Who will win Literature Nobel Prize this year?

File: antonio_lobo_antunes.jpg (114KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1200x800px

>>8596731
>be 2016
>Portugal wins Euro
>Cristiano Ronaldo is the best player of the year
>A portuguese dude gets elected as the boss of United Nations
>It's undoubtley Portugal's year

António Lobo Antunes gets the Nobel in 2016, digits confirm

>>8596741
Post best portuguese /lit/.

>>8596741
you forgot
>be poor

File: 200px-Mensagem_1934.jpg (12KB, 200x306px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 200x306px

>>8596762
Will this ever be replaced at the top?

>>8596772
Haven't read it.

File: krasznahorkai-laszlo-est.jpg_368x800.jpg (21KB, 368x355px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 368x355px

>tfw you deserve it but you won't get it because you are too white

>>8596792
>mongols
>white

Based McCarthy gets it, digits confirm

Lobo Antunes, wa Thiong'o, Ko Un, Adonis, Delilo, or Fosse. Maybe Marias or Kadare.

File: 4939167-7370520111-cCQB7m.jpg (144KB, 1252x1252px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1252x1252px

>>8596900
Chigurh approves

>>8596731

Depends. Alice Munro and Patrick Modiano were relatively deserving but not the best picks. Last year's pick was about as awful as humanly possible. The prize picks around one author truly worth the prize a decade, four eventually-minor figures a decade, and five instantly-forgettens a decade. We've had four eventually-minor figures and one instantly-forgotten this decade. My bet is on some retard who nobody will care about for more than a half-week.

pls be pinecone

do you think the fact that he's probably not gonna show up is holding him back?

>>8596936

Nobel winners are almost always positive about the human condition, even if they are ostensibly bleak about it. Pinecone will never win because:

1. American
2. Can't be assigned as reading to swedish kids in school three days after the announcement
3. Slightly too erudite (they haven't ever nominated someone as dense as T.S. Eliot or Faulkner since, say, Beckett)
4. Appearance issue (didn't stop them from Sartre ofc, who didn't deserve it either)
5. has been writing crap for a decade or more
6. Too american in tone
7. Characters aren't relatable for the average housewife

>>8596936
Who is pinecone?

>>8596963
>For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is pinecone? This is pinecone speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are perishing-you who dread knowledge -I am the man who will now tell you.”

>The chief engineer was the only one able to move; he ran to a television set and struggled frantically with its dials. But the screen remained empty; the speaker had not chosen to be seen. Only his voice filled the airways of the country-of the world, thought the chief engineer-sounding as if he were speaking here, in this room, not to a group, but to one man; it was not the tone of addressing a meeting, but the tone of addressing a mind.

>>8596953
>erudite
>dense
How are those supposed to relate? Also was going to say I hoped you weren't implying that Beckett was too erudite, but Faulkner? How is Faulkner too erudite?

>>8596971

That's from Ayn Rand...

>>8596963
>>8596971
>You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that the words had no meaning. You have cried that man’s sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded. Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster. In the name of a return to morality, you have sacrificed all those evils which you held as the cause of your plight. You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.

>You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection. You have fought for it, you have dreamed of it, and you have wished it, and I-I am the man who has granted you your wish.

>Your ideal had an implacable enemy, which your code of morality was designed to destroy. I have withdrawn that enemy. I have taken it out of your way and out of your reach. I have removed the source of all those evils you were sacrificing one by one. I have ended your battle. I have stopped your motor. I have deprived your world of man’s mind.

>Men do not live by the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those who do. The mind is impotent, you say? I have withdrawn those whose mind isn’t. There are values higher than the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those for whom there aren’t.

>While you were dragging to your sacrificial altars the men of justice, of independence, of reason, of wealth, of self-esteem-I beat you to it, I reached them first. I told them the nature of the game you were playing and the nature of that moral code of yours, which they had been too innocently generous to grasp. I showed them the way to live by another morality-mine. It is mine that they chose to follow.

