Stupid nobels -- Nobel for lit given to Bob Dylan :)

yung.carl.jung said:
Where is the problem with great writers not getting the Nobel price? Did anyone ever ask Borges whether or not he actually wanted it? What if he doesn't care in the slightest?
Click to expand...
Yes, Borges was actually quite disappointed he never got it. He used to joke that the Literature Nobel is a Nordic festival where people gather every year and don't give him an award.

I agree many other great writers didn't get it (and quite a few not that great did), but the Borges case was a particular travesty as everyone knew he was a literary titan and deserved it, and that he didn't get it because of the Swedish Academy's political prejudices.
 
Last edited:
Alfred Nobel's own words in his will specify that it is to be rewarded for whoever confered the greatest benefits on mankind in the field of literature.

While that can be read to say "Produce the greatest literary works", the argument that the prize can and should consider intent and impact of the work stand on its own.

If you want a prize solely dedicated to literary quality in the narrow sense (beyond those that may already exist), you can become a millionaire and fund an award for that in your will. But don't try to twist the Nobel in something that it isn't and shouldn't be.

(And yes, they're rather left-wing prizes. Which makes perfect sense if you consider that Nobel funded them in an effort to avoid being remembered for his activities on the side of the military-industrial complex)
 
I agree with Kyriakos 100%. Nuff said.

Give me that bloody prize already instead. At least I have spent last 8 years trying to write prose.
 
Oda Nobunaga said:
Alfred Nobel's own words in his will specify that it is to be rewarded for whoever confered the greatest benefits on mankind in the field of literature.

While that can be read to say "Produce the greatest literary works", the argument that the prize can and should consider intent and impact of the work stand on its own.

If you want a prize solely dedicated to literary quality in the narrow sense (beyond those that may already exist), you can become a millionaire and fund an award for that in your will. But don't try to twist the Nobel in something that it isn't and shouldn't be.

(And yes, they're rather left-wing prizes. Which makes perfect sense if you consider that Nobel funded them in an effort to avoid being remembered for his activities on the side of the military-industrial complex)
Click to expand...

^It is difficult to be another Nobel, cause he made his money selling guns ;)
So his sentiment is more echoed in the Peace prize.
 
Oda Nobunaga said:
Alfred Nobel's own words in his will specify that it is to be rewarded for whoever confered the greatest benefits on mankind in the field of literature.

While that can be read to say "Produce the greatest literary works", the argument that the prize can and should consider intent and impact of the work stand on its own.

If you want a prize solely dedicated to literary quality in the narrow sense (beyond those that may already exist), you can become a millionaire and fund an award for that in your will. But don't try to twist the Nobel in something that it isn't and shouldn't be.

(And yes, they're rather left-wing prizes. Which makes perfect sense if you consider that Nobel funded them in an effort to avoid being remembered for his activities on the side of the military-industrial complex)
Click to expand...
Well the Nobel committee was more than happy to give the award to people like García-Márquez or Pablo Neruda, who supported murderous dictatorships, as long as those dictatorships happened to be of the communist kind. I don't see how GGM benefits humanity more than Borges - unless putting people to sleep through the sheer boredom of one's work counts as a major benefit. So I'm not buying the whole "benefit to mankind" BS.

The Literature Nobel has always presented itself as an award to the greatest literary achievements. If you want to award left-wing achievement, re-create the Stalin Peace Prize or something.
 
luiz said:
Well the Nobel committee was more than happy to give the award to people like García-Márquez or Pablo Neruda, who supported murderous dictatorships, as long as those dictatorships happened to be of the communist kind. I don't see how GGM benefits humanity more than Borges - unless putting people to sleep through the sheer boredom of one's work counts as a major benefit. So I'm not buying the whole "benefit to mankind" BS.

The Literature Nobel has always presented itself as an award to the greatest literary achievements. If you want to award left-wing achievement, re-create the Stalin Peace Prize or something.
Click to expand...

Alfred Nobel's Will said:
The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- - -/ one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction ...
Click to expand...
 
And the earlier part, which is also of great relevance :

The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind.
Click to expand...

There's also the argument, of course, that "in an ideal direction" can be interpreted in many ways (an ideal direction for literature, or an ideal direction for the benefits of mankind?). The idea of reading the two sentences in conjunction (an ideal direction for the benefits of mankind) is hardly out of the blue, and seem to be what the Nobel committee favors.

Luiz, "Put people to sleep" seems to be the most important qualifier to be considered great literature by the people with a narrow view of the field, these days, so by your statement GGM is great literature.
 
Oda Nobunaga said:
And the earlier part, which is also of great relevance :
There's also the argument, of course, that "in an ideal direction" can be interpreted in many ways (an ideal direction for literature, or an ideal direction for the benefits of mankind?). The idea of reading the two sentences in conjunction (an ideal direction for the benefits of mankind) is hardly out of the blue, and seem to be what the Nobel committee favors.

