Nobel Prize

>Jean-Paul Sartre

That nigger has shown disrespect towards the community multiple times, as far as I know the story.

Like, half of them.

W. Somerset Maugham
WH Auden
Updike

Well, Obama did a fine job atoning it.

Yes, really Roth.

>Updike

For real?

Updike was part of the committee throwing an anti-American hissy fit.

I bought a car off of a Nobel Laureate
apparently being gud at economics doesn't mean you can drive stick, or avoid hitting your garage.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom

No, he didn't. The Obama administration has been droning kids, not honoring its red line, and choosing not to deal with Syria, resulting in the content of ISIS videos. Obama is literally allowing ISIS to exist.

Literally the only reason why he was given the prize was as a spoiler to Bush, and because "it's cool". The peace prize is a disgusting sham, and your defense of Obama, troll or no, is execrable. Get fucked.

Borges is the right answer

Kafka

What about healthcare and gay marriage? USA has nothing to do with the rising of ISIS. It's just a common side effect of a sand people's revolutions.

This is a fantastically idiotic post in that it gets literally everything wrong. You do not have the right to post another smug white guy pic.

-You pretend bullshit domestic administrative issues as having any relevant bearing or mollifying effect on "peace". Meanwhile, Bush stirred the pot in Iraq to begin with (so your second sentence is false), and Obama committed to not owning the thing for political reasons; this policy continues today, while ISIS operatives case European nuclear facilities. Some peace.

You will positively get fucked with your abject stupidity. The Nobel peace prize sucks, and one of the data points which proves that it sucks is that it was awarded to Obama, who promptly failed to live up to it.

I have to give it to the middle east is, was, and will be a shit hole without us dumping billions into it. Obama was given the peace prize for not adding millions to that and he didn't.

>healthcare

Obamacare is a fucking turd. It's not real universal health care, just a way to prop up the health insurance industry.

>gay marriage
That was the Supreme Court. I guess Obama had a hand in that by appointing Kagan and Sotomayor.

I'm not going to /pol/ this thread, just say you're wrong on this point. You may have your argument victory, if you will.

So you confine yourself to the "umm, nope" middle of the argumentative pyramid because you want to look good, or something. Except that's not what's actually going on; what's going on is that you are incapable of mounting a satisfactory rebuttal.

Whosoever is afraid of "sounding a certain way" in the course of pursuing an argument, in lieu of pursuing things to their logical conclusion, is condemned to lose the argument. And not because you smugly abdicated (you don't get to weasal your way out that way, either), but rather because I am in the right. Obama a shit AND Bush younger a shit. It is disturbing that the obviousness of the latter compound statement is not more readily acknowledged.

He also raped children with his ugly 'wife'.

I don't mind looking good, but it's up to participants of this thread to decide who's right.

Fun fact: I'm not American.

He was a hot male, wasn't he?

Kawabata

He associates with being ugly. He always knew he was ugly and he never hid it.

yeah no fucking shit, the nobel peace prize is awarded to people almost at random, and the surest way to get it is to kill a bunch of people and then stop killing a bunch of people or at least look like you're going to stop killing a bunch of people.
But, since this is Veeky Forums, might it be that this thread is specifically about the nobel prize in literature? might that not be implicit?
if not, please, let's go into a discussion of mother teresa and the nobel comittee's 1961 failure to recognize andrew benson for his role in the discovery of the calvin cycle, you fucking noam chomsky reading piece of shit. take it somewhere else.

>Joyce, Proust, Woolf, Tolstoy
Adding to them Chekhov, Ibsen, Zola, Henry James and Mark Twain, they didn't receive the award because, at the time they were alive, the award was given based on stupid criteria.

>Borges
Didn't receive the award because of his politics. Probably also true for Mishima.

Russell and Churchill are the most egregious winners. Both won solely for political reasons. Some winners from the past few decades were obviously chosen for reasons of identity politics, but they aren't quite as bad.

I think Murakami deserves it now.

The biggest Nobel Veeky Forums snubs have got to be Tolstoy, Joyce, Graham Greene, and Maugham though.

This is a great list. Oh, and Dario Fo shouldn't have won it.

I'd say Flannery O'Connor and Natsume Soseki also deserved the Nobel.

>people genuinely care about the nobel prize

lemao, a committee of philistines it is, nothing more

your post made my stomach ache
harry martinsson and eyvind johnson are great and they're not norwegian. jesus man

*sips ledora*

don't mind me, just posting best permanent secretary over here

The economics prize is a not a real nobel prize.

Isis is the result of Al Jazeera championing all anti-American news.

Why aren't people talking about the prize for Literature.

Is Veeky Forums truly an aspie-haven?

yes

Veeky Forums always go full retard when it comes to the nobel prize. my theory is cause it's the most visible/high profile literary prize, and most "mainstream," so edgy contrarian faggots feel the need to denigrate it at every turn

Assumptions on top of snark on top of strawmen on top of...

The "in general" of the OP's prompt does much to undercut the reasonable assumption that you would have us make. It's such an important modifier, that it puts the lie to your "omg of course the entire thing is supposed to be about lit" snark: /the letter of OP's prompt admits of more general discussion of the prize/. People on a board with a specific topic will and do mention items outside the board's topic, in the course of a discussion on a single thread, best of all when that "other" item is germane to the thread's topic. The peace-wing of the prize is germane to this thread's discussion, per the OP.

Second, you put some imagined crypto-leftism on me in a vain effort to dismiss me; whereas if you actually followed politics, then you would know that American leftists typically are less critical of Palestine and of Obama. Thus it would ordinarly be out of character for such a leftist to criticize either, but you just heard "Kissinger" (also a sham prize) and had to whip your thing together without thinking thoughts. The irony is that your first sentence is generally correct.

