Canadian Alice Munro wins Nobel Prize for Literature

[JR]

One of my favourite writers---a short story magician--in the last forty years

Totally deserved. Yeah, Canada!!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/alice-munro-is-1st-canadian-woman-to-win-nobel-literature-prize-1.1958383

 

[The Big Ragu]

The first choice in a long, long time that I can't really say anything bad about. This award has been a joke for so long.

Not a hamhanded choice made for political reasons. Not an obscure writer from an obscure place that nobody has ever read (to demonstrate how smart the committee is). Even a North American.

I can make arguments for writers I think are more deserving, but at least for once I would be making an argument about the LITERARY merits of the winner. And in the case of Alice Munro, it is someone who has a good argument for why she is deserving.

 

[UPChip]

It's not about hockey? I call bull****.

 

[Double J]

Not just Canadian, but from Midwestern Ontario. Where all the cool people are from. :)

 

[JR]

Not just Canadian, but from Midwestern Ontario. Where all the cool people are from. :)

Only if you include Burlington there :)

And her stories are firmly set in that area. She lives in Clinton but was born in Wingham. Her second collection "Lives of Girls and Women" was about growing up in that rural town.

When I was a bookseller I met Alice several times. The most memorable was my partner and I drinking a lot of scotch with her one night a few decades ago.

 

[JR]

The first choice in a long, long time that I can't really say anything bad about. This award has been a joke for so long.

Not a hamhanded choice made for political reasons. Not an obscure writer from an obscure place that nobody has ever read (to demonstrate how smart the committee is). Even a North American.

I can make arguments for writers I think are more deserving, but at least for once I would be making an argument about the LITERARY merits of the winner. And in the case of Alice Munro, it is someone who has a good argument for why she is deserving.

Do you include China, Germany, Spain and United Kingdom as obscure places?

Alice lives in Clinton, Ontario, which most people in Toronto have never heard of and would be unable to find on a map. So, she comes from an obscure place--even by Canadian standards

And most North Americans (including Canadians) are dreadfully ignorant about European, Asian or African writers so the "I've never heard of them" doesn't mean "obscure"

She also only writes short stories which is pretty much the kiss of death in the mainstream publishing world these days.

But the New Yorker publishes her so you can kinda go USA! USA! USA! over her.

Politics comes into play in EVERY single literary award in every country. It's the nature of the beast.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The most memorable was my partner and I drinking a lot of scotch with her one night a few decades ago.

That is awesome.

 

[JR]

The most memorable was my partner and I drinking a lot of scotch with her one night a few decades ago.

That is awesome.

It was just a night with an author nobody had ever heard of.

She was a a totally down-to-earth woman and like most great artists knew her skill was partially God given. The rest of her talent was hard work.

The only divas are the second rate authors who don't get the part about God given talent and hard work.

This also applies to opera singers and hockey players

 

[HC]

It was just a night with an author nobody had ever heard of.

She was a a totally down-to-earth woman and like most great artists knew her skill was partially God given. The rest of her talent was hard work.

The only divas are the second rate authors who don't get the part about God given talent and hard work.

This also applies to opera singers and hockey players

Is there something you want to tell me, dear? :D

 

[The Big Ragu]

The first choice in a long, long time that I can't really say anything bad about. This award has been a joke for so long.

Not a hamhanded choice made for political reasons. Not an obscure writer from an obscure place that nobody has ever read (to demonstrate how smart the committee is). Even a North American.

I can make arguments for writers I think are more deserving, but at least for once I would be making an argument about the LITERARY merits of the winner. And in the case of Alice Munro, it is someone who has a good argument for why she is deserving.

Do you include China, Germany, Spain and United Kingdom as obscure places?

Alice lives in Clinton, Ontario, which most people in Toronto have never heard of and would be unable to find on a map. So, she comes from an obscure place--even by Canadian standards

And most North Americans (including Canadians) are dreadfully ignorant about European, Asian or African writers so the "I've never heard of them" doesn't mean "obscure"

She also only writes short stories which is pretty much the kiss of death in the mainstream publishing world these days.

But the New Yorker publishes her so you can kinda go USA! USA! USA! over her.

Politics comes into play in EVERY single literary award in every country. It's the nature of the beast.

Be real. One, I didn't go "USA! USA! USA!." You took it there, and it's particularly curious since you are attributing it to me about a CANADIAN writer. Along with a lot of your other nonsense that I never said.

I am fine with Alice Munro as a winner. At least you can make an argument for her on her LITERARY merits.

