|
On October 14 2016 14:52 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 04:24 CosmicSpiral wrote:On October 14 2016 03:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On October 14 2016 03:52 CosmicSpiral wrote:In that case, I am perhaps forced to admit that the committee is not, as I always maintained, acting with complete conviction in its principles, but has rather become too concerned with its own relevance and popularity. Did years of criticism of decisions to award the prize to “nobodies” finally get to the committee? Are they so insecure in their own worth and reputation (when they really shouldn’t be, as discussed earlier), that they feel the need to kowtow to the “wider public?” I'm not sure how you can quote this and then post the most insecure, juvenile comparison between literature and the other 'arts' without a hint of irony. Besides that, you can argue literature has been kowtowing to the wider public for decades now. How else would you explain the critical and commercial success of Jonathan Franzen? The Nobel has never awarded any highly esoteric, experimental, "high literature" types. The bulk of the Nobel recipients can be described as having "middlebrow" leanings. Perhaps the best illustration of what the Nobel means, and how successful it is in attracting the attention of the "other arts," is Bob Dylan's response: "No comment." You missed my point. If one claims the Nobel committee suffers from insecurity and desperation to remain relevant in contemporary culture, then seriously quotes an individual who frames literature vs the other arts as high school politics with a straight face, which party is truly insecure? Or is the literary community so resentful and self-loathing that this quote is what an outsider should expect as the norm? I brought up Franzen as an author who critics adore and is cited as tackling big ideas yet being accessible through his prose. You can argue he lacks precision and imagination compared to his primary influences, uses hoary cliches as a crutch, and stuffs his book full of the mention of themes while only momentarily addressing them; his style is great at making you think you are reading something profound and insightful without being profound and insightful. Some people have made a similar case for later McCarthy works, where his terse, pseudo-archaic prose style makes ridiculous, asinine "insights" seems like God's gift to the reader. Nevertheless they are celebrated as great writers of our era without the Academy's consent. The Academy, like any institution, will seek to preserve its own relevance first and foremost. It may be supremely disappointing to those who thought it would continue to uphold its ideals until the end of time, but the Academy is conscious that they have very limited influence outside of a niche interest. As you mentioned in the OP "the Swedish Academy has a duty to help guide, define, and cement literature’s position within society", but do they possess such power beyond the most staunch bibliophiles? Or were they relying on the supposed prestige of the award to attract those who lack the ability to make independent judgments on what constitutes quality i.e. the very people who would be incapable of appreciating literature's importance? Your style of writing is so pretentious. You should tone it down a little.
damn bro such heat
|
I don't read enough contemporary literature to know if someone got robbed here but there is a precedent: Consider Churchill in 1953. What a joke.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
|
On October 14 2016 17:43 itsjustatank wrote:
neil young was robbed
While I am not a fan of Bob Dylan nor am I familiar with his opus magnum enough to be the judge, I still feel as if it was Leonard Cohen who won the Nobel it wouldn't be controversial in the slightest as this.
|
On October 14 2016 15:19 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 14:52 NukeD wrote:On October 14 2016 04:24 CosmicSpiral wrote:On October 14 2016 03:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On October 14 2016 03:52 CosmicSpiral wrote:In that case, I am perhaps forced to admit that the committee is not, as I always maintained, acting with complete conviction in its principles, but has rather become too concerned with its own relevance and popularity. Did years of criticism of decisions to award the prize to “nobodies” finally get to the committee? Are they so insecure in their own worth and reputation (when they really shouldn’t be, as discussed earlier), that they feel the need to kowtow to the “wider public?” I'm not sure how you can quote this and then post the most insecure, juvenile comparison between literature and the other 'arts' without a hint of irony. Besides that, you can argue literature has been kowtowing to the wider public for decades now. How else would you explain the critical and commercial success of Jonathan Franzen? The Nobel has never awarded any highly esoteric, experimental, "high literature" types. The bulk of the Nobel recipients can be described as having "middlebrow" leanings. Perhaps the best illustration of what the Nobel means, and how successful it is in attracting the attention of the "other arts," is Bob Dylan's response: "No comment." You missed my point. If one claims the Nobel committee suffers from insecurity and desperation to remain relevant in contemporary culture, then seriously quotes an individual who frames literature vs the other arts as high school politics with a straight face, which party is truly insecure? Or is the literary community so resentful and self-loathing that this quote is what an outsider should expect as the norm? I brought up Franzen as an author who critics adore and is cited as tackling big ideas yet being accessible through his prose. You can argue he lacks precision and imagination compared to his primary influences, uses hoary cliches as a crutch, and stuffs his book full of the mention of themes while only momentarily addressing them; his style is great at making you think you are reading something profound and insightful without being profound and insightful. Some people have made a similar case for later McCarthy works, where his terse, pseudo-archaic prose style makes ridiculous, asinine "insights" seems like God's gift to the reader. Nevertheless they are celebrated as great writers of our era without the Academy's consent. The Academy, like any institution, will seek to preserve its own relevance first and foremost. It may be supremely disappointing to those who thought it would continue to uphold its ideals until the end of time, but the Academy is conscious that they have very limited influence outside of a niche interest. As you mentioned in the OP "the Swedish Academy has a duty to help guide, define, and cement literature’s position within society", but do they possess such power beyond the most staunch bibliophiles? Or were they relying on the supposed prestige of the award to attract those who lack the ability to make independent judgments on what constitutes quality i.e. the very people who would be incapable of appreciating literature's importance? Your style of writing is so pretentious. You should tone it down a little. damn bro such heat
I'm just helping him out.
