On 10 October 2024 it was announced that the Nobel Prize in Literature would be awarded to South Korean writer Han Kang, who will receive the prize on 10 December. The author, who has won other awards, won the International Booker Prize, which has been awarded since 2005, in 2016 for her book “Vegetarian”.
According to the Nobel announcement, she won the prize “for her intense poetic prose, that confronts historical traumas and exposes the fragility of human life”.
After winning the prize, she was naturally subjected to some criticism, which is not surprising. In fact, I can blindly believe that this happens every year. Some Swedish critics and writers begin their sentences by softening their words by saying that Han Kang is a good writer, but in fact she is not worthy of the prize and will be forgotten in fifty years' time. As you know, the Nobel Prize is a world-renowned and respected institution founded in Sweden, and the committee is made up entirely of citizens of that country. It is up to you, at the end of this article, to reconsider whether the prizes have any validity or not.
Photo by Anastacia Dvi on Unsplash
As I mentioned in the title, I do not intend to focus too much on Han Kang in this article. But I can't help mentioning her. The first time I saw her name was randomly on a social media account before the award was announced, and the related post was mostly about an artistic work of hers from 2018. It didn't really interest me. However, when the award was announced about a week after I saw this, I kept wondering how I had remembered the name. In fact, she'd been chosen as one of the writers in 2018 to take part in an organisation called the Future Library, which I'd written about before, and to leave her writing 100 years in the future. I don't know about fifty years from now, but it's already certain that her name will be mentioned again in a hundred years' time.
As this is a subject that I postponed writing about last year, I have been researching how the Nobel Prizes work, what is thought about the concept when considering the prizes, and what kind of statistics are produced, and I would like to share them with you. Of course, I will also include my own personal thoughts.
In 1895, the Swedish scientist Alfred Nobel decided to award prizes in five different categories (physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and peace) in fields he considered to be of benefit to humanity. He died 1 year later (on 10 December, the day the prizes were awarded). The first prizes were awarded in 1901 by the Foundation set up in his name. A sixth category was added in 1969 by the Central Bank of Sweden, and prizes were awarded in the field of economics.
With the exception of 1935, 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943, the literature prizes have been awarded to 121 people in 2024. Although only 18 of these were women (the first was Selma Lagerlöf in 1909, who was also a member of the committee), a comparison with other categories shows that this is the second most awarded category for women. The first was the Nobel Peace Prize (of the 27 organisations presented, 19 out of 111 were women).
Let's get back to the literary prizes. I thought it would be appropriate to analyse the last ten years, but I had to look back even further on a number of issues. The first thing that struck me was the gender difference in the awards, which I have already mentioned. However, if we look at the period after 2000, we can see that almost every year there is a male and a female winner (and no consecutive winners for women). I don't know if this is a conscious preference. It is a fact, however, that more than half of all women's prizes (12 out 19) have laureated over the last thirty years.
Apart from that, France has won the most prizes, followed by the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and Sweden. If I am not mistaken, the criterion is the country of residence and the nationality of the winner at the time. By the way, have you noticed that Sweden is in the top five?
As far as the language used in the works is concerned, English is obviously the top language, with French in second place, which seems to have appeared in the works of 16 authors, only half as many as English. This is followed by German, Spanish and Swedish.
In the literature category, the youngest winner (Rudyard Kipling, born in 1907 in India, a British protectorate) was 41 and the oldest (Doris Lessing, born in 2007 in Iran to British parents) was 87. In the case of Doris Lessing, who passed away in 2013, you can see what she said when she received the news that she had won the prize, and the statement she made afterwards by clicking the links.
On the other hand, one might wonder: "Especially in the physics and chemistry categories, more than one person shares the prize, isn't that the case in literature?” Not really. In fact, the situation is not unreasonable if you think about it. It gives me the feeling that this is the way it should be, but there have been years when it has happened. In other words, in all these years there have been exceptions. In 1907, 1917, 1966 and 1974 they decided to give it to two people each.
The more I think about it, the more I can accept the rarity of this situation, because writing is personal and only the individual can do it properly. Are collaborative works (and it should be noted that no such works have yet been awarded) as effective as collaborative efforts in other categories? Apparently not for 120 years. Probably another reason is that the whole life's work is taken into account rather than specific works (in fact, special selections based on works were made a total of 9 times up to 1965).
