What do you think?
Rate this book
The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy and Prestige
A lively history of the world's most prestigious award traces the history of the Nobel Prize, explaining how it originated, how it works, and how it is influenced by outside pressures and discussing the six fields in which it is awarded--literature, physics, chemistry, medicine, peace, and economics--and its laureates. Reprint. 10,000 first printing.
489 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2000
7 people are currently reading
186 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
April 17, 2015
Buku The Noble Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige karya Burton Feldman hanya mengesahkan premis bahawa penilaian dan penobatan Hadiah Nobel khususnya dalam kesusasteraan tidaklah `murni' sastera.
Feldman menulis, membaca senarai penerima Nobel sepanjang abad memberikan pengalaman yang mencurigakan: seseorang akan lebih terfikir mengenai nama yang tiada berbanding pemenangnya.
Bayangkan sasterawan besar dunia seperti Leo Tolstoy yang memberikan karya agung seperti War and Peace dan Anna Kerenina atau Mark Twain yang menulis The Adventures of Tom Sayers serta Adventures of Huckleberry Fin.
Tolstoy dari Russia dan Twain dari Amerika Syarikat (AS) `tercicir' daripada senarai anugerah bersama-sama nama seperti Henrik Ibsen, iaitu dramatis dan penyair Norway yang dianggap sebagai bapa realisme dan pelopor modenisme dalam teater.
Kehilangan nama itu tidak hanya berhenti pada awal dekad ke-20 itu, sebaliknya ia menjadi tabiat kepada juri Hadiah Nobel Kesusasteraan sehingga Feldman menyindir sidang juri berkenaan.
"Hanya sikap membuta-tuli saja yang memungkinkan seseorang untuk terlepas pandang dalam senarai tokoh yang terkenal itu. Namun, panel juri Nobel berjaya untuk mengulangi kelemahan itu," tulisnya.
Memang ada sasterawan yang diperakui besar dinobatkan sebagai penerima Hadiah Nobel Kesusasteraan seperti penyair, dramatis dan pengkritik dari United Kingdom (UK), TS Eliot atau novelis AS, Hemingway tetapi juri dianggap memilih jalan selamat kerana memilih mereka pada usia yang sudah lanjut sehingga dianggap sebagai antiklimaks.
Eliot dikatakan mencebik dengan menganggapnya sebagai paku terakhir pada keranda pengarang yang tentunya disahkan sendiri melalui penobatan novelis Sepanyol, Camilo Jose Cela pada usia 73 pada tahun 1989, iaitu selepas 50 tahun karya terbaiknya dihasilkan.
Malah bermula 1984, juri menganugerahkannya kepada penyair Czech, Jaroslav Seifert (83); pengarang Perancis, Claude Simon (72); sasterawan Mesir, Naguib Mahfouz (77); penyair Mexico, Octavio Paz (76); penyair Poland, ?Wislawa Szymborska (73) dan novelis Portugal, Jose Saramago (75).
Feldman mengkritik banyak aspek penilaian itu seperti kelewatan penganugerahan berkenaan dianggap memberikan kelebihan kepada panel kerana dapat mengelakkan kontroversi daripada idea pengarang atau konsep idealisme yang ditetapkan oleh pengasasnya, Alferd Nobel tetapi diberikan tafsiran sewenangwenangnya untuk mengesahkan keputusan mereka.
Beliau turut melihat dalam konteks tekanan politik sama ada yang bersifat dalaman mahupun luaran khususnya berkaitan dengan Perang Dingin.
Lebih penting daripada itu, juri Hadiah Nobel juga bergantung sepenuhnya kepada penterjemahan karya dan pencalonan oleh sarjana atau tokoh sehingga memungkinkan elemen berunsurkan lobi mempengaruhi penilaian.
Faktor penterjemahan itulah yang menyebabkan Rabindranath Tagore menjadi satu-satunya sasterawan dari benua India menerima Hadiah Nobel Kesusasteraan, manakala tokoh seperti Muhammad Iqbal masuk dalam senarai yang keciciran.
Tidak hairanlah hadiah Nobel hanya lebih tertumpu sekitar Eropah dan AS (walaupun pengarang dari negara kuasa besar itu sendiri sudah lama tidak diangkat) dengan sesekali benua Afrika dan Asia tersenarai.
