Nobel Prize Awarded

13 comments on “Nobel Prize Awarded”

1. cfg says:
   October 12th, 2006 at 9:05 am

   He looks a little worse for the wear in that Guardian shot. Political or not, he deserves the prize. This is a victory for freedom of speech and may lend courage elsewhere, no?

2. Damian Kelleher says:
   October 12th, 2006 at 9:28 am

   I can’t help but think that other authors should have been awarded the prize before Pamuk.

   Consider it this way: Philip Roth is in his seventies. Pamuk is in his fifties. Pamuk is almost certain to be alive in a year, Roth is less likely. Should Roth be awarded before Pamuk, in case of death? My argument is yes. Both deserve the prize, it should come down to age.

   Of course, perhaps Roth does not deserve it. I don’t know – I’m not the committee. But he’s my pick (along with, say, Antonio Lobo Antunes, Carlos Funetes, Margaret Atwood, Thomas Pynchon and so forth).

   What do you all think?

3. James says:
   October 12th, 2006 at 10:26 am

   I’d give it to Pamuk before Roth, but, like Damian, I’m not the committee. Also ahead of Portnoy on my list are Kadare, Javier Marias and Pynchon.

4. rachel says:
   October 12th, 2006 at 12:52 pm

   At least it’s a *good* political pick, ie someone who has taken risks and gotten into real trouble for the sake of his art – not just a windbag the committee happens to agree with (Pinter).

5. Franklin Carter says:
   October 12th, 2006 at 4:53 pm

   I suppose Anna Politkovskaya wasn’t literary enough for the judges.

6. T-Bone says:
   October 12th, 2006 at 6:43 pm

   Its kind of hard for me to take any stock in the Nobel Prize anymore.
   Its too clear they have political goals, especially the idea of promoting minority and non-traditional cultures writing (by which I mean english/american/french/german/russian).

   That is a fine goal in itself, but not for what is supposed to be the central literary achievement.

   For example, an american hasn’t won since Saul Bellow in the mid 70s, with the exception of Toni Morrison which was again to political of a pick. Roth, Pynchon, McCarthy, etc. Where are these modern giants? Behind the likes of Harold Pinter? come on.

7. Damian Kelleher says:
   October 12th, 2006 at 9:20 pm

   I suppose the difficulty comes in what the award is supposed to bestow upon the author who receives it. Is it recognition of their talent as an author? Or is it a way to promote authors who are worthy, but less visible, than their American (English, Canadian, what have you) counterparts? We would probably all agree that the Oates/Roths/Pynchons/etc do not really need any more public awareness of their work – anyone who is likely to read them, has no doubt heard of them already. The same cannot be said of a Polish author, or a Chinese author, or a Brazilian author who isn’t even translated into English.

   Of course, by writing that, I am assuming that English is the dominant cultural language. That’s another topic, but because I speak English, I will have to use it as my yardstick.

   Clearly, the purpose of the Nobel should not be to rise obscure authors into a created pantheon of greats. One could argue that it would become ‘boring’ if clear and worthy authors consistently won the prize – but isn’t that what it is about? Pamuk’s Snow came with an avalanche of political commentary (which has died down somewhat), does that mean that when India is the flavour of the month (As the Booker has shown it might be), we should expect Rushdie or Seth or (God forbid) Arundhati Roy to take the Nobel?

   I am merely throwing out my thoughts here. I believe Pamuk deserves the award. I don’t think that is the question. The issue, however, is timeliness. Did he deserve it now, or when he has more grey in his hair? Do other authors, who are well and truly at the twilight of their lives, deserve recognition before they pass away? Can we believe in a prize that is bogged down with political appeasement?

   The Nobel has earned its dignity by awarding Faulkner, Hemingway, France, Gide, Mann, Camus, Sartre, etc. But what of the forgotten winners of the 20s, 30s and 40s? Remember that Tolstoy was passed over for Sully Prudhomme in 1901. Arguably, the conditions of the prize were not cemented in the year of its conception, but to pass over the most prominent author of the time was surely a mistake. Political or no, the Nobel does not exactly have the greatest pedigree. We remember the greats they have honoured, we ignore the larger group of authors who were motivated for reasons other than authorial merit.

8. paradise says:
   October 13th, 2006 at 6:33 am

   I think Pamuk is one of the top five living novelists, so I don’t feel this should be a particularly controversial choice. TBH if Roth got the prize it would lose a lot more credibility in my eyes – he may be a good writer, but it’s a long time since he did anything groundbreaking.
   Besides, whoever got picked, people would always come up with a list of ‘worthies’ who should have won it – tis the nature of the beast.

