Join 3,554 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


And the Winner Is ...
October 9, 2002 1:09 PM   Subscribe

And the Winner Is ... Tomorrow the Nobel Foundation will announce its 2002 award for literature. Anyone have a particular author they'd like to see get the gold?
posted by risenc (91 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
Um, Drew?
posted by mikrophon at 1:14 PM on October 9, 2002


Joyce Carol Oates. Definitely. Definitely Oates.
posted by archimago at 1:15 PM on October 9, 2002


Joyce Carol Oates. Definitely. Definitely Oates.
posted by archimago at 1:15 PM on October 9, 2002


Not that he has a chance in hell of being noticed by the hoary heads of the Nobel committee, but I'd vote for Ben Marcus for his "Notable American Women." He uses language in undreamed-of ways. Mesmerizing.
posted by kozad at 1:17 PM on October 9, 2002


The White House, for its papers explaining why we should invade Iraq. Best fiction I've read in years.
posted by mkultra at 1:18 PM on October 9, 2002


Stephen King.

Doesn't he die weekly on Slashdot? C'mon, it'd be a fitting tribute...
posted by TheManWhoKnowsMostThings at 1:20 PM on October 9, 2002


I'm usually against Front Page Polls (MeFi guidelines are pretty clear I think), but what the hell, maybe for the Oscars and the Nobels (both can flaunt pretty ridiculous decisions taken in the past, by the way) we can bend the rules...

My favorite candidate, EM Cioran is dead, so...

I Bet: J.M. Coetzee, Milan Kundera (longer shot: Yves Bonnefoy)

I Hope: Philip Roth

I Dream: Bob Dylan. Or Ray Bradbury
posted by matteo at 1:27 PM on October 9, 2002


Saddam has a book or three under his belt...
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:29 PM on October 9, 2002



Prose writers have received the award for the last several years, so there's a strong possiblity tomorrow's winner will be a poet. I haven't found much gossip on potential candidates but apparently two Brunei writers, the novelist Muslim Burnat and the poet Pehin Siraja Khatib Dato Paduka Seri Setia Ustaz Hj Yahya bin Hj Ibrahim, aka Yahya M.S are on the short list.

Now who do I want to see get the award? Don Delillo. Never happen though.

On preview: I understand Bob Dylan was actually nominated this year.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:29 PM on October 9, 2002


Wow, I sure wish my name was Pehin Siraja Khatib Dato Paduka Seri Setia Ustaz Hj Yahya bin Hj Ibrahim. I'd need, like, four "Hi, My Name Is" stickers.
posted by mikrophon at 1:41 PM on October 9, 2002


There's a good chance that an American might win, given that there hasn't been one in almost a decade; on the other hand, there also hasn't been a woman in a long while. On the third hand, America isn't too popular right now with the global literary scene, so for an American to win they'd have to be fairly critical of the present state of things. Which means that the award will go to Susan Sontag.
posted by risenc at 1:44 PM on October 9, 2002


Delillo would be great. Haruki Murakami - even better.
posted by luriete at 1:44 PM on October 9, 2002


Iain Banks. Well, maybe he doesn't quite deserve the Nobel Lit Prize yet, but he should definitely get the Booker (or whatever they've changed its name to this year) Prize.
posted by tabbycat at 1:44 PM on October 9, 2002


Following matteo (and basically agreeing with his handicapping):

I bet: Coetzee, Roth

I hope: Yves Bonnefoy, a great and underappreciated poet who could use the attention

I dream: Gene Wolfe
posted by languagehat at 1:46 PM on October 9, 2002


Oh, and Oates would be the worst Nobel since Pearl Buck. Definitely.
posted by languagehat at 1:47 PM on October 9, 2002 [1 favorite]


From the Nobel website:

Nobel simply stated that prizes be given to those who, during the preceding year, "shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and that one part be given to the person who "shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction."

Note the 'preceding year' - Have Delillo, Roth, Oates, Coetzee, Bradbury, or Kundera et al. done anything at the greatest-benefit-on-mankind level in the last year? I know Delillo hasn't, but not sure about the others. Does it generally follow that a writer receives the Nobel prize during a year in which they produced something seminal? For example, Saramago won in 1998 when Blindness came out. It's my understanding that until he won the Nobel prize, none of his books had ever sold more than a thousand copies.
posted by drobot at 1:53 PM on October 9, 2002


I'd like to see Vonnegut or John Updike win. Or Oates, even. The American old guard. Too bad none of them have done anything of note lately.

