ITT: Authors robbed of a Nobel
>be mishima>too controversial to be given a Nobel prize>they give it to your friend instead>after you die, haunt him for 300 nights until he kills himself
>>25615271Now this would actually make a good chart.THE OFFICIAL /LIT/ TOP ONE HUNDRED WRITERS WHO SHOULD HAVE GOT THE NOBEL AND DIDN'T.This would work because /lit/ is contrarian and tends to focus on the fringe and exotic at the expense of the mainstream but this is a topic where that tendency is actually a bonus.Also it's a relatively small-scale problem with clear parameters.A few suggestions to get things going:— Leo Tolstoy (nominated 16 (!) times, apparently, haha. I vaguely recall hearing that he did say he would not accept it even if given it, but let's set that aside anyway)— Thomas Hardy (people think of him as being pre-Nobel, but he died in 1928. I guess his best work was 19th century; I assume that's why he didn't win)— James Joyce (OK, he didn't write that many books, but the Nobel is often linked primarily to just one work, so that shouldn't matter)— Wallace Stevens (the Nobel Committee has a very bad record with post-WWII English-language poets, in my opinion. Seamus Heaney got it, but about half a dozen others didn't who should have)— Cormac McCarthy (apparently they keep the shortlists and nominations secret for 50 years, so we can't say how often he was nominated)Lots of big names were never even nominated e.g. D. H. Lawrence.I think it's gonna be very easy to get 100 names. Probably easy to get 200 names. The problem is then putting them in order (and picking just the top 100).>>25615278Authors kill themselves more often than random non-authors.Japanese kill themselves more often than random non-Japanese.Therefore, one would think, Japanese authors . . . . . . and indeed it seems to be so. MUCH more often.
>>25615485Thank you, GPT/Claude/CoPilot
robert graves called it the kiss of deathhttps://youtu.be/yKJ7umjS8BU
>>25615499Okay, but what about the $1.15M
>>25615507he also said ‘there’s no money in poetry, why should there be? there’s no poetry in money’
>>25615499Interesting. Easy to say "sour grapes". Comments like this carry more weight if the person in question actually got awarded the thing and turned it down. But RG was probably sincere I think. Would he have turned it down if he HAD been awarded it? Difficult to say because a lot of money comes with it and he did have a lot of children to support, haha.His comment is probably largely true (after you get awarded it you never do anything good) but perhaps not for the reason he implies.It's generally going to take at least 10 years to appreciate a great writer. And most writers are not going to have a top-level creative period much longer than 10 years. So, by the time the Nobel munchkins get around to noticing you, your best years are behind you.e.g.Kipling got it in 1907, at age 41, the youngest to date, and the bulk of his major stuff was done by that point.Of course Graves himself had a longer creative lifespan than most (especially for a poet). Old good novelists are more common than old good poets.
>>25615519think he was nominated a few times. & he did turn down a knighthood. said it’d be ridiculous for a poet to accept that position. quite true about old poets. >he did have a lot of childrenonly seven.
infinite breast
>>25615533Not sure he would make the top 100 people who shoulda got it and didn't, but he definitely deserved it more than some of the people who did.
curiously, by looking at the picture, i would have thought the title of the thread to be like:Authors robbing Nobels.
>>25615271Why would the writing a mere single diary (albeit, a very sublime read) put her in the consideration list of the Nobel committee?
>>25615619Hemingway got it for a ''mere single work'', though.
>>25615271PynchonKundera
>>25615533I cleansed my room of mold and the spores flew into my pilpuls and it made me allergic to breasts. Loterally petrified by them. What do?