>All the men who have vanished, the men you hated, yet dreaded to lose, it is I who have taken them away from you. Do not attempt to find us. We do not choose to be found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you need us. We do not consider need a claim. Do not cry that you own us. You don’t. Do not beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind.

>>8596963
>>8596977
>We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one’s happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt.

>There is a difference between our strike and all those you’ve practiced for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of granting them. We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality-the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind.

>We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.

>Are you now crying: No, this was not what you wanted? A mindless world of ruins was not your goal? You did not want us to leave you? You moral cannibals, I know that you’ve always known what it was that you wanted. But your game is up, because now we know it, too.

>Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and too selfish to spill all the blood it required. You damned man, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code. Your victims took the blame and struggled on, with your curses as reward for their martyrdom-while you went on crying that your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good?-by what standard?

>>8596731
Who should win?
Gene Wolfe.
Who will win? Someone they like for progressive propaganda and also probably bad.

>>8596963
Pynchon

File: 1470626174149.jpg (18KB, 380x257px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 380x257px

>it's an americans whine because their favorite famous author wont get the nobel prize thread

>>8596981
>Who should win?
>Gene Wolfe.

lol

>>8596963
>>8596979
>You wanted to know pinecone’s identity. I am the man who has asked that question.

>Yes, this is an age of moral crisis. Yes, you are bearing punishment for your evil. But it is not man who is now on trial and it is not human nature that will take the blame. It is your moral code that’s through, this time. Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality-you who have never known any-but to discover it.

>You have heard no concepts of morality but the mystical or the social. You have been taught that morality is a code of behavior imposed on you by whim, the whim of a supernatural power or the whim of society, to serve God’s purpose or your neighbor’s welfare, to please an authority beyond the grave or else next door-but not to serve your life or pleasure. Your pleasure, you have been taught, is to be found in immorality, your interests would best be served by evil, and any moral code must be designed not for you, but against you, not to further your life, but to drain it.

>For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors-between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.

>Both sides agreed that morality demands the surrender of your self-interest and of your mind, that the moral and the practical are opposites, that morality is not the province of reason, but the province of faith and force. Both sides agreed that no rational morality is possible, that there is no right or wrong in reason-that in reason there’s no reason to be moral.

>Whatever else they fought about, it was against man’s mind that all your moralists have stood united. It was man’s mind that all their schemes and systems were intended to despoil and destroy. Now choose to perish or to learn that the anti-mind is the anti-life.
“Man’s mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch-or build a cyclotron-without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.

>>8596963
>>8596987
*sniff* and zho on

>>8596972
Have you read any of Faulkner's more experimental works?

File: 000_Nic6414874.jpg (68KB, 768x512px)

68KB, 768x512px

This guy. Mark my words.

>>8596999
Can't argue with Holy Trips

What will Adonis need to do to actually win it ? The man is getting old.

File: 2007TomWolfe231.jpg (150KB, 597x800px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 597x800px

>>8596981
Correct surname
Wrong First Name
ALL ABOARD THE TOM TRAIN!

>>8596772
>>8596762
O País das Uvas is underrated af

>>8596991
As in the Sound and the Fury? If that's it yes, but regardless, what does formal experimentation or complexity have to do with erudition? Erudition doesn't mean complex or abstruse, it can even be as didactical as a literal dictionary.

>>8597015
>caring about Eça's bitch

>>8597014
I've had The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test sitting on my shelf for 3 years. Is he good?

>>8597033

>caring about Eça

>>8597040
>caring about Portuguese literature

>>8597056

>not being portuguese

BOUALEM SANSAL

>>8596999
so Kadare then

File: OConnor.jpg (226KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1280x853px

>>8596731
O'Connor gets the Nobel posthumously, as a regret by the Academy of not caring about her while she was still alive. Digits confirm it

>>8597761
She's a Catholic. Catholicism doesn't fit the narrative.
Meaning, no Nobel.

>>8597764
Tell that to...
....
...damn, you're right!
Evelyn Waugh, Anthony Burgress, Graham Greene and Baron Corvo deserved all the fucking Nobel, and did not get it for some reason!

