-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Nobel Prize in Literature 2007
- Thread starter beer good
- Start date
beer good
Well-Known Member
Depends on what you mean by readily - he's not exactly a huge seller, I guess, but a quick search of online book stores got me several books supposedly in print. I don't read poetry though, so I haven't bothered finding out.
(When Pinter got it two years ago, a couple of Sweden's largest publishers criticized the Academy for picking a writer who wasn't in print. The reply they got was "And whose fault is it that he's not in print, then?")
Jason Evans
New Member
That's precious! Perfect comeback.
incorporating
kickbox
She bloody well deserves it though but it was a great response.
Buddy Glass
New Member
Another huge mistake from the Swedish Academy. Doris Lessing's career peaked in the 60's and the 70's and ever since she's written nothing that could possibly merit a prize of any form.
Buddy Glass
New Member
Granted, but her influence is minimal. I don't think that because she kept writing and has produced an abundance of works of which only a small percentage is any good makes her a good writer. If she was a good writer then she should have gotten it then, not 40 years later when she's just writing out of habit.
And the comparison to Steinbeck is not entirely fair. Before winning the Nobel Price he published The Winter of our Discontent, by far one of his greatest novels.
Stewart
Active Member
I don't think I would say that. It's not just the members elected to the Swedish Academy that have a say in the Nobel Prize in Literature, but also members of literature academies and societies, professors of literature and language, former Nobel literature laureates, and the presidents of writers' organizations. All of these people place their nominations which the Academy eventually whittles down to a shortlist of five and then vote on. To those people who are important enough to be nominating, Doris Lessing must certainly be influential.
While I'll admit to never having read a book by Lessing, I would never stoop to saying that a small percentage of her books is any good. Unless, of course, I'd read them all. I presume by your blanket statement that you have. If so, pat yourself on the back. Also, I'm a little confused that her books would have to be good for her to be considered a good writer. I know that I've tried previous Nobel Laureates - my latest interest being Nadine Gordimer - and I've come away from their works thinking them average at most, but can still see that with their organisation and presentation of words, they are a good writer.
From what I understand she's not "writing out of habit" but continuing to change her focus as the years go by: from feminist, to Sufist, and on to science-fiction. Hardly the remit of someone working to habit.
Buddy Glass
New Member
If the nomination procedure is as infallible as you present it to be, then how could one explain the absence of a Isak Dinesen or a Marcel Proust or a Jorge Luis Borges? James Joyce? Arthur Miller? It is naïve of you to think that if a writer is given the prize then he or she without doubt deserves it. Two years ago it was revealed by a former member of the Swedish Academy that the nomination process is biased and very political. Two members have left in protest and their chairs have yet to be filled.
Stop. Why on earth are we discussing this if you have nothing to back your arguments with? I've read enough of Doris Lessing to know whether or not she deserves this prize - and she does not. She is a second-rate writer, her only good books were written 30-40 years ago and whatever she's written since has passed in embarassing silence.
beer good
Well-Known Member
Just a point of fact here; four members of the Academy have left since 1989, but not one of them claimed it was because of the Nobel (which is far from the only job of the Academy). And two chairs have yet to be filled for the simple reason that members are elected for life, and two of those who left are still alive and cannot officially be replaced.
Buddy Glass
New Member
Two of them left in protest over the award when it was given to Jelinek and, yes, because they cannot officially be replaced their chairs are still empty. It was in an article in a newspaper two years ago. I'm sure I could dig it up somewhere.
beer good
Well-Known Member
Please do; I'd be very interested to read that, since I followed that whole row quite closely and unless you have some very restricted inside info that's never been made public, I'm afraid you're misinformed. One former member, Knut Ahnlund, who had already quit the academy in 1996 since he couldn't get along with the others, did indeed vow never to take part in any meetings ever again after Jelinek got it since he considered her books to be "pornography" (and it took him a whole year after she got it to declare this). Of course, that's sort of an empty threat since he wasn't taking part in meetings before that either.
The three previous members who quit - Kerstin Ekman, Werner Aspenström and Lars Gyllensten - did so in 1989, when they felt that the Academy didn't condemn the fatwa against Rushdie strongly enough. Aspenström and Gyllensten have since died and been replaced; Ekman's and Ahnlund's chairs remain as empty as they were before Jelinek got the prize.
Buddy Glass
New Member
Whatever the case may be, there are obvious problems with the way in which winners are decided. The point I was making was simply that it is not an infallible process and that there have been many mistakes and oversights.
beer good
Well-Known Member
Well, obviously, any prize in literature, music, film or any other field which is judged subjectively (and especially given the very vague criteria the Academy have to go by) is bound to lead to disagreements on whether prize winners are worthy or not. See, for instance, Stewart's comment in the Booker Prize thread just now. It's not an exact science, and when it's only given out once a year they're bound to miss some writers and award others that don't stand the test of time. Remember the time Sly Stallone walked home with Martin Scorsese's Oscar...?
Buddy Glass
New Member
Right, and in that sense literary prizes - or prized for any form of art - shouldn't really exist because most literature (art) is ahead of its time.
And of course the desputes about what is good and what isn't. James Joyce - one of the greatest writers ever - was denounced, banned and disregarded by many. Big mistake.
beer good
Well-Known Member
Or people should stop viewing them as anything more than glorified book recommendations. Because until someone comes up with a completely objective way to measure artistic value (and I really hope no one ever does) that's all they're ever going to be. In my opinion, literary prizes are a fun idea; I've read more than one great book which I might not otherwise have read because of them, and it's nice to have discussions on actual literature replace the usual crap in the media for a few days. But the idea that a bunch of people in a room, no matter how well-read, can come up with THE undisputably most deserving author/book/whatever 100% of the time... nah. They can't, and we shouldn't expect them to.
At least, generally speaking, "lifetime achievement"-type awards have a chance to correct the problem of art being ahead of its time - even if it occasionally means sometimes giving it to someone whose best work might be a few years behind them.