Comments on: Comments on 20668

Post number 20668

risenc — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:09:08 -0800

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?

By: mikrophon

mikrophon — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:14:06 -0800

Um, Drew?

By: archimago

archimago — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:15:15 -0800

Joyce Carol Oates. Definitely. Definitely Oates.

By: archimago

archimago — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:15:52 -0800

Joyce Carol Oates. Definitely. Definitely Oates.

By: kozad

kozad — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:17:53 -0800

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.

By: mkultra

mkultra — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:18:15 -0800

The White House, for its papers explaining why we should invade Iraq. Best fiction I've read in years.

By: TheManWhoKnowsMostThings

TheManWhoKnowsMostThings — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:20:29 -0800

Stephen King. Doesn't he die weekly on Slashdot? C'mon, it'd be a fitting tribute...

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:27:25 -0800

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

By: PinkStainlessTail

PinkStainlessTail — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:29:05 -0800

Saddam has a book or three under his belt...

By: octobersurprise

octobersurprise — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:29:46 -0800

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.

By: mikrophon

mikrophon — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:41:26 -0800

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.

By: risenc

risenc — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:44:16 -0800

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.

By: luriete

luriete — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:44:21 -0800

Delillo would be great. Haruki Murakami - even better.

By: tabbycat

tabbycat — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:44:51 -0800

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.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:46:06 -0800

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

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:47:16 -0800

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

By: drobot

drobot — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:53:38 -0800

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.

By: Fahrenheit

Fahrenheit — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:58:12 -0800

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.

By: RJ Reynolds

RJ Reynolds — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:01:47 -0800

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?

By: Winterfell

Winterfell — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:01:51 -0800

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)

By: jodic

jodic — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:02:28 -0800

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.

By: strong_opinions

strong_opinions — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:05:54 -0800

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?

By: mookieproof

mookieproof — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:11:24 -0800

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...

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:18:35 -0800

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.

By: BruceLee_Archdiocese

BruceLee_Archdiocese — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:20:47 -0800

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?

By: drobot

drobot — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:23:32 -0800

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.

By: risenc

risenc — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:24:33 -0800

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.

By: risenc

risenc — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:25:07 -0800

Damn, drobot beat me to it.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:26:32 -0800

"...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.

By: knutmo

knutmo — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:28:28 -0800

It'll be Harry Mulisch

By: riviera

riviera — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:29:42 -0800

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.

By: Winterfell

Winterfell — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:29:42 -0800

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.

By: scody

scody — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:32:46 -0800

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.

By: rtimmel

rtimmel — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:32:52 -0800

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.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:36:41 -0800

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

By: rtimmel

rtimmel — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:37:10 -0800

Though it would be nice if it went to Haruki Murakami for Underground or After the Quake. Both pretty amazing, and currently relevant, pieces.

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:37:29 -0800

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.

By: pejamo

pejamo — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:39:17 -0800

vonnegut would be an exceptional choice.

By: drobot

drobot — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:39:26 -0800

Yeah, John Ashbery is pretty cool. I like Charles Simic, too.

By: hilker

hilker — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:42:02 -0800

Nobody's mentioned Pynchon yet?

By: RJ Reynolds

RJ Reynolds — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:54:47 -0800

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.

By: goethean

goethean — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:55:47 -0800

I have to join those who say Borges, Vonnegut, Roth. My own very long shot? The late Jane Kenyon.

By: goneill

goneill — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:59:25 -0800

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?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:59:40 -0800

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....

By: goneill

goneill — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 15:09:44 -0800

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.

By: pilgrim

pilgrim — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 15:14:42 -0800

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...)

By: Postroad

Postroad — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 15:21:42 -0800

Do dissertations count?

By: RJ Reynolds

RJ Reynolds — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 15:25:40 -0800

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?

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 15:34:19 -0800

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!

By: oissubke

oissubke — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 15:40:11 -0800

Margaret Atwood doesn't have a chance, but I like her all the same.

By: josh

josh — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 15:46:43 -0800

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!)

By: Hildago

Hildago — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 15:51:01 -0800

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.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 15:54:26 -0800

Chuck Palahniuk!

By: Zootoon

Zootoon — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:04:57 -0800

Josh, Sebald is dead!

By: liam

liam — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:05:31 -0800

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

By: xmutex

xmutex — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:11:18 -0800

And Sartre's motives for declining the award? Genuinely curious here...

By: RJ Reynolds

RJ Reynolds — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:16:05 -0800

"[t]he writer must not allow himself to be transformed by institutions." --Sartre

By: scody

scody — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:19:54 -0800

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.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:41:04 -0800

"[t]he writer must not allow himself to be transformed by institutions." --Sartre Except, say, the Communist Party. Ca, c'est normal.

By: luriete

luriete — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 16:43:27 -0800

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.

By: mookieproof

mookieproof — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:00:45 -0800

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?

By: josh

josh — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:27:41 -0800

Sebald is dead?! Damn. That just un-made my day.

By: TNLNYC

TNLNYC — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:39:04 -0800

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).

By: ed

ed — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:45:05 -0800

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.

By: ed

ed — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:50:17 -0800

D'oh. Forgive my foolishness about posthumous Nobel awards. I was thinking of Karlfeldt. Josh gets the score.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:52:01 -0800

if American (thought doubtful considering the current political conditions), I'd say Maya Angelou. Heaven forfend. Mario Vargas Llosa sounds good.

By: juv3nal

juv3nal — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 18:48:56 -0800

my vote for orhan pamuk or lyn hejinian. posthumous nominations to paul valery, nabokov, george oppen, borges.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 19:17:33 -0800

I love Pamuk myself, but suspect that (as has been said about Iain Banks) he hasn't been around long enough yet.

By: Daze

Daze — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 19:36:19 -0800

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.

By: billsaysthis

billsaysthis — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 19:50:31 -0800

Are weblogs eligible?

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 19:52:14 -0800

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...

By: josh

josh — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 20:02:56 -0800

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!

By: tapeguy

tapeguy — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 20:17:24 -0800

Christoper Brookmyre.

By: kozad

kozad — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 20:30:30 -0800

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.

By: risenc

risenc — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 20:54:00 -0800

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.

By: emf

emf — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 23:42:43 -0800

Neal Stephenson. If not this year, soon.

By: ed

ed — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:21:14 -0800

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.

By: BruceLee_Archdiocese

BruceLee_Archdiocese — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:35:38 -0800

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??

By: LeLiLo

LeLiLo — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 01:39:39 -0800

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.)

By: hama7

hama7 — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 05:58:47 -0800

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.

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 07:13:08 -0800

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).

By: Kafkaesque

Kafkaesque — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:34:15 -0800

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.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:52:40 -0800

"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.

By: judith

judith — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:02:32 -0800

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.

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:13:23 -0800

[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.] ;)

By: drezdn

drezdn — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:11:23 -0800

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.

By: callmejay

callmejay — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:30:13 -0800

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.

By: archimago

archimago — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:48:49 -0800

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????

By: drezdn

drezdn — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:34:37 -0800

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.

By: Secret Life of Gravy

Secret Life of Gravy — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:11:58 -0800

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.

By: Secret Life of Gravy

Secret Life of Gravy — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:14:01 -0800

Arrrgh, that reads a little obscure so change "guess I won" to "guess I got what I wanted".

By: languagehat

languagehat — Fri, 11 Oct 2002 07:53:33 -0800

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!