3 ms·

I don't see how "literary circles" should be criticized for choosing works that they believe have merit in their own field. Nobody was up in arms earlier abou

by hullo 11y ago

I don't see how "literary circles" should be criticized for choosing works that they believe have merit in their own field. Nobody was up in arms earlier about the chemistry award going to people who weren't "household names" - other than the Peace prize, the odds that anyone who wins a Nobel this year will have a bigger public profile than Alexievich are slim to none.

hugh4 11y ago
> Nobody was up in arms earlier about the chemistry award going to people who weren't "household names" That's because chemistry papers can only be appreciated by a trained chemist, whereas literature is a popular art form which ought to be appreciatable by anybody. Or any educated person, if you want to dismiss the tastes of the great unwashed (it's interesting how literature is one of the few fields where it's still socially acceptable to be a snob). Now, maybe the Nobel Prize Committee is doing us a great service by uncovering the works of these great authors whose work has never been appreciated before. But in that case, you'd expect them to become popular after their prizes, and everyone would be going "boy, I sure am glad that the Nobel Prize Committee brought Derek Walcott to my attention or else I'd never have read Omeros". But nope, most of the laureates continue to languish in relative obscurity even after they win the prizes.
- hullo 11y ago
  Well, it's also a lot easier to validate their choices - you and anyone else who are fluent in English, Russian or a number of other languages can go pick up a copy of Voices from Chernobyl, say, and give it a try. (It's amazing.) You will have a harder time validating the chemists' work.
duaneb 11y ago
Because it's a popularity contest. Not much to do with the actual state of literature or the quality of the chosen person. They've basically admitted this many times. They also have an intense love of European lit.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by hullo 11y ago

hugh4 11y ago

> Nobody was up in arms earlier about the chemistry award going to people who weren't "household names" That's because chemistry papers can only be appreciated by a trained chemist, whereas literature is a popular art form which ought to be appreciatable by anybody. Or any educated person, if you want to dismiss the tastes of the great unwashed (it's interesting how literature is one of the few fields where it's still socially acceptable to be a snob). Now, maybe the Nobel Prize Committee is doing us a great service by uncovering the works of these great authors whose work has never been appreciated before. But in that case, you'd expect them to become popular after their prizes, and everyone would be going "boy, I sure am glad that the Nobel Prize Committee brought Derek Walcott to my attention or else I'd never have read Omeros". But nope, most of the laureates continue to languish in relative obscurity even after they win the prizes.

hullo 11y ago
Well, it's also a lot easier to validate their choices - you and anyone else who are fluent in English, Russian or a number of other languages can go pick up a copy of Voices from Chernobyl, say, and give it a try. (It's amazing.) You will have a harder time validating the chemists' work.

duaneb 11y ago

Because it's a popularity contest. Not much to do with the actual state of literature or the quality of the chosen person. They've basically admitted this many times. They also have an intense love of European lit.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]