>>8597772
Add Shusaku Endo to the list.

>>8597764
>>8597772
>>8597778
I'm not saying victim fetishism is anything new with Catholicism, but at which point did it veer completely from self-hatred to self-pity?

18 catholic literature alumni here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_Nobel_laureates#Literature

Damn those jews from stopping them having more.

>>8597854
Well crypto and figurative jews obviously as there is only one semi jew there

>>8596901
Please be DeLillo

File: castro-y-gabo.jpg (92KB, 600x338px)

92KB, 600x338px

>>8597854

catholic writer isnt the same as person baptized into the catholic church who is a writer.

pic related

>>8597854
It's pretty stupid to link to a list of mostly irreligious people as proof of a lack of influence of a particular ideology on the comity. It has Hemingway, Steinbeck and Beckett on it for fucks sake.

>swedenfags are in charge of the most 'important' literature prize
>they give the prize only to leftist scum
b-but sweden is non-relevant in the lit world.

>>8597914
I don't think it's necessary a problem and it is to be expected that there will be an ideological bias.
The problem lies with the fact that they have in the past 30 years almost entirely been picking nobodies who are already not read while leaving out literary giants, like Greene who was mentioned before, or Pynchon or authors of similar quality and importance.

>>8597908
They will be called religious when it suits the argument and called irreligious when it suits the argument.

>>8597919
thats the point of the award. giving unread people an award instead of giving it to giants everyone already knows like pynchon. this doesnt always hold true obviously.

>>8597924
Baptism doesn't make a person religious.
I would never and have never claimed that a person who is almost entirely focused on what happens when God goes away, like Beckett, is religious. In fact for examples of religious authors the other anon and myself have named people who are incredibly focused on their religious experience- Graham Greene, Flannery O'Connor and Shusaku Endo.
Putting words in my mouth which I never even remotely stated is dumb. Not sure why you do it. >>8597930
That wasn't true until after 1970, but it's possible.

ITT: Americans whining that American authors never get picked.

Your literature is shit and far from the centre of the universe. Get over it.

>>8597947
40 years of standard is good enough for me.
it's not the oscars, you're supposed to be surprised and interested that an unknown author is introduced to you, not whining because your favorite didn't get it.

>>8597951
fuck off, Englund

File: hor-as.jpg (6KB, 165x239px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 165x239px

>>8597982
*Engdahl
>The US is too isolated, too insular. They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature ...That ignorance is restraining.

>>8597914
>>they give the prize only to leftist scum
empirically wrong

>>8598017

empirically true until Vargas Llosa in 2010.

>>8598041
no

File: 1468727937379.png (117KB, 508x512px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 508x512px

>>8597951
nah my main man, after we scooped up every European of consequence before/during/after the second great war we've pretty much just been owning the arts and to a lesser extent the sciences

we don't get phased or faded by this chumpy prize either, we are too cool for it, facts is facts -- they know if they did try and give it to Pynchon they would be sent-up hard, he is a trickster devil, didn't you know, right out the fucking briar patch

pic related: an american flossing hard with no regrets

>>8598049

the academy was completely fine with giving the awards to Stalinists like Neruda, Saramago or Sartre, but supporting Pinochet in Chile was crossing a line they couldnt tolerate.
They were definitely left leaning.

And many articles were produced right after Vargas Llosas nobel about what a mistake giving the award to a neoliberal rightwinger who supports free trade was.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/9776#.V_lVdsmKIZM

>>8598063
>the academy was completely fine with giving the awards to Stalinists like Neruda, Saramago or Sartre, but supporting Pinochet in Chile was crossing a line they couldnt tolerate.
>They were definitely left leaning.
>from this it follows that only leftist scum got it before llosa

>And many articles were produced right after Vargas Llosas nobel about what a mistake giving the award to a neoliberal rightwinger who supports free trade was.
>this is somehow relevant (and also not in anyway exaggerating)

>>8598063
Reading Solzhenitsyn insulting and making fun of Sartre was one of the most beautiful things I've ever read.