|
On October 14 2016 20:01 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 15:19 IgnE wrote:On October 14 2016 14:52 NukeD wrote:On October 14 2016 04:24 CosmicSpiral wrote:On October 14 2016 03:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On October 14 2016 03:52 CosmicSpiral wrote:In that case, I am perhaps forced to admit that the committee is not, as I always maintained, acting with complete conviction in its principles, but has rather become too concerned with its own relevance and popularity. Did years of criticism of decisions to award the prize to “nobodies” finally get to the committee? Are they so insecure in their own worth and reputation (when they really shouldn’t be, as discussed earlier), that they feel the need to kowtow to the “wider public?” I'm not sure how you can quote this and then post the most insecure, juvenile comparison between literature and the other 'arts' without a hint of irony. Besides that, you can argue literature has been kowtowing to the wider public for decades now. How else would you explain the critical and commercial success of Jonathan Franzen? The Nobel has never awarded any highly esoteric, experimental, "high literature" types. The bulk of the Nobel recipients can be described as having "middlebrow" leanings. Perhaps the best illustration of what the Nobel means, and how successful it is in attracting the attention of the "other arts," is Bob Dylan's response: "No comment." You missed my point. If one claims the Nobel committee suffers from insecurity and desperation to remain relevant in contemporary culture, then seriously quotes an individual who frames literature vs the other arts as high school politics with a straight face, which party is truly insecure? Or is the literary community so resentful and self-loathing that this quote is what an outsider should expect as the norm? I brought up Franzen as an author who critics adore and is cited as tackling big ideas yet being accessible through his prose. You can argue he lacks precision and imagination compared to his primary influences, uses hoary cliches as a crutch, and stuffs his book full of the mention of themes while only momentarily addressing them; his style is great at making you think you are reading something profound and insightful without being profound and insightful. Some people have made a similar case for later McCarthy works, where his terse, pseudo-archaic prose style makes ridiculous, asinine "insights" seems like God's gift to the reader. Nevertheless they are celebrated as great writers of our era without the Academy's consent. The Academy, like any institution, will seek to preserve its own relevance first and foremost. It may be supremely disappointing to those who thought it would continue to uphold its ideals until the end of time, but the Academy is conscious that they have very limited influence outside of a niche interest. As you mentioned in the OP "the Swedish Academy has a duty to help guide, define, and cement literature’s position within society", but do they possess such power beyond the most staunch bibliophiles? Or were they relying on the supposed prestige of the award to attract those who lack the ability to make independent judgments on what constitutes quality i.e. the very people who would be incapable of appreciating literature's importance? Your style of writing is so pretentious. You should tone it down a little. damn bro such heat I'm just helping myself out.
Fixed that for you.
|
11589 Posts
This is the most cheep post to ever cheep.
|
While I am a long-time Dylan fan, I agree with your well-researched OP. He should not have received the prize. Having read (and enjoyed) his autobiography in high school, it's a book, so I consider it literature. It isn't Hemingway.
|
Italy12248 Posts
At least it wasn't nearly as bullshit as the Nobel prize in physics 
|
On October 15 2016 06:42 Teoita wrote:At least it wasn't nearly as bullshit as the Nobel prize in physics
What was wrong with the physics Nobel? Is this related to LIGO missing the deadline?
|
Baa?21248 Posts
LIGO is almost certainly getting it next year, no?
On October 15 2016 03:37 yamato77 wrote:
This is the most cheep post to ever cheep.
I've had comparable posts :<
|
On October 15 2016 09:11 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:LIGO is almost certainly getting it next year, no? Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 03:37 yamato77 wrote:
This is the most cheep post to ever cheep. I've had comparable posts :<
Yeah (though that's what everyone thought this year). At the very least it gives the scientific community 12 more months of angrily speculating about whether Barish is more deserving than one of Weiss, Thorne, Drever.
|
Dylan didn't win the Nobel in Physics.
|
Italy12248 Posts
On October 15 2016 07:58 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 06:42 Teoita wrote:At least it wasn't nearly as bullshit as the Nobel prize in physics What was wrong with the physics Nobel? Is this related to LIGO missing the deadline?
Yes. Everyone in the community knew something was up around November 2015, so the deadline thing is really stupid tbh.
|
Huh?
People getting angsty because Bob Dylan is about to kill Literature (tm)?
Some people here claim that literature needs the nobel prize, but i am wondering why they think so?
Literature did just fine without the nobel prize for thousands of years, and literature is also not an rare species close to extinction. This thread makes me belive that it's not literature that needs the nobel prize, but the self proclaimed literature nerds and pretentious college kids, because they cant bear that, for once, the average blue-collar worker knows as much about the nobel prize winner as they do.
Also, physics prize is completely fine and thomas mann sucks
|
what does thomas mann have to do with anything??
|
Baa?21248 Posts
On October 16 2016 10:09 Paljas wrote:
Huh?
People getting angsty because Bob Dylan is about to kill Literature (tm)?
He already killed literature fam.
Some people here claim that literature needs the nobel prize, but i am wondering why they think so?
Literature did just fine without the nobel prize for thousands of years, and literature is also not an rare species close to extinction.
Debatable.
This thread makes me belive that it's not literature that needs the nobel prize, but the self proclaimed literature nerds and pretentious college kids, because they cant bear that, for once, the average blue-collar worker knows as much about the nobel prize winner as they do.
That's a lot of projecting.
Also, physics prize is completely fine and thomas mann sucks
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion man.
|
Baa?21248 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
