The Nobel Prize: A Whimsical Circus of Literature
The chances of those whose works are translated into Swedish are greater
How does the Nobel Committee work? By what principle are laureates chosen?
Ah, the Nobel Prize! It’s like the Oscars for books, but without the glitz, glamor, and genuine smiles. You can try to decode how the Nobel Committee works, but let me tell you, it’s about as easy as trying to find a vegan option at a Texas barbecue. Just look at Salman Rushdie—his turbulent life suggests he might as well have a Nobel Prize pinned to his chest. And yet, here we are, examining this curious beast that is both revered and scorned, a bit like your eccentric uncle who keeps asking if you’ve “settled down” yet at the age of 40.
It’s easier to explain this siloed award retrospectively. Why? Because uncertainty breeds a cozy atmosphere akin to a damp basement—perfect for a lively debate about the less-than-transparent workings of a group that sounds like it consists of a bunch of old men who may—or may not—know that “Googling” is a thing. They sit there sipping their lingonberry juice, likely waiting for works in Swedish first. So naturally, if you want that shiny gold medal, getting translated into Swedish is your best bet!
Now, let’s talk about the bold new wave of young writers. This year’s laureate is a sprightly 54! Go ahead and clap; it’s a huge deal! If she were a cheese, she’d be a fine Roquefort, past its prime but still enchanting the senses. But wait—before you start singing praises of youth, remember that being younger in this literary game doesn’t quite mean they’ve got the chops. The committee often seems set on awarding the grandpas of the written word, whose work has aged longer than a fine wine. It’s like they’re casting their nets into a sea of literature but only hauling up the most crinkly, moth-eaten tomes.
Evgeniy Stasinevich Weighs In: An Indispensable Perspective!
Evgeniy Stasinevich pulls no punches with his critique of the Nobel’s processes. The scandal surrounding data leaks certainly made the committee resemble a group of gossiping schoolchildren at playtime. He argues that they are less “loose and free” and more “clinging desperately to the past.” Among those shadows of tradition, you’ll find our dear friend Eurocentrism lurking like an unwanted Alex Reed. With Scandinavia once hogging the limelight, things are slightly changing—a bit like a slow-moving glacier. Perhaps soon, we’ll have nominees from every corner of the globe, even from that bizarre island where everyone talks with a lisp!
Enter Han Kang, the writer that’s reportedly getting some ‘buzz’—you know, like that annoying background noise in your life. Ah, her literary fame may seem lovely on the surface, but Stasinevich believes she hasn’t yet paid her dues for that hefty Nobel Prize crown. He casually flips through the pages of her works—confidence high, reading low. I mean, we’re talking about a hypothetical Nobel fortune-teller who’s read about as much as the average book club member before the wine runs out!
Can the Nobel Prize Reflect Quality?
Can we consider this prize as a sort of quality stamp? Why, yes, indeed! It’s glamorously shiny—until you realize that sometimes it just directs you to the nearest literary fast food joint. Sure, Han Kang’s award for “intensely poetic prose” makes her sound like a literary superhero, but let’s not pretend we’re feeling the drama hanging in the air. Sure, she discusses trauma and human fragility—something we all endure when watching a Netflix series that probably should’ve ended two seasons ago.
In the end, the Nobel Prize lights a strategic path through the chaotic wilderness of literature, but it’s also a tempered road paved with the occasional disappointment. So pick up your copy of Kang, and wrestle with your biases reasoned by that shiny award—because, at the end of the day, whether it’s a fluke or a genuine sign of greatness, it’s the conversation that matters! Just remember, no book is worthy of your time if it doesn’t make you laugh, cry, or at the very least, roll your eyes. Cheers!
The chances of those whose works are translated into Swedish are greater
How does the Nobel Committee work? By what principle are laureates chosen?
You can try to explain this in retrospect. It’s easier that way. I didn’t believe in Rushdie, despite the fact that he was in the top three among the bookmakers along with a Chinese writer and an Australian. Even with the assassination attempt on Rushdie and this whole dramatic situation, they are rounding off rather than rushing. Even at the end of the first half of the 20th century, on the eve of the Second World War, it was already clear that the Nobel Prize is key. That is, they earned this symbolic capital and became the number one prize. Culture is organized in a hierarchical way, and you always want to have a main writer, a novelist, a poet and a world-class prize. Nobel fulfilled this task and achieved it. Who knows how everything is arranged there. Someday it will be a big sensational book if someone decides to write about it from the inside. Because to write about it from the outside is to go nowhere. There is a very small circle of people who sit and do not change for years. Obviously, these are people of even older age, who may not know English well and know Swedish. Therefore, those whose works are translated into Swedish have a better chance. And they are not in a hurry to translate it in Swedish. They have a certain official cycle of this award. First, a long list of all applicants is formed, then a short list is determined from which the winner is chosen in the fall. This is all that can be said about the mechanism more or less objectively. That is, it is a very closed structure. And the Nobel Prize scandals were also caused by the fact that information was leaked. One of the members of the jury committee had a man leaking information to bookmakers. This is a terrible horror for the functionaries of this award. An important part of this capital is that this prize is closed and there is a moment of mystery. They tried to restart, but nothing fundamentally changed after these scandals.
