There is a lot to ponder upon here, for example, why does the Swedish Academy have a permanent Secretary and why does the Swedish Academy hand out the worlds formost literary prize? Just who is the Swedish Acadamy anyway? They're original mandate was to safe guard the purity of the Swedish language, and their motto is nothing less than Snille och smak, which translates in Danish to Begavelse og smag and in English to 'Talent and taste'.
Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio has been awarded the world's foremost litarery prize for a novel titled 'Le Procès-Verbal' which I can't read, because apparently its only available in French. Le Clézio is apparently only big in France and no one outside that country has ever heard of him, except it seems Horace Engdahl and his friends in the Swedish Academy. According to the BBC, I'm in good company as most of the worlds literary critics have never heard of Le Clézio either.
If there is a good reason why Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio should be given the Nobel prize for literature then, it isn't because of his ability to reach out and touch people, but rather because some French speaking Swede who just so happens to sit on an imporant chair in Stockholm liked his book.
If there is a reason why Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio shouldn't be given the Nobel prize for literature then it must be because the vast majority of the people of Planet Earth will like as not never have the chance to read his book, or should it be translated, will probably not do so anyway.
One must wonder what exactly is the purpose of a prize for literature given out by a Swedish academy who's purpose is to safeguard the purity of the Swedish language? If this prize is meant to establish what is the finest literature and reward it, then fair enough, but on what criteria? How many people have, or will read this fine literature?
I've read a lot of books over the course of my life, and I can safely say that I've never read a book awarded with a Nobel prize. In fact, I've never even heard of most of the authors who get the Nobel prize. When I look back over the last twenty years of winners, I don't see much to inspire my confidence in the Swedish Academy's 'taste for talent'.
2008 - Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio (68) - Never heard of him.
2007 - Doris Lessing (88) - Never heard of her prior to her winning, though she was described as famous. Have heard of her once or twice since on BBC radio 4.
2006 - Orhan Pamuk (54) - Never heard of him before or since.
2005 - Harold Pinter (75)- Name rings a bell, but I couldn't tell you why
2004 - Elfriede Jelinek (58) - Never heard of her before or since.
2003 - John Maxwell Coetzee (63) - Never heard of him before or since.
2002 - Imre Kertész (73) - Never heard of him before or since.
2001 - Sir Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul (69) - Never heard of him before or since.
2000 - Gao Xingjian (60) - Never heard of him before or since.
1999 - Gunter Grass (72) - I had heard of Grass, but I knew next to nothing about his literary work. Since he won, I've heard him often referred to as a former member of the SS who is now a socialist, this appers to be his greatest claim to fame.
1998 - José de Sousa Saramago (76) - Never heard of him before or since.
1997 - Dario Fo (71) - Never heard of him before or since.
1996 - Wisława Szymborska (73) - Never heard of him before or since.
1995 - Seamus Heaney (56) - Never heard of him before or since.
1994 - Kenzaburō Ōe (59) -Never heard of him before or since.
1993 - Toni Morrison (62) - Never heard of her before or since.
1992 - Derek Walcott (62) - I knew his name before he won the award, but I've never read any of his books, before or since. Never even seen them in a book shop as far as I can recall.
1991 - Nadine Gordimer (68) - I have heard her name mentioned a few times since she won the Nobel prize, but I've never read anything she wrote, nor seen her work any where.
1990 - Octavio Paz (76) - Never heard of him before or since.
1989 -Camilo José Cela Trulock (73) - Never heard of him before or since.
1988 - Naguib Mahfouz (77) - Never heard of him before or since.
Of course, it might help matters if I actually bothered to read some of the books these people have written, but here's the rub. I get a lot of book recommendations and, although I do have a lot of time to spend on myself, I don't have a lot of time to waste reading obscure books simply because some guy in Stockholm thought they constituted great literature. I can listen to obscure neo classical and abstract classical music (both of which could be described as elitist), but thats the advantage music has over literature. Literature takes a lot of time, which is probably why most of the winners, and their respectable old Swedish fans, are all old. Orhan Pamuk being the youngest winner of the prize in the last twenty years at a sprightly 54 years old.
Now I can imagine a lot of 54 year olds might not like to think of themselves as old, but the fact is, they are. Sure, they are not as old as they are going to be, but its a safe bet to assume that your past the half way mark once you reach 50. Of course, the retort from Stockholm might be something along the lines of age equalling experience equalling great art, and yes, there's some validity in that, until you regard Mozart. Am I supposed to believe that in the last twenty years the best literature was all written by obscure old people, most of whom passed out of obscurity only long enough to pick up their ten million Kroners before shuffling off to die?
And what about the great authors who didn't win the Noble Prize despite their books making a tremendous impact? Where is Burgess, Joyce or Tolkien? Where are the science fiction authors? the children's book authors? Where are the authors whose work reaches into the hearts of millions and effects them in ways that most Noble laureates can only ever dream of doing? Granted just being popular isn't a measure of great literature, but what is such a measure?
Being Swedish?
According to Wikipedia,
In 1974 Graham Greene, Vladimir Nabokov, and Saul Bellow were considered but rejected in favor of a joint award for Swedish authors Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson, both Nobel judges themselves. Bellow would win the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1976; neither Greene nor Nabokov was awarded the Prize.Who takes this insitution seriously, and why?
10 comments:
I'm aware of quite a few of the authors in the list that you presented. I'm not saying that you're wrong about the Nobel prize for literature. In fact, I believe that there are several literary prizes that are much more useful...The Booker Prize & The Hugo Awards being two that I prefer. I'm just pointing out that some of these authors aren't what I would classify as obscure.
Have you read any of their work?