>>25615630>What do?The only cure, begin at ONCE without wasting time.https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3160/3160-h/3160-h.htm
>>25615271pynchud
>>25615622Hamsun too got it just from Growth of the Soil, although personally i prefer his older works
Diary entry, March 22, 1944.>“…Until I was eleven or twelve, I didn’t realize there was a second set of labia on the inside, since you couldn’t see them. What’s even funnier is that I thought urine came out of the clitoris…When you’re standing up, all you see from the front is hair. Between your legs there are two soft, cushiony things, also covered with hair, which press together when you’re standing, so you can’t see what’s inside. They separate when you sit down and they’re very red and quite fleshy on the inside. In the upper part, between the outer labia, there’s a fold of skin that, on second thought, looks like a kind of blister. That’s the clitoris…”
>>25615271Well, I began the diary as a sort of a fun or a meme read. Towards the end, I had a certain crushing sense of melancholy towards her. To extinguish her and millions of others' lives? What for? Why? The Poles, The Jews, The Russians. Disgusting murderous Nazi scum.She is vain, funny, irritable, curious, self-conscious, occasionally petty. She has a future in front of her, a full life to live. All robbed. She was supposed to have ordinary, unremarkable years ahead of her: further arguments, friendships, disappointments, romances, discoveries, perhaps a career as a writer. the deepest cruelty I felt upon reading it was that I became acquainted with a person whose future I could imagine, while knowing that her gentle life had already taken it away.
>>25615271
>use a pseudonym to write my guide on manufacturing pipe bombs>will never receive a Nobel because of that
>>25617707Hope your mother too perishes in the pipe bombs you'll facilitate in detonating.
>>25615278you've never read tanizaki or oe if you think watered-down power rangers deserves any awards
>>25617561The "extermination" didn't even exist, the jews are just playing mind tricks on history and on you
>>25615533okay, you're forcing it too hard now. maybe this had a chance at being a meme but you're ruining it.
>>25617050He deserves a nobel prize for peace, but we're talking about literature prize here
>>25615271Joyce and Tolstoy
I just looked up Tolkien. I assumed he was never even nominated. Not so.Apparently C. S. Lewis nominated him in 1961 but a guy on the committee rejected him, saying his prose ‘has not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality’. The 1961 prize went to a Yugoslav writer called Ivo Andrić. Tolkien was nominated but rejected again in 1967.Should he have won? The guy was correct; his writing isn't all that good. But there's more to books than just the writing. The specific words of the award say it goes to the person who "in the field of literature, produced the most outstanding work in an idealistic direction". You could make a good case for Lord Of The Rings on that basis, I think.Anyway, the more important question: WHO IS IVO ANDRIĆ AND HAS ANYONE, ANYONE AT ALL, EVER READ OR INDEED HEARD OF ANYTHING HE WROTE?
>>25615271If she were to be eligible for the Nobel or deserve it, then so would half of the anons of /lit/.Amidst all of the crap posted here on a daily basis (my posts included), a good many write extremely upto the Academy level mark.
>>25619750Awards to Andrić & Pasternak were political in nature and consideration. I think the State Dept. pulled some strings.