Luiz, "Put people to sleep" seems to be the most important qualifier to be considered great literature by the people with a narrow view of the field, these days, so by your statement GGM is great literature.
Click to expand...
I really don't see the argument there that the Prize must be given to people of a political persuasion. In fact, that was not the case, as notorious anti-communists such as Pasternak and Solzhenitsyn did win it.The problem with Borges was that he was considered a meanie for his kind words towards Franco and Videla, but somehow Neruda's adoration of Stalin was no problem, nor was GGM's man-crush on Fidel Castro. And it's all stupid, because as Kyriakos correctly said, there's nothing "pro-Videla" in Borges' literature, which is what should be analyzed by a Literature Committee (the same can't be said of Neruda, who wrote cringe-inducing poems on Stalin).

And I don't have a narrow view of literature. Clearly poetry is a form a literature, and poets (such as Neruda) have been awarded in the past. I also think Dylan is clearly a poet, and a good one. But hardly the most deserving literary figure out there. So for me this was a bad decision.
 
luiz said:
Yes, Borges was actually quite disappointed he never got it. He used to joke that the Literature Nobel is a Nordic festival where people gather every year and don't give him an award.

I agree many other great writers didn't get it (and quite a few not that great did), but the Borges case was a particular travesty as everyone knew he was a literary titan and deserved it, and that he didn't get it because of the Swedish Academy's political prejudices.
Click to expand...

I partially agree. The Nordic intelligentsia do resemble a left-leaning social democratic political group. That is why while right-wing writer such as Borges complains about it, but the communists also hate them for being social democratic and generally anti-communist. China and Soviet Union have dissident writers who win it first (Pasternak and Gao Xingjian) before the officially approved writers winning it. The most funny part is the infighting of the left, when J.P. Sartre declined the nobel prize.

Edit: The caste system of social democrat:

1. Social Democrat: Brahmin caste, the best of the worlds, the best of capitalism, the best of socialism, the best of democracy.
2. Moderate Democrat: Kshatriya caste, the muscle of social democrats.
3. Dissent Democrats under right wing dictatorship: martyrs for social democrat cause
4. Left-wing dictators: Our friends who are a little edgy.
5. Dissent under communism: true believer of socialism against communist usurpers
6. Conservative Democrats: Main rival in the democratic country, our enemy at home.
7. Right-wing dictators: Basically scums.
8. Communists: usurpers.
9. Fascists: 100% scums, upgraded version of 7.
 
Last edited:
If you wanted to discuss why Borges was never awarded the prize, why bother using Dylan's award as an excuse?
 
At least they didn't give it to the god-terrible Zorba writer :D Btw, both lit nobels to Greece have been to poets. Iirc there are a couple (or one?) on science too, maybe for the Pap test but maybe not related at all.
 
JohannaK said:
If you wanted to discuss why Borges was never awarded the prize, why bother using Dylan's award as an excuse?
Click to expand...

Cause it shows how clearly important writers don't win, when a questionable writer (and of songs) is given the award. It won't make the award more respectable, at any rate. So it will be worth less when i am awarded it :(
 
dusters said:
I thought/think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize is rather respectable, it is for USA though.
Click to expand...
He is a respectable singer/songwriter so he certainly deserve the Pulitzer Prize. However, Nobel Literature Prize is for "serious" writing stuff, so well yes, Borges would be more deserving than Winston Churchill (serious but not good enough), or Bob Dylan (good enough but not serious).
 
Poetry counts as literature and Dylan is one of the best, who also happens to be popular and influential. A great choice. His poetry/songs have been all about poking at the snobbish establishment. This award puts an exclamation point on that. :p

 
I believe he also has a Pulitzer. He probably is the only person to have a Nobel, a Pulitzer, an Oscar, and a bunch of Grammies.

Also I want to point out that I wasnt trolling when I said filmmakers should be considered as well. Arent scripts literature, and isnt cinema a language in itself that can be and is most frequently used with narrative purposes?

Birdjaguar said:
Poetry counts as literature and Dylan is one of the best, who also happens to be popular and influential. A great choice. His poetry/songs have been all about poking at the snobbish establishment. This award puts an exclamation point on that. :p

Click to expand...
Possibly my favourite song...
 
Last edited:
The special honorary lifetime achievement sort, I believe, but yes, Dylan has been rewarded by the Pullitzer committee.
 
Birdjaguar said:
Poetry counts as literature and Dylan is one of the best
Click to expand...
I mean sure but Nobel's blabla implies it should go to a novelist

also to make good songs music is more important than the poetry, so I feel like a litterature award sort of belittles the value of songs
 
Nobel's "blabla" doesn't seem to have been understood as implying novelist to begin with, given several of the early awards went to poets.

And while music matters to good songs for sure, many of Dylan's most famous works aren't exactly reliant on their music. Poetry definitely describes what he does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom