Comments on: The 2009 Nobel Prize in Literature: Let’s Bet Cash Money on This

By: etcetera — How Nobel Odds Are Determined

etcetera — How Nobel Odds Are Determined — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:26:27 +0000

[...] riff on Nobel Prize oddsmaking by Michael Schaub at HTMLGiant. (via [...]

By: Nobel morning: A chronological breakdown of the first few minutes of the day. « Vol. 1 Brooklyn

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:47:11 +0000

[...] AM I think back to this HTMLGiant post about a group of oddsmakers, and their picks for the prize. I scan for Mueller’s name, and [...]

By: Sonny

Sonny — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:37:20 +0000

apparently the writer did not ready anything by Oz.
the reason he is up in the poles is the fact that his work is received with lots of praise in the more than 60 languages it is translated into. I recommend warmly My Micheal, and A tale of Love and Darkness (his auto biography). interesting enough he talks of his encounters as a boy with another Lit. Nobel Prize winner (Agnon).

By: Jim Dandy

Jim Dandy — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:16:55 +0000

No, McCarthy’ll never get it, because he 1) is a White American Guy 2) doesn’t “write nice,” (although he’s getting nicer) and 3) is actually famous now.

By: goldmag.de » Blog Archiv » Links gegen Herbstdepressionen

goldmag.de » Blog Archiv » Links gegen Herbstdepressionen — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:50:06 +0000

[...] Very Brief History of the Nobel Prize in Literature verfasst. Die ist auch lustig zu lesen. Und in diesem Blogpost untersucht er die Wetten der britischen Seite ladbrokes.com auf die aussichtsreischsten [...]

By: Georges

Georges — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:09:23 +0000

Roth’s not churning crap, believe me. I should know it, I have to read every single word he publishes. He’s got a dying knack –novel writing is going to be an extinct job, like that of the bootblack. Soon there will be nobody that shine your shoes, nobody that write true novels for you. Roth still does that. He’s writing short novels you could read through while someone shines your shoes. And then you’ve got your feet brilliant and your brains powered, all for a few bucks.

And they say LUIS Goytisolo is more or less eligible, should “eligible” be the word to describe the uncanny goings-on in Sweden. Why LUIS Goytisolo in the name of commonsense? All the Archies and Mehitabels of the Spanish-language world know that is his brother JUAN Goytisolo, who deserve the Nobel and what-not, as one of the really few original writers NOT churning crap in Europe. And I do not say Luis is a bad writer, far from it. It’s just a has-been, eben though he’s younger than his brother, while Juan has somethin of the literary magician about him–like Roth, for instance.

And I’ll never forgive those Nobel Committee suckers for letting die Gilbert Sorrentino without having awarded him the bequest of the dynamiter.

By: Barry Dee

Barry Dee — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:42:41 +0000

It will be Assia Dejbar or Ko Un. A French spaeking Algerian born writer would cover a lot of topical bases. The tired list of the Roths, Oates and Las Vegas Llosas- remember when he conceded the presidency in Peru he addressed the press in French! Guess it was Magic Realism. All will be landfill in a few decades anyway. Then we we’ll be landfill as well. OK, maybe Tranströmer. But the Swedes out of Lutheran guilt don’t reward their own. Bet on Assia Dejbar to do this year’s reality show walk on.

By: Michael Katsu

Michael Katsu — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:12:39 +0000

The rules of selecting the winner specifically state that nationality shall not have any effect on who wins. And I don’t hear anyone complaining that there are too few Argentinian winners. But when the USA doesn’t get any Nobel for literature (after getting several) it’s GOT to be because the entire academy supposedly hates good books if an American wrote them. Yeah, like the over 200 other countries in the world never wrote any good books.

By: From Cimpan-A to Chimpan-Z

From Cimpan-A to Chimpan-Z — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:34:52 +0000

Yeah, what a fucken sham this whole “Nobel Prize” thing is! Nail’s in the coffin with no Roth. Pass this on to Nobel Prize committee: you are fucken dead to me with no Roth.
Does Roth need a Nobel Prize? I certainly don’t think so. I hate to get my feather’s all ruffled over this stupid prize, but I think it would be quite a shame if Roth won, not only because there are far more deserving writers out there but because it would effectively shut the door on all other potential American writers for the foreseeable future. Roth has received near-universal acclaim, he’s a perennial best-seller, and he churns out wildly defended crap, as approximations of intellectual provocation, year after year, each of which receives more notice than most writers will ever receive in their entire lives. The supposed conceit of the Nobel Prize is that it’s based purely on artistic value; but it would be absurd to defend this beyond a limited point. Ultimately, there’s a huge cash prize, immediate international recognition, with all of the author’s thus-translated works soaring to the tops of the best-seller lists, and a longer Wikipedia page. It comes down to how deserving the author is on two terms: the value and quality of their work and their renown–or lack thereof–is what the prize is about. No matter how much you like Roth, you have to wonder how much his being award would benefit the literary community; I suspect: not at all. And Roth would just toss it aside anyway because he’s an asshole.

By: Etl World News | Assorted links

Etl World News | Assorted links — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:59:26 +0000

[...] 4. Betting on the literature Nobel. [...]