>>8598009
lol nice face

have fun with your podunk language spoken by 15 million insular sadsacks

>>8598090
>15 million
? Are you counting Norwegians?

File: 220px-Robert_englund.jpg (15KB, 220x297px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 220x297px

>>8597982
fuck off yoursef

File: pablo-neruda.jpg (21KB, 470x327px)

21KB, 470x327px

>>8598072
>Be Neruda
>rape a Tamil woman
>support Stalin even after it was fashionable
>support Fidel
>still get a Nobel and a cheesy film

File: 14zVOLLMAN4-articleLarge.jpg (62KB, 600x290px)

62KB, 600x290px

>>8596731
THIS MAGNIFICENT BASTARD.

Mark my words faggots

>>8598275
Digits confirm

BUMPERINO!

>>8596934
I don't concur. I read all 3 books available in English by the author. I would rather have had the winner be someone I hadn't heard of who was good, like Le Clezio, for instance, but still, SA is decent.

>>8596986

>>Who should win?
>>Gene Wolfe.

>lol

roftlmao like it's 1999

>>8597919

>literary giants
>GREEENE

I've read every single novel by Greene, but surely you jest?

>>8598275
I sure hope so. He's the only US author with both the writing chops and the social credibility, not to mention his extensive and diverse oeuvre

>>8599760
Why would I jest? His influence is far reaching.
He isn't the equivalent of Shakespeare or Joyce in influence, that's for sure, but he is nonetheless influential and important, maybe not as much in English language literature.

>>8599813

I love his writing. (Heck, I even read his plays and non-fiction. The only thing that I have left alone are his review of movies that I have never seen and his non-fic catholic journal writing). However, he just always stuck me as like the very highest of the middlebrow. While they've had some duds like Hemingway, the Nobel tends to try to reach higher. I feel that if they had selected him, there would have been a couple hundred other people who would have qualified as a result. With Greene in, you could even make an argument for Simenon or Powell, for instance. Still though, he probably is one of the highest quality quality writers to have published 50+ books.

>>8599818
I think he does both high middlebrow and genuine literature. I cannot see Power and Glory or Heart of the Matter or End of the Affair as anything else than some of the best literature has to offer.
And considering they gave it to Sartre, there's no one who they cannot give it to. Hemingway may have been a bit of a dud in general, but if you give your award to Sartre you can give it to mother fucking Graham Greene who was a better author in every way, except that he wasn't a Stalinist.
And the last 40 years have mostly been duds anyway.

>>8599829
I think JPS was picked for reasons above and beyond his fiction and writing style. Generally, I prefer it to go to fiction writers.

>And the last 40 years have mostly been duds anyway.

I don't concur. In fact, I would argue that the period in question has been their best, in terms of the parties selected. Personally, I have enjoyed reading the following 1976-2015 winners:

1976: Saul Bellow

1978: Isaac Bashevis Singer

1981: Elias Canetti

1982: Gabriel García Márquez (though, dude is a bit overrated imo)

1989: Camilo José Cela

1993: Toni Morrison

1994: Kenzaburō Ōe

1998: José Saramago

1999: Günter Grass

2002: Imre Kertész

2003: J. M. Coetzee

2004: Elfriede Jelinek

2005: Harold Pinter

2008: J. M. G. Le Clézio

2010: Mario Vargas Llosa

2014: Patrick Modiano

2015: Svetlana Alexievich

That is over 15, and I would argue that most of them operate on a higher level than Greene.

>>8599829
can't you just admit you want your favorite author to win it just so you can say he did?

and saying that the last 40 winners were "duds" is just discrediting yourself

>>8596731
Lobo antunes gets it. Dubs confirm

Bump for Antunes dubs

Has Krasznahorkai won it? If not my money is on him. He deserves one.

