Search/Destroy Every Nobel Prize Winner For Literature

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/nobel-laureates-by-age/

She's 18th youngest overall, if I got them all.

Rudyard Kipling, 1907, age 41
Albert Camus, 1957, age 43
Sinclair Lewis, 1930, age 45
Pearl Buck, 1938, age 46
Sigrid Unset, 1928, age 46
Joseph Brodsky, 1987, age 47
Eugene O'Neill, 1936, age 48
Maurice Maeterlinck, 1911, age 49
Gerhart Hauptmann, 1912, age 49
Romain Rolland, 1915, age 50
Selma Lagerlöf, 1909, age 50
Frans Eemil Sillanpää, 1939, age 51
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, 1970, age 51
Wole Soyinka, 1986, age 52
Rabindranath Tagore, 1913, age 52
William Faulkner, 1949, age 53
Halldór Laxness, 1955, age 53
Han Kang, 2024, age 53

I haven't read her. I put a hold on Human Acts at the library and will buy a copy of The Vegetarian this afternoon.

Was she predicted as a favourite anywhere? She isn't in the Betsson list. Ladbrokes had her very far down.

No, it was a very big surprise.

Fun fact: Kangs latest novel, We Do Not Part, is already out in Swedish. They do like to give it to someone where they're ahead of the English speaking literaty world - Books of Jacob by Tokarczuk another example.

The Vegetarian was not good, this is a weird choice

I mean it's better than Bob Dylan obv

I don't know. I like Dylan's new writing:

I ran into one of the Buffalo Sabres in the elevator at the Prague hotel. They were in town to play the New Jersey Devils. He invited me to the game but I was performing that night.

— Bob Dylan (@bobdylan) October 9, 2024

I thought The Vegetarian was fantastic but not to be taken lightly. I need to read Human Acts.

Wait, is Dylan himself now posting from his official Twitter account? The last four tweets from the account could all have been written by him.

The Vegetarian was not good, this is a weird choice

I haven't read it, but maybe this was because of the quality of the translation?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2018/jan/15/lost-in-mistranslation-english-take-on-korean-novel-has-critics-up-in-arms

i enjoyed ‘the vegetarian’

The Vegetarian was fantastic. Will now search out the rest of her translated works

Tim Parks is an excellent reviewer of books and I personally love a lot of his translation work.

He has been highly critical of a lot of translation work over the years. 'Greed' by Jelinek and he hates Elena Ferrante (and the translator of her works, Ann Goldstein).

Whatever the flaws in the translation of The Vegetarian are things I am not a close enough as a reader to have a handle on. But the story does have a power to it.

Is that enough for a Nobel? Not really but I only read another book of hers, then dropped off.

There are many contemporary novels I find disappointing or dispensable. The Vegetarian was atrocious. You could give her a second Nobel Prize and I wouldn't read it again.

It's amusing how all the reactions in the novel are like "well if she had gone vegetarian for health reasons I would understand but...".

Cf the latest Hong Sang Soo film where the mother is shocked that, under Isabelle Huppert's influence, her son is only eating salads and bread, not "real food" (tbf she makes him a kimchi stew so she ain't all wrong).

I can sympathize with the Nobel Prize committee's struggles with awarding the Literature prize lately. The audience for literature, considered as poetry and literary fiction, has greatly receded over the decades since the prize was instituted. Non-fiction writers have been pretty comprehensively snubbed since they gave the 1902 prize to Mommsen. Not sure why they lopped off that whole arm of literature, but they have.

If they're going to stick to fiction, then genre fiction is where all the audience and all the real action is, but it lacks the requisite prestige and they can't figure out if any of the genre authors has enough importance.

They need to bite the bullet, break their taboos, and get out of their self-imposed strait jacket(s). They tried to do that with Dylan, but they had to disguise it as a prize for poetry and just invited ridicule on themselves for that evasion.

