The Mookse and the Gripes discussion
The Nobel Prize
>
Nobel Prize 50 year old lists
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Michele
(new)
Jan 10, 2018 05:23AM
Nobel nominees can be seen 50 years after the fact.
reply
|
flag
Mod
1969: According to Svenska Dagbladet, the split was between Beckett and French writer André Malraux, with other nominations including Simone de Beauvoir, Jorge Luis Borges, Pablo Neruda and Graham Greene.
The list of nominees - all 103 of themhttps://www.svenskaakademien.se/sites...
Not clear to me who was genuinely in the running and considered in detail by the committee: Beckett and Malraux clearly, but I'm not sure if e.g. Borges (mentioned in article and often cited as one of the most glaring omissions from the winners list) was just one of the 103, or made it through to a shortlist.
Notably Gunter Grass makes an appearance in the (very) long list, I think for the first time - a mere 30 years later he won.
Others on the list didn't have to wait so long. The 1970 (Solzhenitsyn), 1971 (Neruda), 1972 (Boll). 1973 (White), 1974 (Martinson & Johnson), 1975 (Montale) winners are all there.
The next time someone won who wasn't longlisted in 1969 was Bellow in 1976.
Looking at that chronology and thinking about the way the academy is set up and nominations (same people year after year for the most part,) one wonders if they always have a group of people that are sort of getting "turns" to win? And will that change with the new influx of people, or will the general process stay the same, perhaps only for a few years adding different names or removing some of the ones that were there before? I dunno, but since the same group is in charge of the prize year after year with very little new blood until recently, I don't think it's at all surprising, and I'd bet Saul Bellow made it to the list at some point between 1969 and before winning - it just looks like that to me. Someone tell me I'm wrong please?
Historically the Nobel process has been that one needs to have been considered in previous years to win. Indeed I believe this was a semi-official part of the rules.[It's pne of the reasons that the odds/rumours are often so accurate - well that and the fact one of the Committee was passing on betting tips (allegedly) in between sexually harassing people (no need for allegedly since he was convicted).]
Although that makes sense for a prize for lifetime's work in many respects.
Prizes like the Neustadt or the original incarnation of the Booker International can look odd equally when one year they come up with a list of 'world's best ever authors based on lifetime works', then a couple of years later have a completely different list.
In terms of the new jury - Handke had (again based on rumours/odds) been in the running for several years but Tokarczuk's name hadn't come up much.
Yanno - there I go being dumb again. You're, of course, right. It makes perfect sense that there would be a recurring bunch of names.I just think there is a way to make it more open somehow. Be that having "satellite nominations" sent in from around the world or something (I guess this is done by the previous winners to some extent) or some other equally ludicrous idea, the same people year after year will always like the same things. It's not a great system. Perhaps they could have a pool of judges who only serve in certain on/off types of ways. Like how sports works sometimes, when teams take a week off. Oh I dunno. I just want the Nobel Prize to be super meaningful, which it is, but in other ways really is not.
The nominations are sent in by people around the world, but only those deemed eligible/worthy - academics in literature and national societies of authors. But of course that group doesn’t change either much so their nominations tend not to. Those are then whittled down to a 15-20 person longlist and then 5 names that are given detailed consideration. The Nobel Committee and Academy play different roles - must admit I don’t quite get that bit (ie who serves on either)
https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination...
The suggestion, but not officially written down, has been that one needs to work one’s way through each stage of the process (nomination-longlist-shortlist-winner) in different years, rather than first time nominees winning straight away.
Fascinating - and I think we ought to also get information on who else was on the shortlist at some point as well
That was fascinating. I didn’t know Pasternak had to decline the prize. How painful that must have been for him.I have neglected the great Russian novels. I’m almost embarrassed to admit that the only Russian novel I’ve read is Crime and Punishment. Once I catch up on my indie press subscriptions I will turn to the Russian writers.
The only one I’ve read is master and Margarita- I’m planning on reading the Russian classics next year (I’m learning the language so might as well)
Good for you, Robert. A Russian immigrant at a cafe where I worked said to really appreciate Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and the others you have to read them in Russian. I don’t know if he read the highly praised Volokhonksy and Pevear, but I suspect his pride in the Russian authors would have prevailed and he would maintain that Russian language editions are the best.