But since you tried to attribute your typical BS to me. ... Sure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3120602/Nobel-literature-prize-judge-American-authors-insular-and-ignorant.html

That isn't me chanting "USA! USA! USA!" It's the reality of what the Nobel prizes are. A joke.

For what it is worth, it doesn't have to be an American. It is nice when it is someone who actually could sell a book without people having to dig their stuff out and reprint it AFTER the Nobel Prize suddenly made them relevant. The fact that people actually read Philip Roth works against him, for example. He's not an obscure intellectual.

Well, that and the fact that he is American. And picking him wouldn't make any kind of statement that advances the caricaturish social agenda of a bunch of Swedes and how they see the world.

An American actually hasn't won the award since 1993, since you decided to take it there and make the backward argument that Americans are the ones who don't get it. Before that it was the 1970s.

The only argument you could possibly make to me about your American ignorance (unlike worldly you) is that no American in all those decades has been deserving. That Herta Muller (who yes, was obscure) was a more deserving winner than say Philip Roth or Thomas Pynchon. Please go ahead and give that opinion to the board. Tell us that since the 1970s, the ONLY American better than the largely (but not entirely) silly list of Nobel Literature prize winners has been Toni Morrison.

In your world, pointing out the obvious amounts to blind patriotism and ignorance. Even in 1993 -- the last American winner -- it was a special circumstance. Toni Morrison was the "outsider" in her own country who has lived a life of fighting the oppression that is America. So she was OK.

If you don't think an anti-American sentiment permeates those silly awards -- across categories -- you are nuts. They gave a peace prize to Barack Obama -- who had done zilch -- to zing George Bush.

I didn't go there. You did. But since you did, I am not going to shy away from what is obvious to most people.

 

[waterytart]

Ragu, my initial take was "OMG, they gave it to someone I've read?" Upon reflection, that was an overreaction. I read a fair amount, but nothing truly obscure. Here's how my reactions to the 20 winners since Morrison break down:

Cool, I've already read them (4)
Fo - 1997, Grass - 1999, Pinter - 2005, Munro - 2013

Yeah, I've heard of them (6)
Heaney - 1995, Naipaul - 2001, Kertesz - 2002, Coetzee - 2003, Lessing - 2007, Vargas Llosa - 2010

Who? (10)
Oe - 1994, Szymborska - 1996, Saramago - 1998, Gao - 2000, Jelinek - 2004, Pamuk - 2006, Clezio - 2008, Mueller - 2009, Transtromer - 2011, Mo - 2012

That means, with all of world literature to choose from, half the authors were already known to this random American reader before they got their Nobels. That doesn't seem so obscure. (And six of the ten I didn't know are European, not third world.)

Now, do they play politics with it? Sure. But they're not beating the bushes for unknowns.

 

[Double J]

Sore loser/attention ***** Bret Easton Ellis says Munro is overrated and the Nobel Prize is a joke. Jealous much?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/bret-easton-ellis-declares-alice-munro-overrated-and-the-nobel-prize-a-joke/article14831409/

 

[Brian]

No problem with Munro, but I'd like to see Roth win it it before he dies.

 

[waterytart]

Sore loser/attention ***** Bret Easton Ellis says Munro is overrated and the Nobel Prize is a joke. Jealous much?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/bret-easton-ellis-declares-alice-munro-overrated-and-the-nobel-prize-a-joke/article14831409/

Ellis should expect to win the same year I get the nod for Physics.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Ragu, I don't think this Prize reflects anti-Americanism so much as the juries' intense desire to recognize work outside the Anglo-European canon, a worthy goal no doubt, but one that means I never heard of many winners, either. Pynchon would be a fabulous choice, but would he show up in public to accept?

 

[Michael_ Gee]

PS: I deserve the Prize more than Ellis, and so does anybody else who's ever filed a daily sports story.

 

[JR]

The first choice in a long, long time that I can't really say anything bad about. This award has been a joke for so long.

Not a hamhanded choice made for political reasons. Not an obscure writer from an obscure place that nobody has ever read (to demonstrate how smart the committee is). Even a North American.

I can make arguments for writers I think are more deserving, but at least for once I would be making an argument about the LITERARY merits of the winner. And in the case of Alice Munro, it is someone who has a good argument for why she is deserving.

Do you include China, Germany, Spain and United Kingdom as obscure places?

Alice lives in Clinton, Ontario, which most people in Toronto have never heard of and would be unable to find on a map. So, she comes from an obscure place--even by Canadian standards

And most North Americans (including Canadians) are dreadfully ignorant about European, Asian or African writers so the "I've never heard of them" doesn't mean "obscure"

She also only writes short stories which is pretty much the kiss of death in the mainstream publishing world these days.