It is a bit weird to me that they've overlooked writers who have influenced tons of other writers, like, say Pynchon or Ashbery or a bunch of others, in favor of lesser known folks with a couple of books like this year's winner.

I know he was already widely translated and reasonably well knowm but Saramago winning was HUGE in Portugal when it happened, I figure every country prob has someone of that stature and am happy whenever someone I'd never heard of gets it. Not like Pynchon needs it, he's gonna get read regardless.

That being said I do think of it as a sorta lifetime achievement thing so do wonder how someone like, say, Hwang Sok-yong feels about this.

thinking of the nobel prize for anything as a boost to give someone who could use the exposure maaan is woeful stuff imo

What else would it be good for?

(The lit one specifically, I know the economics one is good for propaganda purposes)

I think of the lit prize as a nice way of introducing European audiences to other literary cultures.

Far more important that people get to know other South Korean/East Asian authors through Han Kang's prize.

"Not like Pynchon needs it, he's gonna get read regardless."

Bigger thing here is that I assume he is already widely translated. If an obscure US/European author won it then then getting them translated into other languages would be a benefit to them.

This is where I think the Nobel Lit prize's power lies.

Fuck a Nobel as a glorified endcap display

Yeah fuck learning something new!

I think of the lit prize as a nice way of introducing European audiences to other literary cultures.

Far more important that people get to know other South Korean/East Asian authors through Han Kang's prize.

that's a nice approach

but if you choose Han Kang as your starting point, maybe you're not going to want to go much further

I'll stop now

If they set up a Nobel Discover Weekly I’ll check it out

Tim Parks is an excellent reviewer of books... he hates Elena Ferrante (and the translator of her works, Ann Goldstein).

Fine with me to give it to someone who deserves to be better known, but I had no problem with finally giving it to Dylan (might've gotten a better response in the 60s?), not faulting him for celebrity, and thinking of songs as texts for performance, as with Nobels awarded to several playwrights.

Can coors and nabozo say a bit about their response to *The Vegeterian*? Not fishing for an argument just wondered what inspired such a negative reaction.

The central character is hollow, the two men are repulsive, it's grotesque, there is little connection between the three parts, and it's not really about vegetarianism. It's wallowing in its dark and gross content, and I didn't see any point, or maybe I didn't care for the social allegory. The first part would have been ok as a stand-alone.

and it's not really about vegetarianism

lol

agreed that the first section is the best though

The book is called The Vegetarian and its not about Vegetarianism?? Fuck!

Gotta say these two statements don't go together in my book (so to speak).
― dow, Saturday, 12 October 2024 bookmarkflaglink

Parks has his reasons, and most critics (and ppl) will have a blindspot. I disagree with them but I usually will look at whatever he is reviewing.

It just seemed like a jarring sequence of statements, since I know (by your favorable posts about Ferrante) that you do disagree with him, but sure, we all have our blindspots, and I'll seek out more of his reviews, which I don't come across in my usual browsing, since I already have such a backlog of reviewed books--but should update---

Non-fiction writers have been pretty comprehensively snubbed since they gave the 1902 prize to Mommsen. Not sure why they lopped off that whole arm of literature, but they have.

With the notable exception of Alexievich, who is incredible and who I only found out about and started reading because of the prize.

The central character is hollow - she's been hollowed out by a patriarchal society
the two men are repulsive - how is this a problem
it's grotesque - sounding good
there is little connection between the three parts - they follow on from each other! Admittedly the first part WAS a stand-alone I think originally hence the bittiness
and it's not really about vegetarianism - NEITHER WAS HITLER
It's wallowing in its dark and gross content - if you think this is wallowing you should read some grimdark, ugh
and I didn't see any point, or maybe I didn't care for the social allegory - fair comment

Anyway she seems an odd choice for this kind of honour but amusing to think of H. Murakami waiting by the phone for the call that never comes AGAIN. Go and perv over some earlobes, fella. The only thing funnier would be if Ryū Murakami wins it next year.

"It's wallowing in its dark and gross content"

"Oh no! My worldview has been challenged by a book! Oh no!!"