If Kundera won, I'd be pretty disappointed. As far as I'm concerned, that man specializes in writing blocks of pure pretension, emotionless and without character.
posted by Fahrenheit at 1:58 PM on October 9, 2002


Oh, and Oates would be the worst Nobel since Pearl Buck. Definitely.

No chance in hell, thank god. Ugh.

Of Americans, I predict Sharon Olds and Joan Didion.

What long-time writer had a book come out last year that was any good? Anyone?
posted by RJ Reynolds at 2:01 PM on October 9, 2002


Well, we're here every year but....

I dream: posthumous Nobel to Jorge Luis Borges.

His influence will continue to grow. His writings are brilliant expositions of the deepest troubles and dreams of the intellectual mind. An essential author in the universal canon.

(plus, argentina could use the spiritual kick)
posted by Winterfell at 2:01 PM on October 9, 2002


I'd vote for Philip Roth too! If Joyce Carol Oates gets it I might just die-- I don't care for any of her work.
posted by jodic at 2:02 PM on October 9, 2002


A Vonnegut win would make me so damn happy. Too bad W.G. Sebald died after only four books--he is my top choice. Or do they not take breadth of work into consideration?
posted by strong_opinions at 2:05 PM on October 9, 2002


No way it's an American this year, given the current political climate. Has Pramoedya Ananta Toer won yet? Someone like him, I'll warrant. The next American should be Roth. What about the Brits? Ian MacEwan is coming up fast but needs a few more books out first...
posted by mookieproof at 2:11 PM on October 9, 2002


There's a good chance that an American might win, given that there hasn't been one in almost a decade; on the other hand, there also hasn't been a woman in a long while.

Kind of like if you flip heads ten times in a row, the next flip is almost certainly going to be a tails, eh?

but of course not: it's still a 50-50 chance. or the coin is double-headed.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:18 PM on October 9, 2002


I'd be thrilled if Gene Wolfe, King, Bradbury, Vonnegut, Delillo (all f**king wonderful writers) or my current fav/semi-obsession Haruki Murakami got it. Oates has never impressed me at all....but I've only read a couple of short stories.

Oh BTW she probabvly won't get it...but I'll just make a wild guess and say it'll be Arundhati Roy. Heck...why not?
posted by BruceLee_Archdiocese at 2:20 PM on October 9, 2002


five fresh fish - no, not like a coin at all - unlike the flipping of a coin, the Nobel prize isn't a random event. The Nobel folks *do* have knowledge of the previous laureates and are likely influenced by them in making their decisions. Not saying they will pick an American because of this, just pointing out that the coin analogy doesn't work.
posted by drobot at 2:23 PM on October 9, 2002


Philip Roth won't win because Saul Bellow already did. Seriously - two Jewish writers who came out of the University of Chicago, writing about very much the same type of people. Plus, while Roth is a great writer, he is also reviled in many circles as an unrepentant sexist.

"it's still a 50-50 chance." But it's not - the committee, secretive as it is, clearly makes decisions influenced by nationality and gender. Especially nowadays. Hence the reason all those old Portuguese writers cried when Saramago won the prize. Because there's no way they'll win it now.
posted by risenc at 2:24 PM on October 9, 2002


Damn, drobot beat me to it.
posted by risenc at 2:25 PM on October 9, 2002


"...one part be given to the person who 'shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction.'"

Since he already has a Pulitzer, it would be nice if Dave Barry could have a Nobel, too. I'd nominate him for an Oscar, an Emmy, and a Tony, too.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:26 PM on October 9, 2002


It'll be Harry Mulisch
posted by knutmo at 2:28 PM on October 9, 2002


Hence the reason all those old Portuguese writers cried when Saramago won the prize. Because there's no way they'll win it now.

Damn, and I just put a tenner on Miguel.
posted by riviera at 2:29 PM on October 9, 2002


Kind of like if you flip heads ten times in a row, the next flip is almost certainly going to be a tails, eh?