Membaca kritikan Feldman ini secara tidak langsung, kita boleh belajar memahami penilaian dan penganugerahan kesusasteraan di negara ini, sekali gus meyakini panel juri menjadi antara faktor terpenting untuk menobatkan sasterawan.
Kita bernasib baik perlantikan juri dalam Anugerah Sastera Negara (ASN) umpamanya tidak menyerupai mekanisme Hadiah Nobel Kesusasteraan yang bersifat seumur hidup sehingga menyukarkan kita untuk memperoleh juri yang benar-benar berkredibiliti.
Kredibiliti sesuatu penganugerahan ditentukan oleh pemilihan juri atau panel penilai terlebih dahulu kerana tokoh yang tepat bukan saja dapat mengangkat sasterawan yang patut diiktiraf, bahkan berupaya mengemukakan calon yang lebih layak sekiranya senarai yang diterima tidak lengkap.
Feldman menulis, membaca senarai penerima Nobel sepanjang abad memberikan pengalaman yang mencurigakan: seseorang akan lebih terfikir mengenai nama yang tiada berbanding pemenangnya.
Bayangkan sasterawan besar dunia seperti Leo Tolstoy yang memberikan karya agung seperti War and Peace dan Anna Kerenina atau Mark Twain yang menulis The Adventures of Tom Sayers serta Adventures of Huckleberry Fin.
Tolstoy dari Russia dan Twain dari Amerika Syarikat (AS) `tercicir' daripada senarai anugerah bersama-sama nama seperti Henrik Ibsen, iaitu dramatis dan penyair Norway yang dianggap sebagai bapa realisme dan pelopor modenisme dalam teater.
Kehilangan nama itu tidak hanya berhenti pada awal dekad ke-20 itu, sebaliknya ia menjadi tabiat kepada juri Hadiah Nobel Kesusasteraan sehingga Feldman menyindir sidang juri berkenaan.
"Hanya sikap membuta-tuli saja yang memungkinkan seseorang untuk terlepas pandang dalam senarai tokoh yang terkenal itu. Namun, panel juri Nobel berjaya untuk mengulangi kelemahan itu," tulisnya.
Memang ada sasterawan yang diperakui besar dinobatkan sebagai penerima Hadiah Nobel Kesusasteraan seperti penyair, dramatis dan pengkritik dari United Kingdom (UK), TS Eliot atau novelis AS, Hemingway tetapi juri dianggap memilih jalan selamat kerana memilih mereka pada usia yang sudah lanjut sehingga dianggap sebagai antiklimaks.
Eliot dikatakan mencebik dengan menganggapnya sebagai paku terakhir pada keranda pengarang yang tentunya disahkan sendiri melalui penobatan novelis Sepanyol, Camilo Jose Cela pada usia 73 pada tahun 1989, iaitu selepas 50 tahun karya terbaiknya dihasilkan.
Malah bermula 1984, juri menganugerahkannya kepada penyair Czech, Jaroslav Seifert (83); pengarang Perancis, Claude Simon (72); sasterawan Mesir, Naguib Mahfouz (77); penyair Mexico, Octavio Paz (76); penyair Poland, ?Wislawa Szymborska (73) dan novelis Portugal, Jose Saramago (75).
Feldman mengkritik banyak aspek penilaian itu seperti kelewatan penganugerahan berkenaan dianggap memberikan kelebihan kepada panel kerana dapat mengelakkan kontroversi daripada idea pengarang atau konsep idealisme yang ditetapkan oleh pengasasnya, Alferd Nobel tetapi diberikan tafsiran sewenangwenangnya untuk mengesahkan keputusan mereka.
Beliau turut melihat dalam konteks tekanan politik sama ada yang bersifat dalaman mahupun luaran khususnya berkaitan dengan Perang Dingin.
Lebih penting daripada itu, juri Hadiah Nobel juga bergantung sepenuhnya kepada penterjemahan karya dan pencalonan oleh sarjana atau tokoh sehingga memungkinkan elemen berunsurkan lobi mempengaruhi penilaian.
Faktor penterjemahan itulah yang menyebabkan Rabindranath Tagore menjadi satu-satunya sasterawan dari benua India menerima Hadiah Nobel Kesusasteraan, manakala tokoh seperti Muhammad Iqbal masuk dalam senarai yang keciciran.
