Final Thoughts on the Nobel Prize for Literature 2019

 Hello Gentle Reader,

We have now entered the first week of October and are now in the finishing stretch before Nobel Week Commences, complete with the Nobel Prize announcements starting next Monday with Medicine, followed by Physics on Tuesday, then Chemistry on Wednesday, Thursday the Nobel Prize for Literature, the Peace Prize on Friday, and concluding the following Monday with the announcement of the honorary Nobel Prize in Economics. 

This year, the new Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy: Mats Malm, will have the honour of announcing two Laurates for the Nobel Prize for Literature. One Laureate is for two-thousand and nineteen, while the other Laureate is to be awarded retroactively for the previous year, when the Nobel Prize for Literature was postponed due to an unprecedented affair involving scandal, ethical violations, and other issues of internal governance, which saw the Swedish Academy’s reputation in all its gilded wonder, suddenly tarnished and soiled publicly. Even now there is contention about the notion of awarding two Laureates. Some believe that the absence of the Nobel Prize for Literature of two-thousand and eighteen, should be left vacant as a solemn reminder of the academy’s fiduciary failings. Others believe it should be left vacant as a testament to the eighteen women who came forward to leverage accusations and allegations against Jean-Claude Arnault, and his predatory sexual appetites, which now see him serving a two year prison term. And some believe the awarding of two Laureates is merely apologetic, which carries no genuine sincerity, and is merely an attempt of the Swedish Academy to reaffirm themselves as the high arbitrators of literature. Personally I view the event of awarding two Nobel Laureates in Literature to be an exciting affair. Though I do wish the circumstances were different.  It has been forty-five years since the Swedish Academy has announced two Laureates in Literature, which showcases just how rare it is for the Nobel Prize in Literature to be shared. The science prizes (Medicine, Physics, and Chemistry) are noted for being shared between collaborators on breakthrough projects; but writing is a singular solitary act. As I am sure any creative writing professor or teacher would say:

“First Lesson: It’s just you and the page. Enjoy.”

Despite the somewhat lukewarm idea of two Laureates being announced this year, speculation for the Nobel Prize has been otherwise subdued. Only in late September did the betting sites release their Nobel Prize for Literature Odds, and the list is otherwise conservative, complete with the usual suspects making their expected return on the list.

The cynic inside of me wonders if this is due to the fact that former member, Katarina  Frostenson who was accused of breaking the Swedish Academy Statute of Silence, whereby she informed her convicted husband Jean-Claude Arnault of the year’s Nobel Prize for Literature winner. Rumours had swirled for years about the high possibility of a leak within the academy; and when the law firm who performed its investigation during the Swedish Academy Scandal into the academies relation with Jean-Claude Arnault—both in a personal and business capacity—they found reasonable evidence to believe that Katarina Frostenson had prematurely released the names of winning laureates for the following years:

1996 – Wisława Szymborska

2004 – Elfriede Jelinek

2005 – Harold Pinter

2006 – J.M.G Le Clezio

2014 – Patrick Modiano

2015 – Svetlana Alexievich

2016 – Bob Dylan

Of this list of seven, the most recent (and albeit obvious leak) of recent memory was: Patrick Modiano, who became an unknown dark horse during speculation, appearing ominously on the betting sites lists, and in the closing hours would shoot up the ranks to be considered the favoured candidate to win the prize, and did.

One cannot help but wonder in the wake of Frostensons’ absence is perhaps why the betting sites have remained restrained and hesitant in releasing any list of speculation until now. Perhaps without Jean-Claude Arnault’s insider information, people have become disinterested in playing literary roulette. Then again, it would be naïve and garishly optimistic to think that anyone who watched or observed the Nobel proceedings would have forgotten the previous year and a half scandal. It would be foolish to think the scandal had not infected and tarnished the Nobel Prize for Literature, and only now are we seeing the immediate post effects of the scandal.