Third, you used an emote which is commonly used by homosexuals. You might as well adopt a trip by this point (no, don't do that).

Fourth, your specific butthurt indicates a good probability that you yourself are the OP, in which case /you have no one but yourself to blame/ for the general wording of your own OP. If true, then clearly /you/ do not deserve the Nobel Prize in literature. But the prize in general is cheapened by the above awards, which was my original point. Nothing will be taken any place else; if the former is true, then you (or the OP) opened the door. This is now, as it always was, a thread for general discussion of the Nobel Prize - with an emphasis on literature for obvious reasons, but, y'know, what the OP said. Finally that other stuff you mentioned is a welcome next step, since the course of its discussion can lead to other books.

Very few of Soseki's works were widely translated before he died. There's no way they would have read him.

I would simply add to this that my limited personal experience of Nobel-(lit)-laureate literature has been generally boring. I remember reading Lagerkvist's The Dwarf in HS and being unimpressed; likewise The Stranger, for which I make no apology. Then there's Hemingway of course. I sorta-liked The Good Earth, but it didn't really stay with me.

>Toni Morrison has a Nobel Prize and Joyce does not

my favourite is when someone i don't know at all wins it, and i check them out, and it turns out they're really good
thanks nobel

>>Toni Morrison has a Nobel Prize and Joyce does not
Good, Morrison >>>> shit >>>> Joyce.

>Who deserved it, but wasn't awarded for idiotic reasons?
If we're being serious for a moment now: Tolkien, of course. No other writer had as huge an impact on literature and artistic norms.
(And of course I'm not talking about "the fantasy genre" or any other somesuch pleb shibboleth; I'm talking about how he single-handedly made romanticism into Very Serious Spiritual Business.)

poor b8, heres a (you)

I'd reply to you if only you had managed to not speak in canned pleb shibboleths.

>I'd reply to you if only
>replies anyway

wew

also
>begging the question

also
>using terms you don't understand

Four letters, starts with a 'p'.

Flannery is one of my favorite authors, but there's no way she ever could have won the Nobel. She died before Everything that Rises Must Converge came out, so she would have had just two novels and one short story collection to her name during her life. And while Wise Blood was translated into French, she wasn't that widely known internationally. She still isn't, really.

What were Borges' politics?

Witold Gombrowicz

Adding William Gaddis, William Gass, Joseph McElroy, John Hawkes, John Barth, William T. Vollmann, Alexander Theroux, Robert Coover, and Raymond Federman.

Please the nobel prize is a joke. Alfred Nobel was a war monger and arms dealer trying to restore his reputation.

The literature category is a joke within a joke, awarded by a committee of sanctimonious and pseudo-high-minded charlatans for the embodiment of ideals entirely unrelated to literature.

Fie on them; fie on them all!

this guy gets shit

t. didnt graduate community college

how much do you know about these people?

>On the Gradual Construction of Thoughts during Speech

Enough to speak broadly upon them without reproach.

tell me user, how does it feel living life as a pseud? seems painful.

hey man, he's one of our very own Veeky Forums posters. he's earned the right to think higher of himself than a collection of authors where the youngest member is probably three times as old as him.

How much do you know about them? Is that deep knowledge where your reverence for their opinions comes?

Or do you just blindly respect any body of media-sanctioned arbiters of morality and taste as long as the history of their assembly surpasses a few a decades and some minimum of their honorees are vaguely known to you?

>trying this hard to justify your own ignorance

i've read works by several of the members of the academy. have you?

i don't even care about who gets the prize these days, i just think it's silly when you people go around and talk shit about everything like you're on top of it all when you're no one.

>I'm talking about how he single-handedly made romanticism into Very Serious Spiritual Business
Wagner did that well before Tolkien .

lel people who think lit is a legitimate nobel prize.

>Wagner did that well before Tolkien .
No, he didn't. Wagner wasn't even a religious dude.

no, silly, I'm not op. that's now how that "in general" should be read. There is not one nobel prize "in general." different nobel prizes are given out by different committees; they are different prizes. "it," in op's post, should be taken to refer to the nobel prize in literature, since this is Veeky Forums.
if he had said "who should have one *a* nobel prize, in general" you might justifiably infer that he meant to talk about politics and chemistry on a literature board.

noam chomsky is extremely critical of obama and of the nobel peace price. as I noted, you're right on all points; the nobel peace prize is bullshit, and I had kissinger in mind as one of those people who killed people then stopped and got a prize for it.

the point of my post was that this is a literature board; we don't need your off-topic proselytizing on the nobel peace prize here. it is low hanging fruit; everybody knows all of the shit that you've said.

shit, I gotta stop being so fucking abrasive

Only read Transatlantic. Really liked him. I would maybe add Calvino to this list, if someone already didn't mention him.

it is, because the prize money for the nobel prize in literature comes from the will of Nobel. The prize money for the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is paid by the swedish national bank, and has nothing to do with nobel apart from the name

Free market capitalism. Supported Pinochet

Might be great, but they're too obscure

these obscure scandinavian literature academics are totally not no one lamo

Svetlana Alexievich won the Nobel mainly for Voices from Chernobyl which hasn't been read by most people. The Violent Bear it Away and Wise Blood are among the best works of 20th century fiction, and O'Connor's Collected Stories can really be topped by only a select few.

What I'm saying is, she deserves the Prize even with her body of work but I agree that she probably won't have won it because only very few have read her.

Roth is shit. All his stories talk about a Jew lost in the NJ.