and Atwood--there are Mistry, Anne Carson and Michael Ondaatje. My favorite Canadian writer Alistair MacLeod has never really published all that much--one novel and two short story collections.

I like a lot of Munro, and I'm pleased they chose a woman. I think short story writers often aren't taken as seriously as novel writers, so I'm pleased about that too. Although for female Canadian short story writers I prefer Mavis Gallant. The ways of the Nobel committee are mysterious!

Let's put a touchstone here so people can find the thread from her (Alice Munro's) profile.

ETA: Hey, wait. Have mentions been removed from author profiles?

First Canadian.

#222 - My Facebook feed was choked with Alice Munro posts this morning, and the US sources are saying this. Canadian sources, however, aren't, as apparently we claim Saul Bellow who won in 1976. In a similar fashion, Ontario and BC sources are both claiming her as well (and she is in BC this morning, so Na Na Na to Ontario!)

Hurray for Alice Munro! No surprise someone requested my copy of A View from Castle Rock on paperbackswap this morning.

Well, it's about time! In choosing among living Canadian authors, the committee made the correct choice, in my opinion.

The characteristic of Munro's writing that strikes me most is its subtlety and indirectness. But her perceptiveness and her sensitivity!

This is a really interesting piece, dissecting one of Munro's stories:
10 Reasons why Alice Munro is a Genius

That Globe piece is really good. It's a concrete indication of Jared Bland's contribution as books editor.

222: Alistair MacLeod might have only published the one novel, but it is probably Canada's finest.

223: It is true that short story writers don't sell as well as novelists and therefore aren't favoured by publishers, but the notion that they don't get as much respect is specious BS. Quite the opposite is true. Short story writers are critical darlings.

255: Well, Saul Bellow was born in Canada but to claim his work as CanLit is silly. Similarly, Munro may spend half her time in BC but she was born and raised in Ontario and has set most of her fiction in Huron County, so claiming her as a BC author is kind of goofy. But I may be biased because I spend a lot of time in Huron County. ;)

f you don't know where to start with Alice Munro, here are some recommendations:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/10/10/alice_munro_best_stories_to_read_...

Alice Munro ran the famous Munro Books in Victoria, BC with her husband until they divorced. Munro's is a must-see when you visit Victoria. I hear she was in there signing books earlier this week.

#229--I agree on MacLeod. A truly great writer. The work he has done I find comparable to the best of Halldor Laxness.

This week's CBC Writers and Company podcast is an encore presentation of a 2004 interview with Alice Munro. I really enjoyed it.

Laura, thank you for posting that link it was very interesting and enjoyable.

I'm glad you enjoyed it!