This years’ betting sites speculation reads as follows:

Anne Carson – 4/1                                               Javier Marías – 20/1

Maryse Conde – 5/1                                             Jon Fosse – 20/1

Can Xu – 8/1                                                        László Krasznahorkai – 20/1

Haruki Murakami – 8/1                                       Milan Kundera – 20/1

Lyudmila Ulitskaa – 8/1                                      Peter Handke – 20/1

Ngugi Wa Thiong’o – 8/1                                   Yoko Tawada – 20/1

Margaret Atwood – 10/1                                     César Aira – 25/1

Marilynne Robinson – 10/1                                Yang Lian – 25/1

Olga Tokarczuk – 10/1                                        Ko Un – 33/1

Péter Nádas – 10/1                                              Ernesto Cardenal – 50/1

Adunis – 14/1

Gerald Murnane – 14/1

Mircea Cartarescu – 14/1

Ya Hua – 14/1

Ismail Kadaré – 17/1

[ Nicer Odds “Nobel Literature Prize 2019 Winner,”

Nicer Odds: "Nobel Prize for Literature 2019 Betting Odds,"]

As you can see, Gentle Reader, I was not being dramatic or exaggerating the muted perspective the betting sites have taken to this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature. The list is skeletal in appearance, populated by perennial candidates; some of which I’d like to comment on. Of course despite whatever I say or theorize, each writer listed (or not) has relative equal chances of being one of the two authors named as Nobel Laureates for this year.

Front and centre on this otherwise conservative list is the Canadian poet and classics scholar, Anne Carson. I quickly discussed Anne Carson in my “Announcement Of The Nobel Prize for Literature 2019 Speculation List,” I quickly mentioned and discussed Anne Carson. To be blunt, Anne Carson is somewhat of an open secret in the literary world, while being a dark horse. Her work is noted for redefining the traditional notions of poetry, essay and prose, by blending them joyfully. Puritan poets resent referring to Anne Carson as a poet, while other writers are not entirely sure how else to define her work. Regardless, Anne Carson is often referred to as a poet  who has reshaped the form, renewed relevancy in the form, as well as being able to engage with antiquarian subjects with contemporary flare. Despite this, Anne Carson would raise an eyebrow here and there when discussed. Critically she is praised, admired, and even envied; but by the reading publics standards she is unknown—despite her beautifully and excellent wordsmithing craftsmanship. Internationally, however, Anne Carson’s reputation is growing. One of the external members of the Swedish Academy’s Nobel Committee, Rebecka Kärde [if memory serves me correctly] had stated in an interview that she enjoys the work of Anne Carson. It is easy to speculate that of course that Ms. Kärde would lobby for the poet. Of course, Anne Carson would be a worthy Nobel Laureate; though yet another English language writer receiving the award sounds drab and boring and almost monolingual. Then again at least she is more rationally a poet then the Bob Dylan could ever be molded into.

Following Anne Carson is Maryse Condé, who won the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize for Literature,’ last year. The Guadeloupean writer graciously accepted the alternative version for the prize, and it is easy to see how winning this award could be seen by some to improve her opportunities to receive the real one in turn. Despite the scandal, the Swedish Academy is still a rather prideful institution. The ‘Alternative Nobel Prize for Literature,’ could be considered salt and insult to the academy during its lowest point. I have personal doubts the Swedish Academy will entertain awarding a writer who had become a bystander turned victim in the scandal because of the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize for Literature,’ as it could be misinterpreted as validating the previous ‘New Academy,’ whereby the Swedish Academy accepts and acknowledging their work as admirable or legitimate; where in fact they most likely view it as peevish and insulting. Unfortunately, I believe this diminishes Maryse Condé’s chances significantly. The Swedish Academy may have been in ruin, and is only just attempting to distance itself from the previous scandal, but it’s still proud and won’t appreciate being mocked.

Tucked away on the list, is the perennial speculated candidate and other Canadian writer: Margaret Atwood. It would be negligent not to discuss Margaret Atwood at this time. Margaret Atwood has always been a force within the literary world. Now, however, she has blown on blizzards' winds to new heights and new planes. This due in large part to the critically acclaimed televised adaption of her famous novel: “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which since its initial publication has taken on a life of its own. It is no longer confided to the covers, pages and spines of its original incarnation. “The Handmaid’s Tale,” has been adapted into a film, performed on the stage, become a ballet, sung as an opera, and revised as a graphic novel; and of course has become a synonymous image of protest for women’s reproductive rights around the world. It is with thanks to the televised adaption though that Margaret Atwood is now gaining wider appreciation and interest, which reached its most recent pinnacle with the release of her follow up book thirty four years later, titled: “The Testaments,” which once again sees the author return to the theocratic and totalitarian state of Gilead.

The build up to the release of “The Testaments,” was intense. Readers worldwide hankered to get their hands on the book. It has been shortlisted for the Booker Prize and the Giller Prize; and Margaret Atwood has made circuits on television talk shows, indulging uninteresting television personalities and their less then incisive questions with regards to her work. Atwood remains a charming figure, but is perhaps too educated and erudite for the superficiality of day time television, and late night talk shows. In one interview I happened to catch a glimpse of the author, her noteworthy medusa corkscrew curls, freshly ironed and straightened. Makeup airbrushed on. She sat pleasantly enough, surrounded by her hosts, who clucked and gabbed about. The author remained pleasant, but reticent, answering the questions in the most simplified ways she could. Atwood appears almost apologetic about her erudite way of speaking; while the talk show personalities never apologize for their lack of interest or depth into the real meat of her work. Instead they skim the top, licking the icing while never enjoying the cake. Still, the new found fame graced on Margaret Atwood, has also seen the author appearing in photoshoots and on the covers of magazines like a model or movie star--and she pulls it off well. These are strange extroverted graces to be awarded to a writer. Margaret Atwood is honest, sincere, and witty with regards to her perspective on the new found attention. She confessed she loves it, and stated she would be lying if stated otherwise; but admits it’s great that it has come now, expressing concern that if it happened to a younger person it would destroy them. After all: the only direction from the highest point is down.

Margaret Atwood is of course a perennial speculated candidate for the Nobel Prize for Literature. If the Swedish Academy chose to award the Nobel Prize for Literature, it would send a striking message, but also be considered predictable or even obvious, considering her revitalized and intense attention surrounding her. But also the metaphorical, social, and political statement it would make with regards to the previous scandal, and the ill-mannered ‘MeToo,’ movement, and its hypersexualized divisive views on gender.  

The last author I’d like to comment on directly from the above list is: Olga Tokarczuk. Over the past few years, the Polish magical realist and student of Jung, has finally gained her overdue recognition and acclaim in the English language, with her constellation novel: “Flights.” Prior to “Flights,” Tokarczuk had two previously published novels in the English language: “Primeval and Other Times,” and “House of Day, House of Night.” Of the two “Primeval and Other Times,” remains one of my personal favourites. The first half of the novel is baroque and enchanting, showcasing the authors fragmented perspective, and ability in handing these fragmentary consciousnesses into creating a mosaic narrative of a small Polish town, complete with its own mythology. “Flights,” is a mere extension of the early experimentation in fragmented narrative, and instead allowed the atomization to increase without a narrative spine cementing it together. Instead the novel moves with cellular independence, through the veins and arteries of image and theme creating a more airy philosophical depiction of the idea of movement in its various fluid forms. Olga Tokarczuk would be a delightful writer to receive the award. There would be no complaint or gripe on my end.

The other writers named are considered usual and perennial candidates:

(i)                 Adunis

(ii)               Haruki Murakami

(iii)             Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o

(iv)             Jon Fosse

(v)               Ismail Kadare

(vi)             Mircea Cartarescu

(vii)           László Krasznahorkai

(viii)         Peter Handke

(ix)             Milan Kundera

(x)               Ko Un

And so on.

Of the writers discussed above the four of them have one trait in common: all four are women. Reviewing the otherwise conservative list presented, one can see there is a large quantity of women writers named. Of the twenty four writers issued, nine are women—though not an even split down the middle, it’s still an improvement from previous years of speculation. During the previous scandal, women and sexual assault, where often seen as the main pressure points surrounding the events. I disagree. The scandal was only superficially about sexual misconduct, which orbited around Jean-Claude Arnault. The true scandal of the Swedish Academy was the festering rot behind closed doors. Despite the evidence and rationale behind why the scandal had nothing to do with sexual assault—at least on the Swedish Academy level—the vast majority of people believe the scandal was only about sexual assault and women. This will inevitably play a role in how people view the deliberations and decisions of the Swedish Academy. How the Swedish Academy will in turn deal with this foreshadowing, can only be assessed after the announcement next Thursday.

There are, however, complications to consider. If the Swedish Academy chooses two women to share this year’s prize; the decision will be infected by the previous scandal, and contaminant the writers, whereby the award will be reviewed and discussed via the lens of social politics and movements, rather than the literary merit the writers may bring to the table. If the award went to two female authors, despite its landmark decision, could still be criticized as apologist in tone, which will only diminish the historical potency of the movement.

If the Swedish Academy forgoes any women during this year’s prize it will most certainly be a disaster. Again social politics, movements, and perspectives play a role in what would be eviscerating criticism. Critics, readers, and the public would question the Swedish Academy’s ability to learn from the previous scandal (which will be touted as a sexual assault scandal, calling back to the MeToo Movement). The two male writers chosen will have their works and literary merit completely ignored, as they will be bombarded with prosecutorial questions about their gender, their opinion on women, and the previous scandal and so on and so forth.

If the Swedish Academy choses to award a male writer and a female writer, it will be seen as a compromise between the genders, but again it will have the external connotation of social politics, movements, and perspective at play once again, completely derailing the literary importance of the writers work. One side will most certainly inquire why not two women for the award? Why a man and a woman?

Unfortunately regardless of what ratio the Swedish Academy chooses to play, I suspect that the literary talents of the writers will be overlooked in favour of social contexts. It’s a disappointing and even cynical thought, but a realistic one all the same. Sadly, the Swedish Academy can no longer take into consideration the literary importance and merit of writers for this year; they must also consider the double entendre of the social context in which their decision will be weighed and reflected against. I suspect this year, there will be no appeasement of anyone. In its stead I believe there will be greater criticism leveraged against the Swedish Academy, depending not only on their literary choices, but also on their gender.

I’d also like to note:

The previous year’s scandal has also changed how the Swedish Academy goes about choosing its laureates. The most noticeable change has been the extension of the Nobel Committee with five external members:

Mikaela Blomqvist

Rebecka Kärde

Kristoffer Leandoer

Henrik Petersen

Gun-Britt Sundström

These members are expected to stay around until after the Nobel Prize for Literature twenty-twenty. Together with the Nobel Committee made up of the following Swedish Academy members:

Anders Olsson (Chairman)

Per Wästberg

Kristina Lugn

Jesper Svenbro

Will present a shortlist of five writers to the Swedish Academy of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize for Literature. This year, due to two laureates being honoured, the Nobel Committee has presented a shortlist comprising of eight potential writers, which the Swedish Academy read and reviewed over the summer break. According to recent articles, on October 10^th hours before the prize announcement, the Swedish Academy will be presented with the Nobel Committees suggestions of who should receive the Nobel Prize for Literature, afterwards deliberations and a vote will commence, then in the early afternoon, the new Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy Mats Malm will announce the two laureates.

Traditionally after the announcement is made the Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy will then participate in a short interview with a journalist about the year’s Nobel Laureate. The Permanent Secretary will discuss the Nobel Laureate’s work, their themes, their personal favourite work and other restrained questions presented by the journalist. This year, however, Mats Malm the new Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy will not be available to answer questions from the journalist. Due to the high interest into the newly enlarged Nobel Committee, the press conference will be conducted with:

Anders Olsson as Chairman

Per Wästberg (former Chairman)

And three external committee members [names have yet to be released/decided]

Speaking of the Nobel Committee their autonomy and their authority has also been revitalized after the previous scandal. In years past, the Nobel Committee would present names to the entire Swedish Academy for deliberation, then advise on who they think would make the preferable laureate. The Swedish Academy in turn would take the Nobel Committees advice into consideration during its deliberations, but would not be bound by their commentary or their advice, and reserved the right to overrule their deliberations in favour of another. This year, the Nobel Committee has taken full charge of the Nobel Laureates; they will decide who will receive the award(s) with the Swedish Academy’s input, but in the end they will decide on who will win the awards and present their findings in the late morning of October 10^th before the announcement. Their decision will be made with a comprehensive analysis to be submitted to the Swedish Academy explaining their motivations and their decision.

On a personal note, I am not in love with this idea of a supersized governing Nobel Committee. I’m left pondering what part the Swedish Academy and their members play in this process. From what it appears they’ve lost their teeth and claws in the process, and are merely neutered house cats, with a small meow rather then their once ferocious roar. Their position sadly reduced. I don’t believe awarding a centralized committee audacious authority is appropriate. I would prefer personally, if the Swedish Academy in conjunction and association with the Nobel Committee were able to work in a democratic and collaborative environment, to discuss, debate and deliberate together on the chosen Nobel Laureate. The current method appears to be one sided, with little room for any discussion or debate. In this fashion the laureate(s) in question are chosen, and whether or not the Swedish Academy agrees with the decision of the Nobel Committee, it will go through regardless, with no room for dissidence due to the statute of secrecy.