No one has ever won the Nobel Prize for Literature more than once. On the other hand, two people have refused the prize. The first was Boris Pasternak, who accepted the prize in 1958 but was rejected by the authorities of his country, the Soviet Union. The other was Jean Paul Sartre, who declared in 1964 that he had refused all other prizes offered to him.
Photo by Christian Wiediger on Unsplash
Let us now turn to some interpretations and criticisms. First of all, I will explain why there is a different approach to evaluating literature and what it contains.
Literature is a domain, a discipline without boundaries. Since it is not scientific, it does not feel obliged to submit to rationality. Therefore, it can only be evaluated according to its own internal dynamics (language, style, expression within certain rules); it is difficult to evaluate it precisely according to external criteria (personal feelings and thoughts).
In other words, interpretations and evaluations of works in this context are always abstract and personal to some extent. Even if it transcends personalities and evokes a common feeling, it is difficult to make an evaluation that satisfies everyone. This is what distinguishes it from a scientific discipline such as physics.
Because science is dynamic, there is constant flux and a sense of progress. The results of experiments and studies are hypotheses that are accepted as true (until proven otherwise) or scientific rules that contain certainty. This does not apply to literature as a whole. Because the events described in literary works may remain the same, they need not change. What makes the difference is the way they are expressed. The combination of personal thoughts and social values with the way they are written influences them. This makes literature a field based on diversity and richness rather than certainty.
In a nutshell, while a scientific result can be measured and proven, we cannot do this with literature, so it is always open and suitable for discussion.
For this reason, the selections made by the committee have been the subject of much criticism. This is understandable. Whether it is the people who have won or not, or the institutions and organisations involved, they have not refrained from criticising the Nobel Prizes.
The biggest and perhaps most predictable criticism is that authors whose names and works have become classics and are respected around the world are not considered worthy of this award. That doesn't sound too far-fetched, does it? Let me quote from a 2012 article in the Wall Street Journal:
“You may not know it, but you and I are members of a club whose fellow members include Leo Tolstoy, Henry James, Anton Chekhov, Mark Twain, Henrik Ibsen, Marcel Proust, Joseph Conrad, James Joyce, Thomas Hardy, Jorge Luis Borges and Vladimir Nabokov. The club is the Non-Winners of the Nobel Prize in Literature. All these authentically great writers, still alive when the prize, initiated in 1901, was being awarded, didn't win it.”
Even many authors who have been nominated dozens of times (which is a long time, given that the nomination takes place once a year) have been rejected. Naturally, such an attitude breeds suspicion in the minds of both the nominators and those who know the quality of the nominee. At this point, it is the uncertainty and inconsistency of the committee that is being questioned, rather than the incompetence of the author.
We should immediately note that this kind of stubbornness or deliberate rejection by the committee also damages the prestige, seriousness and importance of the Nobel Prize.
Another issue that needs to be addressed has also come up often. Perhaps it is because the Swedes are too selfish and self-centred, but the fact that they both favour candidates from their own nation and have a Eurocentric attitude has led to a lot of complaints and criticism from the academic community.
Yes, it is a fact that societies that speak the same language or belong to the same linguistic family are definitely more moderate towards each other. There is also the fact of similar cultures, which we have not yet taken into account. That's why candidates from other continents are usually considered later.
If you think about it, a person living in Indonesia, New Zealand, Honduras or Mongolia is clearly not on the same level as a person living in any country in Europe in this matter. In other words, differences are possible, but is it healthy to look at these differences from a single point of view? Who will be able to analyse and understand the stories, the poetry, the reflection of folklore in literature, the local but groundbreaking developments in science, the impact of organisations that prevent geographical conflicts, the selfless people who work to find a solution to financial crises in such countries?
Clearly there are some parts that the committee overlooked, or did not take seriously, or simply did not care about. The awards are not the result of a competition, and the real importance of the organisation is that it supports the advancement of humanity. I think they are losing sight of their original purpose. Given that the criticisms are not new, perhaps they already have.
Those who say that it is becoming a structure that is increasingly trying to mediate political and policy gains are perhaps saying that for that very reason, don't you think?