Those who say that Nobel is now looser and freer are wishful thinking. In the case of this year’s laureate, it really catches the eye that she is young. She is only 54 years old. Even Olga Tokarchuk, being at an atypical age for the Nobel Committee, received the prize at the age of 56, while the Koreans were 54. At the time of the award, there were only five younger laureates. But it is impossible to say that the Nobel Prize is now different and that it notices young people. After all, the Nobel Prize is already working with improvements. Out of a hundred or so laureates, only in 10 cases was it indicated what exactly they were awarded for, i.e. for which specific book. Hemingway “The Old Man and the Sea”, Sholokhov “Silent Don”, Thomas Mann “Buddenbrokes”, and in general they give for everything. And to make it all, it must be written. And it takes years to write everything. Therefore, there is a motivation for age. Since the final product is being evaluated, of course the committee has a conservative component.
Evgeniy Stasinevich. Photo: Facebook
“I don’t think Han Kang has earned the Nobel Prize yet”
The Nobel committee has often been accused of being biased due to the gender component, as men are awarded more often. In addition, accusations were made in view of the Eurocentricity of the committee. So does it not suggest that Han Kang is an excellent candidate and writer who could refute these theses and possibly support the reputation of the Nobel Prize?
Since the award is the most visible, many different criticisms and scandals stick to it. The data leak case is a real scandal that shook the committee and changed its composition for the first time in many years. But already in the 21st century, since the 2010s, it is clear that they are trying to go beyond the gender issue. And now it is more likely that two women will follow in a row than two men. This is the so-called gender quota that has already been achieved. Although no one has ever articulated it. They don’t talk about much at all, except the name of the laureate and what they gave the award for. As for Eurocentrism, in the first half of the 20th century it was more Scandinavian-centric. When they got over the Scandinavian centricity, they were able to scale to the number one premium. If you look at the 10th, 20th, and 30th years, there are a lot of names about which we know nothing. These are either Norwegians or Danes, who have never been translated here. Yes, it was a prize of the Western world, but somewhere from the 80s they tried to be actively multicultural, starting with Marquez, who was already impossible not to notice. That is, they began to open their eyes to the world. And it continues in the 21st century. Although 12 years ago, the winner was a Chinese. That is, this region gets much less.
As for Kang, she’s perfect in the sense that she won’t cause a scandal, that there won’t be much outrage after the name. That is, they again found a figure with which it is good to hide. They have such a skill that when they are expected to fail, they find a figure that suits them in the end. I read two and a half books: “Vegetarian Woman”, “Human Actions” and flipped through the “White Book”. But I understand that the committee did not read more than I did, because there are only 5 translated novels in English, and 4 in Norwegian in general. That is, they are limited in their reading. I wonder if they got to her poetry and essays. If you look at the previous history of the awards, Han Kang, in my opinion, has not yet worked for the Nobel Prize. Even if compared with Olga Tokarchuk, who is also a person of the new generation. (Polish writer Olga Tokarchuk won the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature – ed.) There is no impression with Olga that she hasn’t worked hard for the prize. The same with Annie Erno from her autofiction. There is some cultural weight there. In Han Kang’s case, I don’t see any incredible disparity. And for me it is a mystery. Did they begin to notice that a completely different generation has grown up, which works differently with culture and publishes different literature. And this is more then an objective thing. They notice the dynamics of culture, which in some of its manifestations is easier than the previous one. Or they decided to single out this figure to show that they are not retrogrades and dinosaurs and are not afraid of super popular oriental novelists.
Kang writes that there is a lot of evil in the world and it is a great pity
Can the Nobel Prize be considered a certain sign of the book’s quality?
Yes, at least you can definitely pay attention to such a book. This magic works for me, but it doesn’t work for me for long. When there is such a flood and cultural overproduction, of course you want someone to wink at you and show you where to pay attention. The Nobel Prize is far from the worst signpost. Han Kang won the trauma and fragility award (“For intensely poetic prose that confronts historical trauma and exposes the fragility of human life”). And she does write a lot about trauma, although not always historical, and she writes a lot about human fragility and evil. She writes about the fact that there is a lot of evil in the world and it is a great pity. And this produces a certain acute elegiac nature of her texts, which is what makes her stand out. But when she starts writing it, I can’t say that it works for me in any special way. But I know people who were genuinely happy yesterday because they love Kang.