Anders Olsson the former pro-tempo Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, who has been praised for steering the academy through the tumultuous storm of the scandal, after the tradeoff of former Permanent Secretary Sara Danius and Katarina  Frostenson; had recently cast shade towards previous decades of the Nobel Prize for Literature. In an interview posted on the Nobel Prizes YouTube account, Anders Olsson has expressed this year the Nobel Prizes are attempting to take into an account a: “Global Totality,” whereby the awarding institution must take into account wider perspectives, where in years past the award carried a more ‘Eurocentric perspective,’ that was also male dominated. This is perhaps a nod and side eyed glance towards Swedish Academy member of Chair No. 17 Horace Engdahl. Of course it can’t be denied that in some of the past decades the Nobel Prize for Literature was accused of having a gender bias, and being Eurocentric. These criticisms are superficial and often showcase some critics lacking perspective of the prize and the laureates chosen. Due to the rarity of woman laureates, those who are chosen were always a gem, and often outshined other Nobel Laureates. Such laureates as:  Wisława Szymborska, Herta Müller, Alice Munro, and Nelly Sachs—are proven powerful writers who often outshined the other male laureates who surround them.

In less than a week’s time Gentle Reader we will learn who this year’s Nobel Laureates will be. It’s an exceptional year because two laureates will be named, but the circumstances spoil the tone. Regardless of who is chosen as this year’s Nobel Laureates, it will be interpreted through the social and political lens of gender politics, equity, and other social justice mechanisms, which detract from the literary merit of the prize. This inevitably pollutes this year’s Nobel Laureates, whoever they maybe at this time. This year’s decision will be difficult and complicated. The external influences, the social interpretation, and the scathing scrutiny will ensure that pleasing everybody will become an impossible task. The pressure of being the first Nobel Prize after the scandal will also weigh heavily on this year’s decision. It is a position one should not envy.

Every year, Gentle Reader, it’s often asked who I hope who will win the Nobel Prize for Literature. It’s a difficult question to answer, as my preferences are mercurial in form, changing by the day and the hour. Despite this I will attempt to answer the question Following are three columns where I’ve listed eight authors in each column concerning who I’d hope to win the prize. The three columns are organized by if the winners are to be both female, if the prize is to be two men, and if the prize will be split between a female and a male; in order to present a clear angle of all three possibilities. All writers I’ve listed come from my speculation list. They have been listed in no particular order.

Column 1                                                 Column 2                                  Column 3

Sirkka Turkka –                                    Jon Fosse –                                 Sirkka Turkka – 

Doris Kareva –                                      Durs Grünbein –                        Doris Kareva – 

Yoko Ogawa –                                       Mia Couto –                              Adunis – 

Annie Ernaux –                                     Yang Mu –                                 Magdalena Tulli – 

Lyudmila Petrushevskaya –                  Gyrðir Elíasson –                      Zsuzsa Takács – 

Olga Tokarczuk –                                 Adunis –                                    Jon Fosse – 

Kim Hyesoon –                                    Jaan Kaplinski –                        Gyrðir Elíasson – 

Nancy Morejón –                                Mircea Cartarescu –                   Yang Mu – 

Even after listing the writers, my mind immediately begins to gnaw and wonder about who has been omitted: what about László Krasznahorkai or Péter Nadas? Should I have included: Adam Zagajewski? Why not have included Ý Nhi the Vietnamese poet, or the dissident Duong Thu Huong. Why did I omit: Adélia Prado and Rodrigo Rey Rosa? Why did I not include, Ersi Sotiropoulos; after all I enjoy her work. What about Can Xue? The dark horse surreal Chinese novelist is gaining increased international attention, and recognition when it comes to global literary awards; she's a silent giant, who should not be overlooked easily. There is just no winning Gentle Reader, and I am sure between now and this coming Thursday my opinions will once again change.

For now though Gentle Reader, we will have to wait to see who will be the two laureates for this year’s Nobel Prize for Literature. Who will win it is anyone’s game at this point. It’s certainly going to be an intense year though, with high expectations riding on the decisions for this year’s award. Announcing and awarding two Laureates in Literature is a rare exceptional event. As previously noted the last time the award was shared was in Nineteen-Seventy Four, which was forty five years ago. Beyond the shared prize in Nineteen-Seventy Four, the Nobel Prize for Literature had only been shared three times prior. In total the Nobel Prize for Literature has only been shared between writers on four different occasions, in the prizes one-hundred and eighteen year history. It is a true pity that the circumstances for this exceptional event are not different.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary

For Further Reading & Information – Please See the Following Links

The Swedish Academy: "Anders Olsson Interview," 

"Anders Olsson Interview," [Video)