Saturday, October 11, 2008

How it might have been ...

... The Nobel Prize in Literature from an Alternative Universe.

Some of these I agree with, some not. I do not, for instance, think that Bertolt Brecht deserved it more than Halldor Laxness. The latter is a greater writer than Brecht. I also think Kawabata is vastly better than Mishima.

Wittgenstein was certainly a better philosopher than Bertrand Russell, but the prize isn't for philosophy. Russell didn't deserve it, but if they had wanted to give it to a philosopher, Santayana was still alive in 1950. He was also a better philosopher than Russell - and a better writer.

I do think Cole Porter a better choice than Quasimodo (the poet, not the bell-ringer), and I'm glad that Ted sticks by Steinbeck. Also, Kerouac is certainly a better choice than Sholokhov. Among other things, he wrote his own books.

Of course that's the fun behind this sort of thing: agreeing and disagreeing.

1 comment:

  1. Though I've been a huge fan of science fiction since I discovered A Princess of Mars at the age of 7, I can't see any of those science fiction writers listed as even remotely deserving the Nobel Prize (the same applies to the mystery writers listed, as well). The only such writer who came close, and he wasn't exactly a traditional s. f. writer, was Stanislaw Lem.

    I definitely agree with you about both Laxness and Kawabata.

    Two writers I hope will eventually receive Nobel recognition are Chinua Achebe and Haruki Murakami.