When we pull back the curtain on the selection process for literature's most cherished accolade, the arbitrary nature of the judgment becomes glaringly apparent, leaving us questioning its significance.
When the Nobel Prize in Literature recipient is announced, it typically triggers one of three specific responses from the public. Initially, there is often a sense of puzzlement, marked by a collective "Who?" as many individuals find themselves surprised by the laureate's relative anonymity. Subsequently, a common question arises: "Why?" People endeavor to comprehend the selection criteria and rationale behind the choice. These reactions have become somewhat standard in recent years, owing to the Nobel committee's inclination to recognize lesser-known or unconventional literary figures.
In the current year, on October 5th, the
Nobel Prize for Literature was bestowed upon Jon Fosse, a Norwegian writer
whose acknowledgment predominantly elicited the "Who?" and
"Why?" reactions. Fosse's literary pursuits predominantly embrace the
Nynorsk language, a linguistic specialization even within the realm of
Norwegian authors. His most celebrated but somewhat lesser-known literary
creation is the trilogy known as "Septology," which confidently
positions itself as an exceptionally unique reading journey. This decision by
the Nobel committee underscored the ongoing mystery surrounding the selection
process and highlighted the unpredictable nature of achieving literary
recognition on the global stage.
Choosing the Nobel Prize in Literature
recipient might appear straightforward in some respects. It starts with a
tradition: just before 1 pm Swedish time, Mr. Fosse received a phone call,
revealing his newfound status as a laureate and the accompanying SKr11 million
prize (about $1 million). Much like other Nobel winners before him, he probably
had a moment of doubt, perhaps even thinking it was a prank. After the call, he
might have marked the occasion with a bottle of champagne, or, as Doris
Lessing, a British-Zimbabwean novelist, once did, he could have simply sighed
and muttered, "Oh, dear."
However, when you delve into the inner
workings of this prestigious award, it becomes a labyrinth of complexity.
Evaluating art in any form can be challenging, be it a straightforward
100-meter race or, in this case, literature, which resembles a symphony more
than a sprint. Even though Aristotle may have confidently outlined the elements
of great writing in his "Poetics," few today share such conviction. Julian
Barnes once wittily compared the Booker Prize to a high-society game of chance,
emphasizing the apparent randomness of literary honors, even for the finest
novel composed in English and released in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
The decisions made by prize committees often
appear more like picking names out of a hat than making measured, critical
assessments. For instance, the Nobel committee's choice of Bob Dylan, the
American singer-songwriter, in 2016 elicited international outrage. Anders
Olsson, the current committee chair, understatedly acknowledges the perpetual
nature of criticism they receive. In its inaugural year, the Nobel committee
drew ire for not awarding the accolade to Leo Tolstoy, opting for the relatively
unremarkable poet Sully Prudhomme instead. Many remarkable authors, including
Anton Chekhov, Joseph Conrad, James Joyce, Marcel Proust, and Virginia Woolf,
were not selected or even nominated. Jorge Luis Borges, Henrik Ibsen, and Henry
James also missed out, though they were at least nominated.
One might find sympathy for the judges as
they grapple with the Nobel's elusive criteria. Alfred Nobel, a man more
accomplished in chemistry than writing, stipulated in his will that the prize
should be awarded to "the person who shall have produced in the field of
literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction," a definition
that remains cryptic at best. The potential field of competitors is vast, as
authors do not actively submit themselves for consideration. Instead, judges
must sift through all living writers, composing in every language worldwide, an
immensely daunting task. As Mr. Olsson recognizes, it is a substantial and
intrinsically flawed undertaking. The six committee members cannot
realistically evaluate the entire oeuvre of every Irish author writing in
Gaelic or every Papua New Guinean author writing in Hiri Motu.
Nonetheless, judges do evaluate a substantial
number of them. Each year, the committee sends approximately 4,000 invitations
to literary organizations worldwide, soliciting nominations by February 1st.
These nominations yield a longlist of 200 authors, which is then whittled down
to a shortlist of 20 by April. By May, a still shorter list of five candidates
is chosen (and like all other lists, kept secret for 50 years). This marks the
commencement of rigorous judging and extensive reading. The process aims for
fairness but still carries inherent biases, much like the comparison of apples
and oranges mentioned by Neil MacGregor, the former director of the British Museum
and the chair of the 2022 Booker Prize committee.