>>25615271The Nobel prize isn’t real it’s just a trap
A few possible candidates for the officlal /lit/ 100 Nobel Snubs Chart. (Nomination details in brackets. They wait 50 years before revealing them, so we’re currently on 1975. A writer who died after then might have had a nomination we don’t yet know about.)PEOPLE WHO DID NOT WIN BECAUSE THE NOBEL COMMITTEE COULD NOT DECIDE IF THEY WERE POETS OR NOVELISTS:— Robert Graves (1950, 1960, 1961, and 1973; reached the final shortlist in 1962 but lost to Steinbeck)PEOPLE WHO DID NOT WIN BECAUSE THE NOBEL PRIZE COMMITTEE ARE A BUNCH OF SNOBS WHO SNEER AT “GENRE FICTION”:— Arthur Conan Doyle (—)— J. R. R. Tolkien (1961, by C. S. Lewis; lost out to Ivo ‘literally who?’ Andrić from Yugoslavia)— Patrick O’Brian (—)PEOPLE WHO DID NOT WIN BECAUSE THE NOBEL COMMITTEE GOT PISSED OFF WITH PEOPLE GOING ON ABOUT THEM SO JUST DECIDED TO IGNORE THEM:— Robert Frost (x31, hahaha)— Vladimir Nabokov (x27)PEOPLE WHO DID NOT WIN BECAUSE THE NOBEL COMMITTEE DOESN’T LIKE SHORT STORIES:— Flannery O’Connor (—)— Isak Dinesen (many times; was a hot contender in 1959; Hemingway said she should have got it instead of him)— Eudora Welty (?)— Raymond Carver (?, but probably never)PEOPLE WHO DID NOT WIN BECAUSE THE NOBEL COMMITTEE DOESN’T LIKE SEX:— D. H. Lawrence (—)— James Joyce (—)PEOPLE WHO DID NOT WIN BECAUSE THE NOBEL COMMITTEE DOESN’T LIKE SEMI-LITERATE DRUNKEN BUMS:— Charles Bukowski (—)PEOPLE WHO DID NOT WIN BECAUSE THE NOBEL COMMITTEE THINKS NOVELS SHOULD HAVE HAPPY ENDINGS:— Joseph Conrad (at least once in the 1920s)— Cormac McCarthy (?)PEOPLE WHO DID NOT WIN BECAUSE THE NOBEL COMMITTEE DISAPPROVES OF LOOKSMAXXERS WHO SKIP LEG DAY:— Yukio Mishima (1963, 1964, 1965, 1967, 1968)PEOPLE WHO DID NOT WIN BECAUSE THE NOBEL COMMITTEE COULD NOT PRONOUNCE THEIR NAMES AND WANTED TO AVOID EMBARRASSMENT AT THE CEREMONY:— Zbigniew Herbert (multiple times in 1960s)PEOPLE WHO DID NOT WIN BECAUSE THE NOBEL COMMITTEE WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE A GREAT POET IF HE CRAWLED UP THE INSIDE OF THEIR TROUSER-LEG AND BIT THEM ON THE BOLLOCKS:— Wallace Stevens (at least once)— Dylan Thomas (—)— Philip Larkin (1972)— Ted Hughes (?)— John Ashbery (?)PEOPLE WHO DID NOT WIN BECAUSE THE NOBEL COMMITTEE CLEARLY CAN’T READ ENGLISH AND (UNDERSTANDABLY) FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE ONE OF THE BEST PROSE STYLISTS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY AFTER HE HAD BEEN CHOPPED UP AND RECONSTITUTED IN WHATEVER PITIFUL TROGLODYTE RUNES THEY USE TO COMMUNICATE:— P. G. Wodehouse (—)
>>25619750>a guy on the committee rejected him, saying his prose ‘has not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality’This is correct, though. Tolkien is a good writer only by genre fiction standards. Oh and quick reminder that genre fiction is not real literature and thus does not deserve the highest literary award.>>25620002>THE NOBEL PRIZE COMMITTEE ARE A BUNCH OF SNOBS WHO SNEER AT “GENRE FICTION”:The committee behind the highest literary award are snobs? Yeah that's fucking right, they ought to be.
>>25615271>ITT: Authors robbed of a NobelArt of the Deal
>>25615271That nigga Marcus Aurelius if we’re counting diaries
>>25619750I've read Andrić. Pretty solid, but nothing groundbreaking. Howerer, Tolkien's prose is so mindnumbingly dull i cannot stomach it.
>>25620012>>25617050Genuine question, do you guys get paid for this or you do it pro bono?
>>25620002Usually I skip your posts automatically but I like this one
I would like to have robbed her of something else before she died (or a maximum of a few days later), if you catch my drift.
>>25620160Would you have said the same thing about her if she was your sister?
>>25620166Oh, fuck yeah. Or maybe like a cousin and the circumstances we find ourself in because of the war has me living in the attic as well and we have bathe together to save water and we sleep under the same blanket at night as we only have one.