In fact, I think it has some similarities with the Eurovision Song Contest. Both take place once a year, and unlike the Nobel Prize, which is awarded on a global (!) scale, the Eurovision Song Contest only covers Europe. However, the voting part of this contest, which I think we have all seen at least once, does not reflect this charming demeanour and succumbs to selfishness every time. The points given and received are calculated, they are tongue-in-cheek, they are in the nature of countries making amends or taking steps to establish good relations. They are far from feelings and realities, artificial and detached from the self. If you pay attention, music is just like literature; it is an art form that does not have strict criteria, is driven by feelings and appeals to the individual. But how consistent is it that the same geography always prevails? Europe has lost its vision by looking from above, its eyes have become blurred; the individuals/nations it thinks are below it are not as numerous as it thinks.
It is sad and corrosive to humanity that such organisations decay and give way to political interactions and manoeuvres that throw cultural building blocks into the dustbin. It undermines both the credibility of the organisation and the prestige of the award, dulls people's interest in social events of this magnitude and only allows them to play musical chairs in their own playground.
Enough of the criticism. What can be done to ensure that such large and well-known organisations continue on their path in a healthy way?
First of all, selfish attitudes must be put aside. Sweden should reconstitute its committee and diversify it in terms of nationality. There is no doubt that the infrastructure lacks empathy.
Perhaps this could be achieved by having at least two committee members and one alternate from each continent. As a tribute to Alfred Nobel and in honour of his hosting, Sweden's voting rights could be counted as two instead of one when considering candidates.
Another solution might have been as follows: Instead of requiring a committee organisation, the number of selected candidates could have been increased. For example, they could have taken at least two candidates from each continent and eliminated them according to criteria. The number of candidates could have been adjusted according to the total population of the continents. After all, if the aim is to show humanity what can be achieved, there should be no partisanship, no interference in politics, and whoever can pioneer success should be given a chance.
Another example is increasing the number of awards. Would giving the prize to more people really devalue it? On the contrary, wouldn't such a selection have a positive effect and increase its value by showing the diversity that could be justified? It is important to remember that it is not correct to think that "only Nobel laureates are successful". People who work hard will continue to exist with or without prizes. Nobel is now just an advertisement. For this reason alone, I would argue that the idea of the Nobel Prize and the prestigious association with it should not be as intense as it is made out to be.
Finally, some links and statistics.
The table below, published seven months ago, shows the ratio of the number of prizes won to the number of native speakers (in millions) when analysing the Nobel Prize in Literature by language. To illustrate, a native speaker of Icelandic winning the prize is ahead of other languages such as Turkish or Portuguese, despite the same number of prizes. To understand this, I have taken the data from here, where the Icelandic population is updated daily, and it appears that there are currently 405,595 legal residents.
The population of Turkey is analysed under the title “The Results of Address Based Population Registration System, 2023” and it is seen that the number is 85 million 372 thousand 377.
According to the information I got from here for Portugal, this number is given as 10 million 639 thousand 726 on 31 December 2023. The following question immediately comes to mind. “Why does Portugal seem to be lagging behind Turkey?” Because we mentioned that the table is based on native speakers. In this case, it becomes understandable if we consider, for example, Brazil (203 million 62 thousand 512 people in August 2022) who speak Portuguese.
One of the most striking points is probably the presence of the Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) in the list and even the Nordic countries (Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland) in the top six. I do not feel the need to comment further on this.
On the other hand, if we include Israel, Russia and Turkey in the European continent (see Eurovision Song Contest), the lack of prizes distributed to other continents is also evident. Yes, there are some winners who were born outside Europe, but the awards are always given to peripheral languages and regions. Fortunately, Han Kang will be able to change this picture with Korean.
Let's take a quick look at the table below, not by language, but by winning country in 2020.
To be honest, this might not be very healthy data, especially for the first three countries. For example, Kazuo Ishiguro, who won the prize in 2017, is a British citizen born in Japan, which affects the data here. This explains why France, the US and the UK are at the top of the list. On the other hand, if we take into account that in the table above, 16 prizes were awarded to French authors and 32 to English authors, the picture becomes clearer. The strange thing is the presence of Sweden.
Potential candidates are always nominated by someone else. The Nobel organisation also keeps these nominations secret for 50 years. In this context, you can find some detailed data on their website here. You can analyse the nominees in five categories, from 1901 to 1970. There are the names of the nominators and the names of the nominees. Comparing the names I can think of with the winners of that year, I have to say that the committee did not do a good job. Perhaps they did it because it suited them best. The nominees and winners of the 1934 Nobel Peace Prize are perhaps the best example of this.
Commentaires