Good for her.

https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=384056

"I think of the lit prize as a nice way of introducing European audiences to other literary cultures.
Far more important that people get to know other South Korean/East Asian authors through Han Kang's prize."

that's a nice approach

but if you choose Han Kang as your starting point, maybe you're not going to want to go much further

I'll stop now

― corrs unplugged, 12. oktober 2024 16:07 (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

I think Han Kang already led a bunch of people to read South Korean literature. From a Guardian article from a few years back: Rocco points out that young people “don’t seem to be reading the languages that were classically regarded as the drivers of the canon”, that is, western European languages. In fact, of the 2m books of translated fiction sold in Britain last year, she tells me, “the single most popular language – just under half a million volumes – was Japanese” (not including manga), “followed by South Korean”. (Anton Hur, a Booker-longlisted translator, recently wrote that after The Vegetarian won in 2016, “all of a sudden, Korean literature was seen as edgy and fierce”.)

I think of wallowing as inertia, getting bogged down, sometimes miserablist complacency---not meant as a comment on her book, which I haven't read. Wallowing can also come across as enjoyment, resting, cooling off in the mud: an early 70s reference to Little Richard currently "wallowing in insane vaudeville" doesn't come across as that bad a thing, especially considering how many other performers didn't make it through those years (maybe wallowing iiv helped?)

that's a nice approach

but if you choose Han Kang as your starting point, maybe you're not going to want to go much further

I'll stop now

― corrs unplugged, 12. oktober 2024 16:07 (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

Even if this is as bad as you say, I don't think ppl would immediately give up on South Korean books.

People will get to read of characters in a different setting, who think about things in a slightly different way. Even if the result isn't to that reader's liking this stuff could get them to go further.

I think Han Kang already led a bunch of people to read South Korean literature.
― Frederik B, Sunday, October 13, 2024 6:05 PM (yesterday)

Definitely made it easier for translators to get funding / gave a hook for people to promote other South Korean novels/novellas (Bae Suah's Nowhere To Be Found did decently in New Zealand - here's a good interview with the translator, Sora Kim-Russell: https://better-read.com/2019/03/13/found/ )

I discovered my wife bought The Vegetarian ebook some years ago, so I read it. I thought it was very good. Extraordinary energy to the first part, the way everyone treats her as though she has voluntarily and deliberately transformed into a monstrous giant insect. The other two parts very effective at taking you into the mind of a horrible jerk, and showing the experience of dealing with someone with severe mental health issues.

There's something to be said about those later sections that align the book with the Life and Times of Michael K - not so much that she enters a state of grace (one of Coetzee's central themes) but, crudely, how do we get the world to leave us alone?. I need to think it through.

It's a theme in the Banshees of Inisherin as well.

the first part of the vegetarian is one of those rare pieces of writing with that super powerful g-force momentum. very fond memories of reading it

The central character is hollow, the two men are repulsive, it's grotesque, there is little connection between the three parts, and it's not really about vegetarianism. It's wallowing in its dark and gross content, and I didn't see any point, or maybe I didn't care for the social allegory. The first part would have been ok as a stand-alone.

― Nabozo, Saturday, October 12, 2024 1:18 PM (four months ago) bookmarkflaglink

you sound like one of the rabid YA reviewers on Goodreads who excoriates a novel because it doesn’t do exactly what they want it to do.

Finished 'We Do Not Part' this morning. First half was kinda boring, but glad I stuck with it, because the second part is extraordinary. This and 'Human Acts' is absolutely Nobel caliber literature.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/oct/09/laszlo-krasznahorkai-wins-the-nobel-prize-in-literature-2025

On readers discovering his work for the first time, he added: “If there are readers who haven’t read my books, I couldn’t recommend anything to read to them; instead, I’d advise them to go out, sit down somewhere, perhaps by the side of a brook, with nothing to do, nothing to think about, just remaining in silence like stones. They will eventually meet someone who has already read my books.”