But the New Yorker publishes her so you can kinda go USA! USA! USA! over her.

Politics comes into play in EVERY single literary award in every country. It's the nature of the beast.

Be real. One, I didn't go "USA! USA! USA!." You took it there, and it's particularly curious since you are attributing it to me about a CANADIAN writer. Along with a lot of your other nonsense that I never said.

I am fine with Alice Munro as a winner. At least you can make an argument for her on her LITERARY merits.

But since you tried to attribute your typical BS to me. ... Sure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3120602/Nobel-literature-prize-judge-American-authors-insular-and-ignorant.html

That isn't me chanting "USA! USA! USA!" It's the reality of what the Nobel prizes are. A joke.

For what it is worth, it doesn't have to be an American. It is nice when it is someone who actually could sell a book without people having to dig their stuff out and reprint it AFTER the Nobel Prize suddenly made them relevant. The fact that people actually read Philip Roth works against him, for example. He's not an obscure intellectual.

Well, that and the fact that he is American. And picking him wouldn't make any kind of statement that advances the caricaturish social agenda of a bunch of Swedes and how they see the world.

An American actually hasn't won the award since 1993, since you decided to take it there and make the backward argument that Americans are the ones who don't get it. Before that it was the 1970s.

The only argument you could possibly make to me about your American ignorance (unlike worldly you) is that no American in all those decades has been deserving. That Herta Muller (who yes, was obscure) was a more deserving winner than say Philip Roth or Thomas Pynchon. Please go ahead and give that opinion to the board. Tell us that since the 1970s, the ONLY American better than the largely (but not entirely) silly list of Nobel Literature prize winners has been Toni Morrison.

In your world, pointing out the obvious amounts to blind patriotism and ignorance. Even in 1993 -- the last American winner -- it was a special circumstance. Toni Morrison was the "outsider" in her own country who has lived a life of fighting the oppression that is America. So she was OK.

If you don't think an anti-American sentiment permeates those silly awards -- across categories -- you are nuts. They gave a peace prize to Barack Obama -- who had done zilch -- to zing George Bush.

I didn't go there. You did. But since you did, I am not going to shy away from what is obvious to most people.

Oh, dear, Ragu had one of his frothing at the mouth tirades. Always fun.

Let's see. You made the comment that, well, at least Munro is a North American. Something I found funny as hell. "Well, she's not exactly an American, but damn, at least she writes in English and well, Canada is almost the USA"

And your "Herta Mueller is obscure" only says, "Hey, I haven't heard of her so she must be obscure" Have you read her?

How about Doris Lessing, Seamus Heaney, Gunter Grass, VS Naipaul, J. M. Coetzee, Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio or Mario Vargas Llosa?. Have you read ANY of them? Yes, Roth is a fine writer but not more deserving than any of these authors

Your belief that an American author hasn't won since '93 because of anti-American sentiment is a classic American complaint. You think your authors are more important in the literary world than they actually are.

Yes, lots of good American writers but you don't have a monopoly on literary greatness

I'm pissed that Robertson Davies never won the Nobel Prize but I don't say, "They're anti Canuckistan"

 

[Alma]

Ragu, I don't think this Prize reflects anti-Americanism so much as the juries' intense desire to recognize work outside the Anglo-European canon, a worthy goal no doubt, but one that means I never heard of many winners, either. Pynchon would be a fabulous choice, but would he show up in public to accept?

Joyce Carol Oates wins it before Pynchon or Roth does. Watch.

 

[JR]

Ragu, I don't think this Prize reflects anti-Americanism so much as the juries' intense desire to recognize work outside the Anglo-European canon, a worthy goal no doubt, but one that means I never heard of many winners, either. Pynchon would be a fabulous choice, but would he show up in public to accept?

Joyce Carol Oates wins it before Pynchon or Roth does. Watch.

Funny you mentioned that. She was the American novelist who immediately came to mind when I thought about authors other than Roth or Pynchon.

 

[The Big Ragu]

The first choice in a long, long time that I can't really say anything bad about. This award has been a joke for so long.

Not a hamhanded choice made for political reasons. Not an obscure writer from an obscure place that nobody has ever read (to demonstrate how smart the committee is). Even a North American.

I can make arguments for writers I think are more deserving, but at least for once I would be making an argument about the LITERARY merits of the winner. And in the case of Alice Munro, it is someone who has a good argument for why she is deserving.

Do you include China, Germany, Spain and United Kingdom as obscure places?