Tidak hairanlah hadiah Nobel hanya lebih tertumpu sekitar Eropah dan AS (walaupun pengarang dari negara kuasa besar itu sendiri sudah lama tidak diangkat) dengan sesekali benua Afrika dan Asia tersenarai.
Membaca kritikan Feldman ini secara tidak langsung, kita boleh belajar memahami penilaian dan penganugerahan kesusasteraan di negara ini, sekali gus meyakini panel juri menjadi antara faktor terpenting untuk menobatkan sasterawan.
Kita bernasib baik perlantikan juri dalam Anugerah Sastera Negara (ASN) umpamanya tidak menyerupai mekanisme Hadiah Nobel Kesusasteraan yang bersifat seumur hidup sehingga menyukarkan kita untuk memperoleh juri yang benar-benar berkredibiliti.
Kredibiliti sesuatu penganugerahan ditentukan oleh pemilihan juri atau panel penilai terlebih dahulu kerana tokoh yang tepat bukan saja dapat mengangkat sasterawan yang patut diiktiraf, bahkan berupaya mengemukakan calon yang lebih layak sekiranya senarai yang diterima tidak lengkap.
May 16, 2022
It starts off reasonably well, but then in Chapter 3, author tries to discredit the literature Nobel Prize.
What follows is a series of arguments so weak, contradictory and pointless that it became impossible to continue to submit my ears to the torture and I had to stop the audible version of this book at that point. As an aside, it also became clear why the audible version of this book was available for free.
What follows is a series of arguments so weak, contradictory and pointless that it became impossible to continue to submit my ears to the torture and I had to stop the audible version of this book at that point. As an aside, it also became clear why the audible version of this book was available for free.
Read
June 11, 2025It does contain some interesting facts you don't easily come across (which is what I read a book about the Nobel prize for after all) and some slightly thoughtful views, but that's about it. Maybe just read some first chapters for those few facts.
The book is more like a recount of many Nobel prizes that were given, and the author's critical take on them, and the very idea of the prize itself. It's not a journalistic book with any new material, but an amalgamation of already public and accessible resources you can find on the internet. Don't expect anything behind the scenes the author knows that you can't dig out from the Wikipedia articles. Even the author's own takes on everything are pretty superficial. I'm sure for how fallible the Swedish Committee has always been, they have more expertise to judge the nominations than the author, who isn't burdened with circumstantial issues.
It's not hard to scrutinize how the prize is not infallible, despite trying to be global - after all it is Swedish, not a joint prize host by multiple nations at once. While the book does try to show that, what I take away after my reading is that I shouldn't blame the Committee for their misjudgements and mistakes. It's not like Sweden has been trying to rile up the rest of the world or anything, I find it praiseworthy how fewer issues there are than they could have caused - feigned objectivity is better than absolute righteousness. Also countries should care more for their own awards and make one, rather than caring for some award of a country they normally don't concern with - you know the best how good your own stuff are, much better than some Swedes who judge things through limited language accessibility.
Well, by nature awards aren't meant to be serious objective assessment, nor can they ever be even if they try. It's not that serious, that's why the prize is not something that merits a book, until the author decides to write about it. Whether the Nobel committee judges the works fairly, rightly or not the laureates still have to go on to work for survival, go on with their day doing their research, teaching, or writing jobs. The Nobel Prize isn't exactly a ticket for career. It's just an award with a lot of prestige. With or without, life still goes on. Few people write a book about the prize for a reason, they concern themselves with the people and events themselves than the awarding itself.
There's not really a story about what makes the prize fallible - that's just how life is. The author does mention that Nobel's will to give away his own assets to charitable causes is not clearly defined how it should be executed. True, telling people to award contributions that benefit humanity seems easy, until you have to ask the questions like do you reward to the inventors of airplanes - something that doesn't do only good but also kills people out of accidents or wars. Then again, it's not like this is something that can be fixed even with hindsight - pretty silly to ask a guy who died at the end of the 19th century to come up with principles later people haven't even been able to think up.
Not to mention the book seems to lack succintness, or clarity of what it wants to convey.
The book is more like a recount of many Nobel prizes that were given, and the author's critical take on them, and the very idea of the prize itself. It's not a journalistic book with any new material, but an amalgamation of already public and accessible resources you can find on the internet. Don't expect anything behind the scenes the author knows that you can't dig out from the Wikipedia articles. Even the author's own takes on everything are pretty superficial. I'm sure for how fallible the Swedish Committee has always been, they have more expertise to judge the nominations than the author, who isn't burdened with circumstantial issues.