9. T-Bone says:
   October 13th, 2006 at 11:43 am

   paradise:

   Pamuk is certainly a worthier choice than the previous too. I think the only problem here is that it reeks to much of a pick for political reasons given their history and given the recent political Turkish issues he has been involved with. Like DK said, it kinda feels like Turky is just the hot ethnic lit this year and that’s why he gets it, even if he does deserve it.

   As for Roth being past his prime…. I don’t disagree, however the Nobel Prize has a long history of giving the award to writers well past their groundbreaking achievements.

10. Peter says:
    October 13th, 2006 at 1:00 pm

    I agree that Pamuk is a v good writer but also that other, older, writers are more deserving. Among the criteria, surely, are influence/importance and the taking notice of writing outside London/New York/Paris. On both counts, I Kadare deserves it, plus on form.

    However, given the criteria, what was so political necessarily about Pinter, Jelinek or Morrison? Pinter a great and influential playwright (almost forgotten somehow), Jelinek a vital playwright/novelist already much lauded in German cultures, and Morrison a great figure of US letters. Silly to say these were weak choices.

11. T-Bone says:
    October 13th, 2006 at 3:09 pm

    Morrison is the strongest of the three, though I still think she pales in importance and quality to several other american writers. I can’t help but feel she wouldn’t have been picked if she wasn’t an female african american. But I do feel she is a great writer, so I don’t think it was any kind of horrible choice.

    However, there is plenty of debate about Jelinek’s work and she hasn’t achieved any kind of status outside of Germany. Pinter does not strike me as mch of a towering figure in literature either, outside of maybe England.

    Few people are awarded the Nobel Prize who suck, so on that level any choice can be defended as being a good writer. But it seems to me that the prize should be bestowed only on authors destined to be canonical. If not, the value of the prize is damaged. Literary prizes in general get their prestige from, essentailly, being right. If the award mostly picks books/authors which retain their importance and influence, then they are considered good. If they pick books and authors who fall immediately into obscurity and disregard, they aren’t worth anything beyond the money the author gets…

12. Peter says:
    October 13th, 2006 at 3:45 pm

    Well, too early to tell about recent picks re. ultimate obscurity. Earlier, popular choices have gone that way though, nothing to do with politics as far as I know.

    However, Jelinek is Austrian, not German as such. Thomas Bernhard should have won for the country, as it were, but he died without it. She has a similar stature in that language it seems to me, but has suffered in translation.

    Re. Morrison, who else should have won at that time from the US? Not Roth, pre-his recent greatness. Not McCarthy or Oates, god help us. Ralph Ellison? Did he write enough? Pynchon, at that point? Maybe, for influence. Not Gaddis would have an even better claim, as well as to actual innovation and ability.

    Re. the canon, surely the Nobel cttee can attempt to push the envelope to make as diverse a canon of world literature as possible?

    Finally, I do think Dario Fo is the odd man out – surely not a world-class anything. Irritant?

13. T-Bone says:
    October 13th, 2006 at 4:44 pm

    Just to be clear, I brought Toni Morrison up mainly when pointing out that the Nobel Prize commtte has seemed to be ignoring North American literature at the expense of less worthy but underrepresented (and or nationality of the month) picks. So I was saying we haven’t had a north american winner since the 70s (barring a few immigrants which wouldn’t count as “american” or “canadian” writers) with the exception of Toni Morrison.

    I think Roth’s best work is mostly pre-Morrison’s win, but double checking I do see some books I thought were before that were not, so maybe he hadn’t had enough out at that time… although I think thats an opinion mostly in retrospect, seeing how he has kept kicking ass. He had more than enough classic books from before 1993 (Goodbye Columbus, Portnoy’s Complaint, Operation Shylock, etc.) that he seems like a better pick. Hell, he had a lot more novels out than Toni Morrison did then.

    I’d take McCarthy over Morrison easily, for my own personal preferance, but certainly Morrison over Oates. Pynchon would still be a good pick then (remember, plenty of people have had the prize with only a few books published)… but really Morrison’s pick strikes me as Pamuk’s does. Both worthy candidates in themselves, but who I still suspect were largely picked when they were thanks to extra-literary concerns. But, as I think they are both worthy, its fine… its more a matter of looking at the whole puzzle, those two pieces are alright…

Discuss