Only recently, and as the Nobel Prize Committee has now established itself as an organization motivated by popular politics, its integrity and judgments are now suspect in every category.
Stick with the classics.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-12 16:52
>>2
You do know there is no one Nobel Prize Committee, right? I've no intention of arguing you out of thinking the Nobels are sullied as long as you're aware of that fact.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-12 17:03
>>2 Stick with the classics.
It is very unfortunate that you feel this way.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-13 3:50
It's worth remembering not only that the various Nobels are awarded by different bodies, but also that Nobel himself set down specific criteria. All winners are chosen from lists of nominees, and the literature prize is for the nominee who "shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency"; that is, it is a judgement of quality and purpose. and not of how well-known, popular, or indeed financially successful an author has been. So awards to authors who are little known, or well known in a single linguistic community, are quite in order (as with the Booker for British and Commonwealth novels in English).
And an injunction to "stick with the classics" is somewhat ironic in this context, in that it's a statement that one should always defer to the cumulative weight of transhistorical popular opinion. But how many "classics" and their authors have gone unknown or unrecognized in their lifetimes? Were they less good then simply because nobody had yet considered them fashionable? If everyone were to "stick with the classics", no new work could ever become a classic!
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-13 4:36
>>5
That's nice, but what books of hers should I read?
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-13 17:06
The Nobels are intrinsically political. The Literature award is actually less political than the others; over the years it's gradually turned into a literature lifetime achievement award. Check the list of early winners and notice that Tolstoy, for instance, isn't there because he didn't fit the original criteria.
>>8
Cool. Have you read it? What do you think of it? How's the translation?
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-14 11:34
>>6
Sorry - wasn't at a computer when I posted that. Here's the Nobel committee's Bio-bibliographical notice in English (seems only five of Müller's books are available in English):
>>10
Oh, thanks. Then I guess I could read all of them.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-14 15:47
>>11
Comments by friends suggests the translations aren't that easy to find even with an academic library. I expect there will be reprints and new versions soon, though.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-14 16:58
>>12
Yes. Might we also expect to see many more translations?? Who knows..
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-14 17:27
A recommendation at second hand: a friend has read in translation The Passport (Der Mensch ist ein großer Fasan auf der Welt) and The Land of Green Plums (Herztier), describes Müller as a demanding writer, and seems particularly impressed by the latter.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-14 2:55
The Guardian has a review today of one of her novels: the reprints appear to be coming.