Selecting a winner entails more than
individual preference. It necessitates the collective acceptance of a book by
the judging panel, akin to a criminal jury's deliberations. The prize's outcome
depends not on individual enthusiasm but on "general assent,"
according to Mr. MacGregor. At times, the atmosphere surrounding literary
awards can be as tumultuous as these descriptions imply. Joanna Lumley, a
British actress, drew a parallel between the world of publishing and the
piranha-infested waters of her profession, highlighting the intense competition
and rivalry among authors and industry insiders.
Dilemmas and Difficulties
Judging books for literary prizes presents
additional challenges beyond the sheer volume of submissions. For instance, the
longlists for contemporary literary awards can be overwhelmingly extensive. To
illustrate, Booker Prize judges often find themselves faced with the daunting
task of evaluating approximately 170 books over the span of seven months.
Similarly, Nobel Prize judges must sift through the output of as many as 200
different authors in a mere two months. However, it's important to acknowledge
that not all judges manage to read every submission in its entirety. Michael
Wood, a historian who has chaired the Baillie Gifford Prize for Non-Fiction,
candidly expresses his doubts about the feasibility of such a feat, suggesting
that most judges simply cannot accomplish it.
The process becomes even more intricate when
considering the varying approaches each judge employs. Some opt to delve into
30 to 40 pages of each book, while others resort to scanning the works to
determine their potential as contenders. More often than not, judges are
compelled to deliver a resounding "no" when assessing submissions. In
extreme cases, judges like Malcolm Muggeridge have even withdrawn from their
roles, citing feelings of nausea and dismay provoked by the entries. Neil
MacGregor, on several occasions, found himself questioning the merit of certain
works, wondering how anyone could have deemed them worthy of publication. These
inherent challenges reveal the complexity and subjectivity of the judging process
in the world of literary awards.
The Nobel Prize encounters distinct
challenges in comparison to many other literary honors. One notable aspect is
its consideration of works in translation, a process notorious for diminishing
the essence of poetry, as the common adage suggests. Prose doesn't fare
exceptionally well either in this translation endeavor; even phrases like
"Je ne sais quoi" lose their certain charm when rendered in English.
Some literary works remain deeply intertwined with their native language,
making them virtually untranslatable and consequently ineligible for
recognition. Additionally, the Nobel Prize, despite its global representation,
has historically exhibited a Eurocentric bias. Out of the 120 laureates up to
this point, roughly 100 have originated from Europe or America—a notable bias
that the Academy is keenly conscious of, though it may be uncomfortable
acknowledging.
From its inception, the Nobel Prize faced
numerous challenges, which were evident to the Swedish Academy. When Nobel's
donation was initially offered, the Academy harbored reservations about
accepting it, as revealed by Mr. Olsson. In light of occasional criticism, the
Academy might sometimes wish it had declined the donation. Unsurprisingly, like
all Nobel prizes, the literary award has not been immune to controversies, with
some of the most vehement disputes revolving around it. However, it's important
to note that not everyone harbors grievances regarding these literary prizes.
As Mr. Barnes has pondered, writers may view them as akin to a lottery—until,
of course, they become recipients themselves. At that point, they often come to
appreciate the wisdom of the esteemed judges who preside over these literary
accolades.
Notes
Keyton, D., Corder, M.,
& Lawless, J. (2023, October 5). The Nobel Literature Prize Goes to
Norway’s Jon Fosse, Who Once Wrote a Novel in a Single Sentence. Retrieved
from Associated Press News:
https://apnews.com/article/nobel-prize-literature-ee1bd9e65cbce0d32026712f94a2ef3a
The Economist. (2023,
October 5). Anyone Speak Nynorsk? The Nobel Prize in Literature is
Prestigious, Lucrative and Bonkers. Retrieved from
https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/10/05/the-nobel-prize-in-literature-is-prestigious-lucrative-and-bonkers
The Nobel Price. (2023). Facts
on the Nobel Prize in Literature. Retrieved from
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/facts-on-the-nobel-prize-in-literature/
Upright, E., & Edwards ,
C. (2023, October 5). Nobel Prize in Literature Goes to Jon Fosse for
‘Innovative’ Works That ‘Give Voice to the Unsayable’. Retrieved from CNN
Style: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/nobel-prize-literature-jon-fosse-intl/index.html
No comments:
Post a Comment