>>8596741
He's not the portuguese name on the shortlist though, it's Mário de Carvalho

>>8601116
Mario de Carvalho is history. He could (and should) have won it 10 years ago. But now nobody remembers him anymore

>>8601130
Maybe, but he's still on the shortlist. Didn't hear about Lobo Antunes though

>>8601144
I don't think he is that known outside of Portugal. He do has the advantage of being a commited commie

>>8599837
>2014: Patrick Modiano
Dude wrote the same plot 15 times over, changing basic things like names, characters' background stories (bonus points if French-Jewish) and in which particular university department they all met each other. He's an OK writer but a decidedly 'meh' Nobel laureate.

>2015: Svetlana Alexievich
I read War does not have a Woman's Face, which was good, but I simply do not agree she deserved the Nobel Prize for collections of interviews, no matter how extensively she rewrote the source material.


Disregarding those two, good list though!

>>8596741
>>8596901
>>8600374
>>8601089
>>8601130
>Lobo Antunes
0 dubs
>>8601144
>who the fuck is Lobo Antunes
dubs

That settles it then
Don't screenshot this

>>8601208
>but I simply do not agree she deserved the Nobel Prize for collections of interviews

she got the prize for her amazing ass work, not her prose or ideas.

>>8596731
Some non Christian, non white, alternative crap writer.

>>8601208

I agree with you, but a great writer who got it and isnt in that list is Naipaul.

File: 6z0ls2923r1d.jpg (448KB, 1067x1600px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 1067x1600px

>>8601230
Then why hasn't that one gotten the Nobel?

Her work is great, but I can understand the raised eyebrows desu

>>8601230
>amazing ass work
I agree her work is good, but I do not think her medium (heavily re-written interviews) should be considered for the Nobel Prize. You're free to disagree with me, but I'd like to see some arguments, then.

>>8601326
i don't see what argument there is to be had. she produces literature and received a literature award. "re-written interviews" is not a medium.

>>8601339
>i don't see what argument there is to be had
I consider originality an argument. Most of her work not being based on her own imagination seems to run against that.
And if you disagree with the word 'medium', I guess we could go with 'genre'. Or whatever you would call a collection of novels, short stories, plays, interviews, & c.

File: Haruki-Murakami-012.jpg (54KB, 620x372px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 620x372px

Prepare to weep /lit/

>>8601432
I think it's more sad that many great Japanese writers have been passed up (Abe Kobo, Mishima, Endo Shusaku, etc). The two that have been selected so far are really good, and their lectures are interesting reads, but there's still so many writers left out

File: AmosOz_5322.jpg (421KB, 961x641px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 961x641px

Have all you motherfuckers forgot about me!?

some shill for globalism obviously

I put money on wa Thiong'o

How fucked am I, lads?

File: Bez tytułu.png (20KB, 510x375px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 510x375px

>>8601432
my collection of japanese writers. am I pleb?

>>8602105
That's a great collection actually. Though Ishiguro is a British writer.

I'd recommend Ooka Shohei, Endo Shusaku, Shiba Ryotaro, and Mori Ogai

>>8602105
Needs Akutagawa

It will be Borges, mark my motherfucking words

>>8602276
This too. I love his historical works

>>8602105
Why don't you just download the Japanese /lit/ folder? We already collected the important works for you.

>>8602308
where is it?

Marilynne Robinson or Gass.

File: borges-breadbasket.jpg (44KB, 500x493px)

44KB, 500x493px

>>8602291
"those people in Stockholm thought they'd already given me one"
Borges on Nobel Prize

>>8602318
http://pastebin.com/2hhkv53u

Linked on the wiki.

>>8601683
This. Some transgender refugee's sob story memoirs

If it's not Gass I'll cry a little bit

>>8596731
A D U N I S

C R I S I S I N S Y R I A

>>8602518
too risky, they wouldn't want to take a stand or be associated in such a delicate matter now.

File: 21stCenturylit everyone.jpg (176KB, 1178x728px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1178x728px

>>8596731
He will for his masterful depiction of 21st century shitposting.

Nabokov, anyone?

>>8602960
They only award it to living authors, don't they?

>>8601360
>I consider originality an argument
lrn 2 pomo

>>8603179
lrn2stopshilling

>>8602998
Yes. It was but a joke!

>>8602518
He shall never win