This just in: Nobel committee clumsy in choice for literary prize
The Observer ran a story at the weekend about a split within the committee awarding the Nobel Prize for literature this year, suggesting the row was over Turkish author Orhan Pamuk. Pamuk faces charges over comments he made about the Armenian genocide.
But what caught my eye was the following quote:
This is interesting for two reasons. First, it’s preposterous to suggest that Pamuk has ever written the book of the season. Second, I’m not sure Ström actually suggested this in the first place. The reporter, one Alex Duval Smith, probably asked her a general question about how these decisions were made and about how the committee dealt with newcomers, and then simply juxtaposed her general comment with a sentence about Pamuk. This should never have passed editorial review — then again, maybe some of the folks in Stockholm really do consider Pamuk’s work a fad.Pamuk is widely acclaimed but, at the age of 53, is considered on the young side. ‘The Nobel Prize must never go to the book of the season. It exists to reward a life’s work,’ said poet and literary critic Eva Ström.
Technorati tag: orhan pamuk
T K Vogel | 12:42 pm |
Of all of the literary awards (that my limited self knows of), I’ve always found the Nobel Prize for Literature the most idiotic. Well, maybe not idiotic, most difficult to understand. Your piece here just gives me more fuel for the fire.
Elias Canetti in 1981?
Elfriede Jelinek in 2004?
You’ve got to be kidding.
Marquez in 1982.
Saramago in 1998.
Grass in 1999.
Great, but where’s Joseph Heller, Milan Kundera, John Updike, Kazuo Ishiguro.
Something’s rotten in the state of Sweden.
Comment by DarkoV — October 12, 2005 @ 4:27 pm