It's not hard to scrutinize how the prize is not infallible, despite trying to be global - after all it is Swedish, not a joint prize host by multiple nations at once. While the book does try to show that, what I take away after my reading is that I shouldn't blame the Committee for their misjudgements and mistakes. It's not like Sweden has been trying to rile up the rest of the world or anything, I find it praiseworthy how fewer issues there are than they could have caused - feigned objectivity is better than absolute righteousness. Also countries should care more for their own awards and make one, rather than caring for some award of a country they normally don't concern with - you know the best how good your own stuff are, much better than some Swedes who judge things through limited language accessibility.
Well, by nature awards aren't meant to be serious objective assessment, nor can they ever be even if they try. It's not that serious, that's why the prize is not something that merits a book, until the author decides to write about it. Whether the Nobel committee judges the works fairly, rightly or not the laureates still have to go on to work for survival, go on with their day doing their research, teaching, or writing jobs. The Nobel Prize isn't exactly a ticket for career. It's just an award with a lot of prestige. With or without, life still goes on. Few people write a book about the prize for a reason, they concern themselves with the people and events themselves than the awarding itself.
There's not really a story about what makes the prize fallible - that's just how life is. The author does mention that Nobel's will to give away his own assets to charitable causes is not clearly defined how it should be executed. True, telling people to award contributions that benefit humanity seems easy, until you have to ask the questions like do you reward to the inventors of airplanes - something that doesn't do only good but also kills people out of accidents or wars. Then again, it's not like this is something that can be fixed even with hindsight - pretty silly to ask a guy who died at the end of the 19th century to come up with principles later people haven't even been able to think up.
Not to mention the book seems to lack succintness, or clarity of what it wants to convey.
March 3, 2017
Good analysis, if an outdated one, of the prizes and the history of the disciplines. Obvious author cared and knew more about science prizes which is okay. Very interesting
December 8, 2021
Wanted more stories like that of the Curies instead of just lists.
Read
April 8, 2009http://nhw.livejournal.com/894360.html[return][return]A good book, and I wasn't especially surprised to find that Feldman is a scholar in the history of ideas. He gives an interesting introduction, first to the life and times of Alfred Nobel himself (whose elder brothers opened up the oil industry in Baku, now the capital of Azerbaijan; Alfred invented dynamite) and then to the machinations around the establishment of the prize which would have come to naught had the Swedish government not decided that it was a matter of state interest for the prizes to be instituted as a semi-state responsibility.[return][return]He then runs through the categories, in all of which there have been questionable awards and clear omissions. The worst offender is the Nobel Prize for Literature, which was not awarded to either Joyce or Proust, but did go to various utterly forgotten writers (sometimes for political reasons, sometimes just because they wrote long best-selling sagas) during the lifetime of both. (Feldman sees Beckett's Nobel Prize as a compensation for missing Joyce, which I think is a bit unfair on Beckett.) I learnt more about economics from Feldman's account of the relevant Prize (not strictly a Nobel as it was only instituted in 1969) than I have from any other single source.[return][return]But the Physics, Chemistry and Physiology/Medicine prizes do seem on the whole to have hit the mark, despite their rampant politicisation, with the odd embarrassing miss (eg Pavlov, for an experiment that did not actually work; though his later research probably makes up for it). And the Peace Prize is clearly a mark of recognition which carries a huge amount of weight on the world political stage. Feldman's book dates from 2000; I remember watching an interview with Jimmy Carter, shortly after he got his award in 2002, and his reply to the question of whether he had ever regretted that the Peace Prize could only be divided two ways rather than three, since that knocked him out of the running as a co-laureate with Begin and Sadat in 1978: his reply was along the lines of "oh, only about once a day, for about twenty-four hours each time." He doesn't, however, answer the mystery of why Nobel charged the Norwegians with the responsibility of the Peace Prize, rather than the Swedes who do all the others.
November 29, 2012
Burton Feldman does a solid job of overviewing the entire first century of the Nobel Prizes. (He's not perfect; per one negative reviewer, his grasp of Polish literature appears pretty shaky.) But, it is quite solid, if not encyclopedic (contra people who thought that's what this book was supposed to be).
The politics, and the evolution of some of the prizes, are a major part of the story.