I haven't personally read any of the authors on Nobel Prize list that you posted, but John Maxwell Coatzee, V.S. Naipaul, Gunter Grass, and Toni Morrison are names that I come across frequently (and intend to read at some point in the future). In fact, the Barnes & Noble down the street has a mural of famous authors, and Toni Morrison is a prominent figure in the group. Being an African-American author, she may receive more notice here than in the rest of the world...I couldn't really say.
When I look through the full list of Nobel laureates in literature, it looks like they've been fairly hit or miss over the years as far as lasting recognition goes, but there are definitely notable and deserving names throughout their history, many of which I've read personally.
Again, I'm not a great follower of the Nobel Prize for literature as there are other prizes that tend to hit more on the mark for me, but I'm not prepared to say that Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clezio isn't deserving of the prize until I'm able to read his work myself...and I'm assuming that being awarded the Nobel prize will lead to translations in a multitude of languages.
I guess the question is, what is the criteria for awarding the Nobel Prize in literature? Arthur Nobel's will, regarding the prize, stated: "in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction."
I suppose that could be interpreted rather broadly. It could have the potential of spreading lesser known works with a humanitarian theme to a wider audience and/or it could be abused based on political viewpoint or croneyism. I suppose it depends upon who's in charge of the Swedish Academy at any given time.
Certainly, the Nobel Prize has been given to questionable people over the years, and the misjudgment has spanned across the various prize categories (the Peace prize immediately coming to mind), but at its core, I love the idea of giving recognition to artists and scientists that have used their work for the betterment of humanity.
Wow. Good post. That was blistering.
I felt like I was getting my ass chewed, and I don't even know these guys.
the choices of swedish academy are very good heaney,sziborska,d.walcott,gao xing yiang,briodsky were and still are exceptional poets
d.lessing has a rich fantasy
o.pamuc,h.pinter and gordimer are wonderful activists
j.m goetzie is a true intellectual
he is the peter handke of s.africa
saramago and fo were provocative
writers and i admire them for that
my disagreement with the choices of swedish academy is that
each year to have 3 or 2 winners
to share the award
www.arelis.gr
it contains erotonomicon that was forbidden in greece and caused a series of reactions with its sexual context [including the poems new york olympia and exhibition of orthodromic retrospection]
Cyan.
"in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction."
Here's the rub for me. How does an obscure author stand out in the field of literature? If popularity isn't the metric being used, then what is?
It seems to me, that the Nobel prize for literature is really just a pat on the back amongst old friends.
I should add that I am politically biased against Swedish institutions by the way. I have no faith in value judgements made by a Swedish Academy on 'talent and taste'. I find the notion that the best of literature is to be decided by an inbred group of rich intellectuals to be utterly repugnant.
I have no problem with the Booker prize as the Booker isn't connected to the name Nobel. The Booker also doesn't have a permanent secretary, and it changes its judges year by year. As such, although it only regards literature in the English language, the Booker retains its integrity.
I'm also curious as to why literature is rewarded but not art or music. I suspect its because the premise of the reward is Nobel's gravy train will, and no one benefitting from that will is interested in updatng it to include other art forms.
To Anon.
Lots of authors are exceptional poets and have a rich fantasy and I fail to see why being an activist qualifies some one for a Nobel prize in literature.
I'm sure all the winners of the Nobel were and are good authors, and perhaps they even deserve to win at some level, but for as long as their victory is determined by a closed group of unelected and unrepresented individuals then more major writers will be ignored by the Nobel committee than be honored by it. It remains an elitist group, even if some of its awards go to deserving authors.
I should add that I've been researching Le Clezio since yesterday and what I'm finding is a clear image of who this man is, and why he won the Nobel prize for literature.
When asked why no Americans have won the prize since 1993, permanent secretary Horace Engdahl explains that this is because "The U.S. is too isolated, too insular. They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature".
This is an interesting perspective given that the Swedish Academy has just awarded the prize to a French author who has hardly been translated at all.
Since 1993, nine European authors have been rewarded, so I guess we Europeans are supposed to be less isolated, out-going and given to participating in the 'big dialogue of literature'?
Horace Engdahl also said "Europe is still the center of the literary world", which I take to be a boast in retaliation for America's domination of all other aspects of western culture.
If there is a 'world of literature' that is somehow dominated by Europe, then it is a soap bubble that ignores popularity in favour of its own internal eltism.
I suspect (in the same way that I suspect the sun is hot) that Horace Engdahl's real motivation involves the strong left wing, multicultural bias that saturates Swedish politics like whiskey saturates a drunkard.
Here's the rub for me. How does an obscure author stand out in the field of literature? If popularity isn't the metric being used, then what is?
That's an excellent question. I suppose that if I were to develop criteria for judging literature, I would want the judges to be experts in the field of literature that look at the entries from varying perspectives (professors, authors, theorists, critics, etc.) Of course, a person doesn't have to be an expert in literature to be intellectually and emotionally moved by a book, so I would want other people of different backgrounds involved as well...
Also your comment regarding the permanence of the judges is a good one. I do think it's more effective to rotate the judges.
And I agree that it would be positive to update the awards to include other art forms. I would add film to your list, as well.
When asked why no Americans have won the prize since 1993, permanent secretary Horace Engdahl explains that this is because "The U.S. is too isolated, too insular. They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature".
There are some phenomenal and idealistic authors in the United States, and I suspect that this response has more to do with a prejudice that exists against Americans than anything else. It's no secret that Americans are characterized as being xenophobic, isolated, and non-intellectual. In some cases, it's true, but this is a big country with a lot of differing perspectives.
Also, I'm wondering if there are any statistics out there regarding translations from English to other languages...
I recommend Song of Solomon. :)
Post a Comment