Alice lives in Clinton, Ontario, which most people in Toronto have never heard of and would be unable to find on a map. So, she comes from an obscure place--even by Canadian standards

And most North Americans (including Canadians) are dreadfully ignorant about European, Asian or African writers so the "I've never heard of them" doesn't mean "obscure"

She also only writes short stories which is pretty much the kiss of death in the mainstream publishing world these days.

But the New Yorker publishes her so you can kinda go USA! USA! USA! over her.

Politics comes into play in EVERY single literary award in every country. It's the nature of the beast.

Be real. One, I didn't go "USA! USA! USA!." You took it there, and it's particularly curious since you are attributing it to me about a CANADIAN writer. Along with a lot of your other nonsense that I never said.

I am fine with Alice Munro as a winner. At least you can make an argument for her on her LITERARY merits.

But since you tried to attribute your typical BS to me. ... Sure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3120602/Nobel-literature-prize-judge-American-authors-insular-and-ignorant.html

That isn't me chanting "USA! USA! USA!" It's the reality of what the Nobel prizes are. A joke.

For what it is worth, it doesn't have to be an American. It is nice when it is someone who actually could sell a book without people having to dig their stuff out and reprint it AFTER the Nobel Prize suddenly made them relevant. The fact that people actually read Philip Roth works against him, for example. He's not an obscure intellectual.

Well, that and the fact that he is American. And picking him wouldn't make any kind of statement that advances the caricaturish social agenda of a bunch of Swedes and how they see the world.

An American actually hasn't won the award since 1993, since you decided to take it there and make the backward argument that Americans are the ones who don't get it. Before that it was the 1970s.

The only argument you could possibly make to me about your American ignorance (unlike worldly you) is that no American in all those decades has been deserving. That Herta Muller (who yes, was obscure) was a more deserving winner than say Philip Roth or Thomas Pynchon. Please go ahead and give that opinion to the board. Tell us that since the 1970s, the ONLY American better than the largely (but not entirely) silly list of Nobel Literature prize winners has been Toni Morrison.

In your world, pointing out the obvious amounts to blind patriotism and ignorance. Even in 1993 -- the last American winner -- it was a special circumstance. Toni Morrison was the "outsider" in her own country who has lived a life of fighting the oppression that is America. So she was OK.

If you don't think an anti-American sentiment permeates those silly awards -- across categories -- you are nuts. They gave a peace prize to Barack Obama -- who had done zilch -- to zing George Bush.

I didn't go there. You did. But since you did, I am not going to shy away from what is obvious to most people.

Oh, dear, Ragu had one of his frothing at the mouth tirades. Always fun.

Let's see. You made the comment that, well, at least Munro is a North American. Something I found funny as hell. "Well, she's not exactly an American, but damn, at least she writes in English and well, Canada is almost the USA"

And your "Herta Mueller is obscure" only says, "Hey, I haven't heard of her so she must be obscure" Have you read her?

How about Doris Lessing, Seamus Heaney, Gunter Grass, VS Naipaul, J. M. Coetzee, Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio or Mario Vargas Llosa?. Have you read ANY of them? Yes, Roth is a fine writer but not more deserving than any of these authors

Your belief that an American author hasn't won since '93 because of anti-American sentiment is a classic American complaint. You think your authors are more important in the literary world than they actually are.

Yes, lots of good American writers but you don't have a monopoly on literary greatness

I'm pissed that Robertson Davies never won the Nobel Prize but I don't say, "They're anti Canuckistan"

Seriously, tell me with a straight face that the list of many obscure winners (who couldn't sell a book before the prize) since Toni Morrison (1993) have all been more deserving than any American writer -- say Thomas Pynchon or Cormac McCarthy.

If you believe that, so be it. But I am not making the claim that American writers "have a monopoly on literary greatness," the strawman you had to create. I am making the claim that the Nobel Prize has an anti-American bias that has largely shut out great American writers and they routinely pick obscure intellectuals who are less deserving, for political -- not literary -- reasons.

And that makes the LITERATURE prize a joke.

Tell me that Herta Muller (no one even knew who she was in Germany!) or Mo Yan or Tomas Transtroemer or Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clezio or Elfriede Jelinek were more deserving of the prize in your opinion than Philip Roth, Thomas Pynchon, John Updike, Joyce Carol Oates or Cormac McCarthy. Then at least we can chalk it up to you being a wanna Swedish foof in the snobbish mold of the prize judge who said, "Of course there is powerful literature in all big cultures, but you can't get away from the fact that Europe still is the centre of the literary world, not the United States. ... 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."