Feldman is very good at describing the Peace Prize becoming more awarded for social justice within one country, and applauds that.
Literature, especially in its first half-century, draws many "huh" comments for its awards. Feldman documents politics involved here, including often "balancing" one winner with another the next year. Later, in the second half-century, fears of strong conservatives may have cost a few writers the prize.
And, if you think the sciences are Spockian, the politics, from campaigning by scientists for prizes to the infighting in the Swedish Academy, is quite illuminating.
Beyond that, it's a glimpse at how various scientific communities can become fixated on certain issues and approaches to them.
Finally, Feldman looks at the stepsister economics prize, and suggests that, if it isn't abolished, it should at least be removed from an every-year award basis.
Again, not an encyclopedia, and not perfect on every issue, but very solid.
The politics, and the evolution of some of the prizes, are a major part of the story.
Feldman is very good at describing the Peace Prize becoming more awarded for social justice within one country, and applauds that.
Literature, especially in its first half-century, draws many "huh" comments for its awards. Feldman documents politics involved here, including often "balancing" one winner with another the next year. Later, in the second half-century, fears of strong conservatives may have cost a few writers the prize.
And, if you think the sciences are Spockian, the politics, from campaigning by scientists for prizes to the infighting in the Swedish Academy, is quite illuminating.
Beyond that, it's a glimpse at how various scientific communities can become fixated on certain issues and approaches to them.
Finally, Feldman looks at the stepsister economics prize, and suggests that, if it isn't abolished, it should at least be removed from an every-year award basis.
Again, not an encyclopedia, and not perfect on every issue, but very solid.
March 31, 2025
Almost there
I appreciate this book partly for its origins: the author looked for a book on the Nobel prize and there wasn’t one that told him what he wanted, so he wrote it.
It is really quite good, although a bit dry in spots. It’s no small thing to describe a scientific discovery that someone won the prize for in a few sentences. Yes, it skims the surface but does draw parallels, and also puts the prize in world and political context. It also explores who didn’t win, and why.
If there was an audiobook that deserved a free PDF accompaniment, then then was it but, alas, there wasn’t one. I would have rated the book higher if it did.
I appreciate this book partly for its origins: the author looked for a book on the Nobel prize and there wasn’t one that told him what he wanted, so he wrote it.
It is really quite good, although a bit dry in spots. It’s no small thing to describe a scientific discovery that someone won the prize for in a few sentences. Yes, it skims the surface but does draw parallels, and also puts the prize in world and political context. It also explores who didn’t win, and why.
If there was an audiobook that deserved a free PDF accompaniment, then then was it but, alas, there wasn’t one. I would have rated the book higher if it did.
May 10, 2015
The book covers the first 100 years of the Nobel Prizes. A most interesting analysis of the history of the various prizes. Lots of whys and why nots as to the prize laureates. Got lost at times in the details of physics, chemistry, and medicine. Lots of facts and insights. The book was published in 2000; it would be interesting to do some follow-up reading on recent years. It would be interesting to get another perspective on the Nobel Prizes.
March 18, 2013
As an audiobook, this was pretty dull, largely because there were long lists of historical awards. If I was reading a physcial book, I could have skimmed or skipped over them, but listening in my car made me a captive audience. They other problem I had was that a significant portion of the book was given over to the Physics prize, and I am not a big fan of the subject.
January 13, 2014
A lot more emphasis on the science prizes as the author is a scientist. Frequent typos as well as unnecessary commentary. Long-winded in general, couldn't keep my interest. Unfortunately it brags about being the only comprehensive history on the Nobel prize so there are few options out there for those who wish to learn about it. I'd recommend Wikipedia.
October 27, 2007
It was interesting but a bit dense. Scientific theory is rather hard to understand, but the book does an adequate job of trying to explain it in scientific terms. Despite that, the literature and peace chapters are the easiest to read.
January 22, 2012
If, like me, you're no egghead a history of the Nobel Prizes might seem a bit dull. However this book shows how compelling and controversial the decisions can be and the intrigue involved. You also get a good overview of the who? and why? of the world's best minds over this period. Recommended.
December 19, 2014
Full review to follow.
June 17, 2019
With just the right amount of snark and wit to keep this from becoming a scholarly tome, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Currently reading
October 8, 2010It's good to know how Nobel Prize make a 'fuss' to the world and science today..haha
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews