Nobel Tradition
Sigrid Undset, Grazia Deledda, Wladyslaw Reymont, Jacinto Benavente, Carl Spitteler, Henrik Pontoppidan, Verner von Heidenstam, Romain Rolland, Rabindranath Tagore, Gerhart Hauptmann, Paul Heyse, Selma Lagerlöf, Rudolf Eucken, Giosuè Carducci, Henryk Sienkiewicz, Frédéric Mistral, José Echegaray, Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson, Theodor Mommsen, Sully Prudhomme.
That's a list of most of the Nobel Prize winners for literature in the first 30 years of the award. Then they got a bit better. Now they seem to be making the same weird choices again.
I admit I've never read anything by Herta Mueller, but the pick seems to be short-sighted and political (even though I agree with the politics). Here's what Horace Engdahl of the Nobel committee said last year: "The purpose of the prize is to make them famous, not to tap them when they are famous."
Nobel Prize winners shouldn't be famous because they won the Nobel Prize. That's got it backwards.
I think it's best to ignore the Nobels for literature, peace, and maybe economics.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:23 AM
7 Comments:
It's an especially good idea to ignore the Nobels for Economics especially since they awarded it to Krugman.
Its best to ignore it if they promote someone you don't like and applaud them when they do- thats the nature of award-giving institutions. It does show that credibility is damaged when these type of award-givers wade into controversies (especially political/cultural ones where nearly everyone feels qualified to have an opinion) and pick a side.
The Peace prize to Obama this year is especially odd since it really doesn't help anyone (except maybe people who criticize the Nobel process). Obama should demand a recount- at this phase of his administration when there are few completed accomplishments beyond actually getting elected, its a pure anchor of expectation and more a message of how much Nobels really really didn't like the last administration.
To use a crass topical reference- these Nobel guys are really eroding the brand.
The Peace prize was awarded to President Obama precisely because he hasn't done anything yet.
In another year, after he has increased US troop presence in Afghanistan, perhaps further delayed the pull out from Iraq, and - who knows - attacked Somali pirates or allowed Israel to bomb some of the still undisclosed Iranian nuclear facilities, it would be impossible to give him the reward. This way, the Nobel committee can be as embarrassed as they were shortly after giving Yasir Arafat the prize.
The damage to peace Obama will do is not in overt attacks, but in making it easy for evil people around the world to do what they want. However, since this is how they see the world in Norway, this is also why he's getting the award.
Rather than comment on the Peace Prize down here, I've just posted on it.
"The damage to peace Obama will do is not in overt attacks, but in making it easy for evil people around the world to do what they want."
This quote actually helps explain the decision- contrary to anonymous post, Obama has made it hard "for evil people to do what they want"- How? by defeating them in elections. (first the primaries and then in the general)
The ugly hatred shown by anonymous directly above shows the madness of America's left today. There are millions around the world who openly wish to destroy the West and have been willing to commit intentional terrorist acts against civilians to further their goal. They've enslaved entire populations and, if they had the power, would enslave the entire world and kill everyone who fights back. Even Obama recognizes this.
But the left can't manage to get as mad against these many millions as they can against the American politicans they disagree with, politicians who support basic human rights (and have the ability to kill as many as the terrorists would like to, but instead fight for these rights), but do it with a different (and more effective) strategy than Obama.
Post a Comment
<< Home