Yes. Thats how the selection committe works. They'll favor under-represented cultures and movements. They're humans not stochastic processes.
posted by Winterfell at 2:29 PM on October 9, 2002


Posthumous prize to dear, dirty Jimmy Joyce. (Or even better: travel back in time, pack the committee with high modernists to ensure he gets it for Ulysses in 1922, then sit back and delight in the acceptance speech. Which, frankly, sounds like the kind of novel I'd like to read.) A Bloomin' girl can dream, can't she?

RJ Reynolds: good call on Sharon Olds -- she's one of the few poets who (to me, at least) rarely, if ever, disappoints.
posted by scody at 2:32 PM on October 9, 2002


This is the Nobel, not the National Book Award, the Booker, or some other award of that ilk. So its going to be heavily politically weighted, and not just based on literary merit. Sad to say I don't know non-Western authors but my guess is that it will, and should, go to a Middle-Eastern or African woman.
posted by rtimmel at 2:32 PM on October 9, 2002


"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:36 PM on October 9, 2002


Though it would be nice if it went to Haruki Murakami for Underground or After the Quake. Both pretty amazing, and currently relevant, pieces.
posted by rtimmel at 2:37 PM on October 9, 2002


This article seems to have a good run-down of possible contenders.

For me, the only living writer who truly would deserve the Nobel (if it rewarded genius, which it almost never does) is John Ashbery.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:37 PM on October 9, 2002


vonnegut would be an exceptional choice.
posted by pejamo at 2:39 PM on October 9, 2002


Yeah, John Ashbery is pretty cool. I like Charles Simic, too.
posted by drobot at 2:39 PM on October 9, 2002


Nobody's mentioned Pynchon yet?
posted by hilker at 2:42 PM on October 9, 2002


Ha ha, Pynchon. Funny funny!

Plus, while Roth is a great writer, he is also reviled in many circles as an unrepentant sexist.

And his last book was a giant steaming bag of doody.

You're all so right, Vonnegut should have gotten it years ago, it's true. God bless him. But after the last book, signs point to unlikely.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 2:54 PM on October 9, 2002


I have to join those who say Borges, Vonnegut, Roth.

My own very long shot? The late Jane Kenyon.
posted by goethean at 2:55 PM on October 9, 2002


How can you people not like Joyce Carol Oats? For some reason I always thought her work would cheesy, but its amazing.

Have you read her?
posted by goneill at 2:59 PM on October 9, 2002


I discovered Saramago from the Nobel, and will be thanking them forever--and Halldor Laxness too! I'd prefer that it was someone more unknown in America...it makes it more fun to discover a new (to you) author....
posted by amberglow at 2:59 PM on October 9, 2002


Doris Lessing would be bad ass. I'd feel so validated for all those years of following strangers down the street screaming at them and pointing to her novels.
posted by goneill at 3:09 PM on October 9, 2002


Pynchon hasn't published anything since Mason & Dixon in 1997, so if the Committee is sticking to the recently published authors thing, which it seems to have been doing in recent years, we'll have to wait until his next one for him to be in with a shout. (I think they should have given it to him for M&D, but still...)
posted by pilgrim at 3:14 PM on October 9, 2002


Do dissertations count?
posted by Postroad at 3:21 PM on October 9, 2002


OH my god, Doris Lessing. That would make me HOT!

Jeez, you guys have me all excited like Christmas Eve! When when when is the announcement? What time is it in Sweden??? Will there be a posthumous Thomas Bernhard win???? PLEASE?
posted by RJ Reynolds at 3:25 PM on October 9, 2002 [1 favorite]


goneill: Yes, I've read her; I find her prose cookie-cutter and her characters and stories uniformly repellent. Sorry.

As for the "preceding year" requirement, I found an article that said
the prize is intended for works "during the preceding year," but the Nobel Foundation interprets that part of the will to include recent cultural achievements as well as older works by a writer (if the significance of that work has only recently been recognized).
And on the subject of the dead (and thus ineligible) writers: Hey, the Nobel should have a Veteran's Committee like the Baseball Hall of Fame! They could finally give awards to Tolstoy, Joyce, Kafka, Nabokov, and all the other greats they managed to ignore, and finally get all the wiseacres off their ass!
posted by languagehat at 3:34 PM on October 9, 2002


Margaret Atwood doesn't have a chance, but I like her all the same.
posted by oissubke at 3:40 PM on October 9, 2002


I must second goneill. Joyce Carol Oates is a great American writer. She publishes so much, and so heterogenously, that it's easy to read one book that's not to your liking and never read the other ones that will really connect with you. Blonde might seem odd at first blush, but it is a truly amazing book, and the first big American Novel I've read in years and years that isn't a bloated, self-aggrandizing, Underworld-esque lecture on semiotics or whatever. (Not that it bears on the Nobel, but she is extremely nice in person as well).

Anyway: my picks are JCO, J.M. Coetzee, and W.G. Sebald. Much as I love them, I anti-pick Stephen King and Haruki Murakami. If you're going to give it to Murakami you might as well give it to Raymond Chandler (there's an idea!)
posted by josh at 3:46 PM on October 9, 2002


Octobersurprise: Bob Dylan gets nominated every year by this professor named Gordon Ball. Now, I think that his effect on literature in this country has been more profound than any of the people nominated alongside him in recent years (that I've read or have some knowledge of), I realize that he will never, ever be allowed to win the Nobel, and I think that Professor Ball should stop nominating him before it becomes a joke. If it hasn't already.
posted by Hildago at 3:51 PM on October 9, 2002


Chuck Palahniuk!
posted by xmutex at 3:54 PM on October 9, 2002


Josh, Sebald is dead!
posted by Zootoon at 4:04 PM on October 9, 2002


Perhaps the winner will follow Jean-Paul Sartre's example, and turn it down.
posted by liam at 4:05 PM on October 9, 2002


And Sartre's motives for declining the award?

Genuinely curious here...
posted by xmutex at 4:11 PM on October 9, 2002


"[t]he writer must not allow himself to be transformed by institutions." --Sartre
posted by RJ Reynolds at 4:16 PM on October 9, 2002


Perhaps the winner will follow Jean-Paul Sartre's example, and turn it down.

He even sent Sacheen Little Feather in his place.

Will there be a posthumous Thomas Bernhard win???? PLEASE?

Yet again, I second RJ. I swear, Bernhard would come back from the dead just decline. Now that would be one blistering, beautiful speech.
posted by scody at 4:19 PM on October 9, 2002


"[t]he writer must not allow himself to be transformed by institutions." --Sartre
Except, say, the Communist Party. Ca, c'est normal.
posted by languagehat at 4:41 PM on October 9, 2002


How can you mention Stephen King and Murakami in the same paragraph, let alone the same sentence? After reading Wind-Up Bird, Underground, After the Quake and Norwegian Wood (underrated), I can't help but feel he deserves it. Stephen King? Is that a joke? I mean, be serious.
posted by luriete at 4:43 PM on October 9, 2002


Okay, I have to ask: I've read Wind-Up Bird Chronicle and loved it, but has Murakami written any fiction which does not involve the search for a missing wife/girlfriend?
posted by mookieproof at 5:00 PM on October 9, 2002


Sebald is dead?! Damn. That just un-made my day.
posted by josh at 5:27 PM on October 9, 2002


if American (thought doubtful considering the current political conditions), I'd say Maya Angelou. Other contenders in my mind: Salhman Rushdie (though I was disappointed by his latest one), Umberto Eco (he just published a new book last year), Chinua Achebe (Things Fall Apart has been coming to my mind a lot lately).
posted by TNLNYC at 5:39 PM on October 9, 2002


Wild Guess: W.G. Sebald. New poetry book out, well-praised Austerlitz (brownie points because it chronicles a Holocaust survivor) and an author with an untimely death by auto accident. All the ingredients of a Nobel winner, if you ask me. But I could be wrong.
posted by ed at 5:45 PM on October 9, 2002


D'oh. Forgive my foolishness about posthumous Nobel awards. I was thinking of Karlfeldt. Josh gets the score.
posted by ed at 5:50 PM on October 9, 2002


if American (thought doubtful considering the current political conditions), I'd say Maya Angelou.

Heaven forfend.

Mario Vargas Llosa sounds good.
posted by rushmc at 5:52 PM on October 9, 2002


my vote for orhan pamuk or lyn hejinian.

posthumous nominations to paul valery, nabokov, george oppen, borges.
posted by juv3nal at 6:48 PM on October 9, 2002 [1 favorite]


I love Pamuk myself, but suspect that (as has been said about Iain Banks) he hasn't been around long enough yet.
posted by languagehat at 7:17 PM on October 9, 2002


If the Nobels change their minds about posthumous awards, they could correct the outrage of 1901-1902 and finally give it to Tolstoy.

The 1996, 1998 and 2000 awards went to writers I'd never heard of (which means absolutely nothing about whether they were deserved, of course). That's what I'm expecting for this year's choice too.
posted by Daze at 7:36 PM on October 9, 2002


Are weblogs eligible?
posted by billsaysthis at 7:50 PM on October 9, 2002


Three Words:

David Foster Wallace. Of all the authors to emerge over the past 15 years or so, he's the most influential, if you ask me. Plus, my brain has not been the same since I read Infinite Jest. Perhaps they should give him a Nobel in medicine for altering my mind...
posted by jonmc at 7:52 PM on October 9, 2002


This is true jonmc. Though, I can't help feeling that the greatness of Infinite Jest is marred by the awfulness of Brief Interviews with Hideous Men.

Just as long as it doesn't go to Dave Eggers!
posted by josh at 8:02 PM on October 9, 2002


Christoper Brookmyre.
posted by tapeguy at 8:17 PM on October 9, 2002


mookieproof: you're right about Murakami's obsessions (themes?)...but...do consistent themes negate artistic excellence? I don't think so.

I'm reminded here of Phillip K. Dick's heroines. Small, dark, disturbed.

Dick/Murakami: I hadn't thought about the similarilties between these two authors - two of my favorites - but they are many.
posted by kozad at 8:30 PM on October 9, 2002


Kozad: And don't forget that Hermann Hesse wrote about exactly one theme, that of the tension between social strictures and the human spirit's need for space. And yet he's one of the most deserving of the prize's recipients. That said, Murakami is a) not nearly established/old enough, and b) Japanese, as was Kenzaburo Oe, who won in 1994 and therefore probably prevents another Japanese writer from winning for a while. SOmeday, though, I imagine Murakami will win.
posted by risenc at 8:54 PM on October 9, 2002


Neal Stephenson. If not this year, soon.
posted by emf at 11:42 PM on October 9, 2002


Well, if an insomniac or early bird wants to jump the gun, it looks like the winner will be announced 4:00 AM PST. I'm hoping Ian McEwan will get it.
posted by ed at 12:21 AM on October 10, 2002


Granted Murakami and King are two different things, and the suggestion was lighthearted, but hell I just read On Writing and it's genuinely excellent. By parts funny, compassionate, inspiring and completely honest.

Like I said....Why not??
posted by BruceLee_Archdiocese at 12:35 AM on October 10, 2002


Well, we're here every year but....
I dream: posthumous Nobel to Jorge Luis Borges.


Winterfell: this was my immediate thought too.
I think Murakami might win it someday, but he's still too young at the moment. As for Joyce Carol Oates, can't stand her writing. (She probably wouldn't think much of mine, either.)
posted by LeLiLo at 1:39 AM on October 10, 2002


Haruki Murakami???? Are you all frickin' crazy? Murakami is doing Philip Dick and Ray Chandler pastiche. It is good damn fun, but a nobel prize it is not!!! Maybe it's the translation.

There is ANOTHER Murakami that is taking no prisoners.

O.K. I really want to clear this shit up.

There are *two* Murakamis. This guy is not *Ryu* Murakami. His name is *Haruki* Murakami. The Philip K. Dick and Raymond Chandler dude.

One is Haruki Murakami: ("Norwegian Wood", "the Elephant Vanishes", Dance, Dance, Dance", "The Wind-up Bird Chronicle", et cetera).

The other one (of many thousands of Murakamis) is the writer Ryu Murakami: ("Almost Transparent Blue", "Coin Locker Babies", et cetera.

Haruki Murakami is the Beatles, and Ryu Murakami is gay acid jazz with a vendetta and a chainsaw. Take your pick.
posted by hama7 at 5:58 AM on October 10, 2002 [1 favorite]


the result (Imre Kertesz) is in this (possibly to be deleted?) thread.

(i'm off to new york next week (oh, the jet-set life for me!) and will be buying books (in english - hurray!) - thanks for an excellent thread of suggestions).
posted by andrew cooke at 7:13 AM on October 10, 2002


O.K. I really want to clear this shit up.

