|
A human heart posted:I don't really know why having a narrative would make something more or less literary. You can't say Bob Dylan's songs lack narrative anyway Shibawanko posted:An oral tradition that was written down is not the same as pop and rock lyrics. Most Old English alliterative poetry was most likely told rhythmically so it was easier to remember in the absence of paper and pen. There's also usually a narrative of some kind, King Horn doesn't just go on for 5 minutes about how he's going to kick the rear end of the Saracens with a chorus and refrain. The question is why should a pop singer be ruled out of winning this prize in principle, which I don't think you can do considering the history of literature. Dylan's work is blatantly literary in nature: he makes art with words that are enhanced by music, which has happened since there has been art with words. His audience appreciates him for many things but especially his lyrics. How is that not literary appreciation? You're obviously free to have reservations about how good he actually is, but the committee haven't made a category error here.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
I personally identify hugely with the works of Weird Al and have a huge appreciation of his work as a literary staple of contemporary American culture. I vote that he gets nominated next.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:I personally identify hugely with the works of Weird Al and have a huge appreciation of his work as a literary staple of contemporary American culture. Are you serious. Why would you admit to this
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
This is a real "every man lies" situation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
All great works of literature court controversy. Weird Al is no different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Also it would be really, really funny if we live in a world where Weird Al has the Nobel and Cormac McCarthy doesn't
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Is cormac mccarthy even Nobel worthy? I've read the road and it was a bit meh
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Well Bob Dylan is so the bar has been set somewhat lower than it usually would be. The Road isn't his best. Blood Meridian is a western so it's dreaded genre fiction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
fridge corn posted:Is cormac mccarthy even Nobel worthy? I've read the road and it was a bit meh No Country for Old Men was a good thriller but no more than that, so I guess he's at 1 out of 3 for me so far, but Blood Meridian was good enough for me to say he's definitely great
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Blood Meridian is great but exhausting, and I won't read it again for at least a decade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
it's certainly not a fun read. I love that pretty much everyone who reads it reaches the point of "oh, okay, more ultraviolence, whatever" just at the moment that the book rams home how horrific that attitude is. That's drat good reader manipulation
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
fridge corn posted:Is cormac mccarthy even Nobel worthy? I've read the road and it was a bit meh Obviously not, but you just have to accept that the Yankees in this thread read at the level of an average French toddler so
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
I hope Kanye wins next year
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Cormac McCarthy is bad and Murakami is a middling writer who should never win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
If you wanna read Cormac read Suttree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
All the Pretty Horses is an excellent introduction to McCarthy, IMO. It's harsh but not especially violent like Blood Meridian; Western but not a thriller like No Country; lofty and beautiful without getting impenetrable like Suttree; bleak but not repulsively amoral like Child of God. Plus, if you like it, you have two more books in the trilogy you can dive right into. I read The Road first and loved it—still do, actually, and recommend it unreservedly, but it's not representative of his other work. If you want to be able to post in this thread "I've read McCarthy and he's bad  " like all the other mouthbreathers, then AtPH is the best survey you can get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:
The reason I love this nomination is that in order to argue Dylan shouldn't receive the prize, you basically have to take refuge in utterly pedantic definitions of what "literature" is and isn't. Keep in mind that the criteria for the Nobel is not just artistic merit, but also work "in an ideal direction" -- it is in a very real sense meant to be analogous to the Peace Prize, and by that standard Dylan almost inarguably deserves it; his songs were sung during MLK's March in Washington. The real error was Alfred Nobel's. He should have set up a prize in "The Arts" rather than attempting to limit it to "literature". But he couldn't have been expected to predict pop music, television, etc. Next year's nominee should be David Simon for maximum pearl-clutching
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
This is the ideal situation because now the committee has an excuse not to award another American a lit prize for a decade and a half minimum, but the prize was not given to an American author, who would then put on airs above their station.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Gaddis should have got the prize when he was a live but unfortunately nobody recognized The Recognition's genius for like 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The reason I love this nomination is that in order to argue Dylan shouldn't receive the prize, you basically have to take refuge in utterly pedantic definitions of what "literature" is and isn't. As I said in another thread, I am not thrilled with Bob Dylan himself winning, but I am thrilled with the Nobel recognizing American folk music as a literary and cultural tradition
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
*Nobel prize committee gives prize to nazi Knut Hamsun* Well you see it's about the strength of his work alone *Nobel prize committee gives prize to Bob Dylan* Well you see it's about the positive impact he's had on the world Come on, we know what it's really about: the Nobel committee is a bunch of fanged socialists who want to destroy America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Yes why did the Nobel committee not consider his nazi leanings in 1920
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yes why did the Nobel committee not consider his nazi leanings in 1920 They lack foresight as much as hindsight. Truly no respect for the history or future of literature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:*Nobel prize committee gives prize to nazi Knut Hamsun* Well you see it's about the strength of his work alone Say what you will about the tenets of Knut Hamsun, at least he had an ethos The prize standards didn't say they had to be *good* ideals!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:Gaddis should have got the prize when he was a live but unfortunately nobody recognized The Recognition's genius for like 30 years. Jack Greene did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:Jack Greene did. The country singer?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
http://pitchfork.com/news/69019-nobel-committee-says-bob-dylan-is-ignoring-them/
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Pitchfork posted:Read the op-ed “The World Does Not Need Bob Dylan, Nobel Prize Winner in Literature” on the Pitch. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:Also it would be really, really funny if we live in a world where Weird Al has the Nobel and Cormac McCarthy doesn't Wow, that would be funny. I hadn't considered that before, Rush Limbo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:The country singer? It might be spelt Jack Green or something. He was an office worker who finished R, quit his job by just leaving the building and throwing his tie in a fountain on the way out, to follow his dream of being a freelance copy-editor. He presented Gaddis a sheet of corrections to R as a sort of tribute which has been ignored in the various republications. Did a few Issues of some thing called Fire the Bastards! where he called every critic who slated the book a bastard who should be fired, which is notable for its inventive typography.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The reason I love this nomination is that in order to argue Dylan shouldn't receive the prize, you basically have to take refuge in utterly pedantic definitions of what "literature" is and isn't. you really don't for example: he is bad at what he does
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
Jeep posted:I have no idea which article i read this in, but allegedly members of the committee aren't fond of the "direction of American literature" which the article & source implied was more I mean they also passed over Nabokov for a couple of Swedes from within the Academy that nobody's ever heard of, so it's possible they just hate anybody who lives in the US and/or make some generally poor choices Tree Goat posted:This is the ideal situation because now the committee has an excuse not to award another American a lit prize for a decade and a half minimum, but the prize was not given to an American author, who would then put on airs above their station. fight me!!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Next year's nominee should be David Simon for maximum pearl-clutching better: Al Jean
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Tree Goat posted:This is the ideal situation because now the committee has an excuse not to award another American a lit prize for a decade and a half minimum, but the prize was not given to an American author, who would then put on airs above their station.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
don't know why everyone is up in arms about a prize given out by old swedish men who cares the best books are by monarchist reactionaries who have been dead for at least 90 years
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
fantasy zone posted:don't know why everyone is up in arms about a prize given out by old swedish men who cares the best books are by monarchist reactionaries who have been dead for at least 90 years But T.S. Eliot has only been dead 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
yeah i didn't mistype
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
the best books are written by David Vann and congruents of David Vann
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:15
|
|