I'll be sure to come to you with all my shit-clearing-up needs.

Haruki Murakami is the Beatles, and Ryu Murakami is gay acid jazz with a vendetta and a chainsaw. Take your pick.

Just because it's gay and has a chainsaw don't make it better.
posted by Kafkaesque at 8:34 AM on October 10, 2002 [1 favorite]


"Are weblogs eligible?"

They won't, but the people behind the Nobel Prize thing should give one honorary prize to all webloggers and personal narrative authors online on the whole. I think in the past decade we've done more for the furtherance of literature's future than anybody published the old fashioned way in the past century.

but then, I'm a little biased.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:52 AM on October 10, 2002


geez. it's hard to type with my eyes rolled so far back in my head after that last post, but i'll try.

there's plenty of great stuff on the web. i'm a big fan. but come on - "more for the furtherance of literature's future than anybody published the old fashioned way in the past century" ?!? if the furtherance of literature's future is solely an exercise in hyperbole, perhaps.
posted by judith at 10:02 AM on October 10, 2002


[Damn. Now I can't rid my mind of the image of Zach, at this very moment, dressed to the hilt in front of his wardrobe mirror, rehearsing his weblØØg Nobel acceptance speech in cod Norwegian.] ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:13 AM on October 10, 2002


I just read On Writing and it's genuinely excellent. By parts funny, compassionate, inspiring and completely honest.

Me too, it's the only King book I've read- as I've avoided him in the past- but I can easily imagine a fresh crop of writers taking it up as a bible. Which, in a way, fits the Nobel requirements.
posted by drezdn at 11:11 AM on October 10, 2002


I'm posting really late, but I just wanted to point out for those who say they hate Oates, that her short stories are often a LOT better than her novels. Also, King's short stories and novellas are really good, but they aren't... literary.
posted by callmejay at 12:30 PM on October 10, 2002


Someone said a woman and American hasn't won in a while. Didn't Toni Morrisson win not too long ago? Or am I wishful thinking????
posted by archimago at 12:48 PM on October 10, 2002


Also, King's short stories and novellas are really good, but they aren't... literary.

I'll admit it, I haven't read any King books (except for "On Writing")because they seem like they would be literary fast food, but what makes something literary?

Arguably, I believe the lasting power of a book- or music, for that matter- is the true way to judge the merit of a work. If people can read a book 25-2000 years from now, and still find it relevant (or more relevant as is the case with Philip K. Dick) then that work has merit.

A lot of what is currently considered literary, will probably sit unread on library shelves in another 25 years, while some of what is tossed aside now (King for example) may be considered classics.
posted by drezdn at 1:34 PM on October 10, 2002


No, you are not imagining, she won in 1993.
Here is a list of the winners from 1901 to 2002.

My two cents: Nominating Stephen King for the Nobel prize in Literature would be like submitting your mom's toast 'n jelly recipe to Epicure Magazine's Recipe of the year contest. Sometimes, toast and jelly can be the best food on earth, but it is a little too basic to compete.

Being a chameleon is hardly a recommendation for the Nobel prize, therefore as good as she is at what she does, Joyce Carol Oates will never take home the ultimate prize.

As for David Foster Wallace, Dave Eggars, and other young American pups, I hardly think they have "benefited mankind". More like benefited their own pocketbooks.

I had been rooting for Chinua Achebe, but there is always next year.

Actually who I most wanted to win was some obscure writer I had never heard of much less read...guess I won.

On Preview: I read a great, great deal and among my most prized possesions are all of P.G. Wodehouse's novels and all of Stephen King's earlier books. You might try Danse Macbre next.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:11 PM on October 10, 2002


Arrrgh, that reads a little obscure so change "guess I won" to "guess I got what I wanted".
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:14 PM on October 10, 2002


Gravy: I had been trying to figure out what to say about the idea of a Nobel for King, and you said it better than I could have. (Of course, you have an unfair advantage when it comes to food similes.) I think Achebe is a very likely win in the near future for geopolitical as much as literary reasons. And P.G. Wodehouse is above and beyond all possible awards!
posted by languagehat at 7:53 AM on October 11, 2002


« Older Women Mathematicians....  |  Swain,... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments