https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/social-life-of-the-nobel-prize-in-literature-9798765188903/

------

In this episode, we are joined by Dr. Shuangyi Li, Senior Lecturer in Comparative Literature and Cultures at the University of Bristol, whose research spans comparative and world literature, transcultural and translingual writing, translation, intermediality, and the work of Chinese and diasporic writer-artists including Gao Xingjian.

In discussing the chapter “Escaping Prestige” from my book The Social Life of the Nobel Prize in Literature, we dive into the paradoxes of literary prestige through Gao Xingjian’s life and work following his 2000 Nobel Prize in Literature. Taking the idea of the Nobel as a potential “kiss of death” as our starting point, we explore Gao’s desire for a “second escape” from the fame, recognition, and monumentalization brought by the Prize. Dr. Li discusses the relationship between Gao’s painting, cinema, and other artistic practices, as we consider how l’année Gao brings poetry, painting, theatre, opera, and film into a transmedial reflection on death, freedom, and immortality. Finally, we examine a central paradox of Gao’s post-Nobel career: while Nobel prestige threatens his artistic autonomy, the cultural, social, and economic capital generated by that same prestige also enables some of his most ambitious artistic experiments.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/social-life-of-the-nobel-prize-in-literature-9798765188903/

------

In this episode, we are joined by Dr Simona Gallo from the University of Milan, whose research focuses on contemporary Chinese and Sinophone literature, literary and cultural translation, multilingual writing, transmedial creation, and the work of Nobel laureate Gao Xingjian.

In discussing the chapter “The Chinese Nobel Complex” from my book The Social Life of the Nobel Prize in Literature, we reconsider the familiar idea that Chinese fascination with the Nobel Prize can be understood simply as a desire for Western recognition. Professor Gallo introduces the memorable analogy of Aesop’s fox and the sour grapes, opening a discussion about desire, rejection, national pride, and the strategic uses of Nobel prestige. We examine how responses to Gao Xingjian’s Nobel Prize differ across mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and wider Sinophone communities, and consider how even partial or “thin” knowledge of the Nobel can generate new cultural meanings. The conversation then turns to Gao’s resistance to fixed notions of Chineseness, his idea of a “New Renaissance,” and the role of translation across languages, cultures, and artistic media. Finally, we ask whether Gao’s paintings might be “literary” without being literature, and how works such as Requiem for Beauty challenge the boundaries separating literature from other art forms.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/social-life-of-the-nobel-prize-in-literature-9798765188903/

------

In this episode, we are joined by Dr Gustav Källstrand, historian of ideas and Nobel expert at the Nobel Prize Museum, where he also hosts the podcast Ideas That Change the World. His work examines the history, culture, and enduring significance of the Nobel Prize.

In discussing the chapter “Reading the Nobel’s Prestige” from my book The Social Life of the Nobel Prize in Literature, we explore how the Nobel Prize acquired its extraordinary prestige and why that prestige continues to shape the way writers, scientists, institutions, media, and the public understand recognition and achievement. Källstrand discusses the role of ceremony, ritual, media attention, and repetition in establishing the Nobel as a cultural institution, while we consider prestige as a “chain of belief” sustained by those who participate in it. We also examine how criticism and scandal can paradoxically reinforce rather than diminish the Prize’s authority, and debate the tension between tradition, relevance, and institutional change. Finally, we compare literary and scientific cultures of recognition, exploring how ambition, ego, peer judgment, and the desire to win complicate the ideal of disinterested intellectual work—and why, despite our criticisms of prizes, winning the Nobel can remain extraordinarily difficult to resist.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/social-life-of-the-nobel-prize-in-literature-9798765188903/

------

In this episode, we are joined by Professor Anne-Marie Mai from the University of Southern Denmark, whose research encompasses Danish and Nordic literature, literary history, narrative medicine, and Bob Dylan studies.

In discussing the chapter on Bob Dylan from my book The Social Life of the Nobel Prize in Literature, we revisit the controversy surrounding Dylan’s 2016 Nobel Prize in Literature and ask what his selection reveals about the boundaries of literature itself. Professor Mai reflects on the debates sparked by Dylan’s win and the ways in which song, poetry, music, and performance challenge conventional distinctions between literary and non-literary forms. We discuss Dylan’s uneasy relationship with the Nobel Prize, the social and political afterlives of songs such as “Blowin’ in the Wind,” and the role of translation in carrying Dylan’s words across linguistic and cultural boundaries. The conversation also explores masculinity and “creative melancholy” in Dylan’s work, whether song lyrics can—or should—be separated from their music, and how awarding the Nobel to Dylan both unsettles and complicates established ideas about literary prestige, cultural hierarchy, and world literature.

We discuss the broader cultural significance of the Nobel Prize in Literature, focusing on how literary awards, as explored in Dr. Sandberg’s research, facilitate adaptations and shape cultural prestige. Drawing on Sara Danius’ rationale for awarding Bob Dylan the Nobel for his poetic fusion of high and low literary traditions, we explore how Thomas Pynchon’s integration of pop culture mirrors this approach. Finally, we examine Pynchon’s novel Inherent Vice as a prime example of his ability to bridge high and low culture, blending detective fiction with literary depth.

We dive into the debates surrounding Wole Soyinka’s 1986 Nobel Prize in Literature, exploring the controversies that marked his historic win as the first African laureate. Dr. Azumurana sheds light on Soyinka’s play A Dance of the Forests, highlighted by the Swedish Academy during his Nobel ceremony, discussing its themes and significance. We also examine how the play’s dystopian portrayal of the past and present serves as a cautionary vision for the future. Finally, we explore Soyinka’s Nobel lecture, “The Past Must Address the Present,” where he critiques Western intellectual traditions for perpetuating racist ideologies, and discuss how his call to “sever that cord” of unjust traditions resonates with the dystopian themes in A Dance of the Forests.

We discuss whether Ukrainian writers, like Boris Pasternak or Jean-Paul Sartre, ever distanced themselves from Nobel Prize nominations due to political pressures, and what this reveals about the risks and responsibilities authors face under oppressive regimes. Dr. Protasova also explores the concept of “witness literature,” recognized by the Swedish Academy for its testimony to trauma, and considers whether both firsthand and imaginative accounts of the Holocaust in Ukrainian writing qualify as such. Finally, we delve into Iurii Klen’s haunting epic poem Ashes of Empires, focusing on its stark imagery, such as Jewish babies treated as footballs during the Holocaust, and its significance in Ukrainian literary history.U

We explore the behind-the-scenes impact of Nobel announcement day on newsroom routines at Sydsvenskan, from rapid shifts in editorial priorities to the scramble for expert commentary. We also discuss why controversial laureates often dominate headlines more than beloved figures, unpacking the role of debate in amplifying literary discourse.

We explore her argument that multilingualism, rather than the nation, serves as a more effective lens for studying comparative literature in this region. Dr. Dánél discusses why this approach better captures the cultural and literary dynamics of East-Central Europe. We also delve into how a multilingual perspective reshapes our understanding of the Prize, often seen as a “literary Olympics,” and challenges traditional notions of literary canons by highlighting writers with multiple national and cultural identities.

We discuss the Swedish Academy’s recognition of Han Kang, the 2024 Nobel Prize laureate in Literature, and explore the poetic and historical dimensions of her work. Dr Gullander-Drolet sheds light on the controversies surrounding the English translation of The Vegetarian, offering insights into the cultural concept of “han” and the challenges it poses for Western audiences. Lastly, we delve into the translator’s role as both mediator and co-creator, and how The Vegetarian reflects the broader dynamics of world literature and South Korea’s efforts to promote its literary heritage globally.

We discuss the goals of the 196th Nobel Symposia and what inspired Dr Ågerup to study the criticism surrounding the Nobel Prize in Literature. He offers insights into why critics publicly engage with the Prize and breaks down the most common criticisms of its selections in the 21st century. Lastly, we explore how these critiques can serve as constructive forces in the broader struggles for autonomy and emancipation.

We discuss Prof. Inoue's aims for the 196th Nobel Symposia and the inspiration behind his exploration of Japan's literary aspirations. He shares insights drawn from archival material about the influence of diplomacy, Cold War politics, and translation techniques on Kawabata Yasunari's Nobel win. Additionally, we delve into the negative reception Oe Kenzaburo faced in Japan after his Nobel Prize and his responses to this backlash.

We discuss the aims of the 196th Nobel Symposia, the inspiration behind his research on the Nobel Prize, and what makes this prestigious award unique. Paul also introduces the concept of "canon formation from the side," highlighting the Prize’s cultural influence on literature. Finally, we dive into his thoughts on the Swedish Academy’s “culture of secrecy” in administering the Nobel Prize in Literature.

We delve into the field of textology, exploring how it relates to genetic criticism and how both can enhance our understanding of major authors and their creative processes. Prof Kruszewski shares insights on how these methods can influence the way we evaluate literary works and prizes, such as the Nobel Prize in Literature. We also discuss whether textology and genetic criticism can assess the fairness of literary awards and how these fields might contribute to studying the Nobel’s focus on an author’s “genius” and lifetime achievement.

We discuss their "Literature in the Nobel Era" conference series and key findings from their research. They explain how the Nobel’s reputation as a prestigious award was shaped by media coverage and data tables. We also explore the connection between Alfred Nobel’s legacy and the media’s early interest in the prize, as well as the Nobel’s role in promoting international understanding, similar to the Olympics.

Within disability studies there are the medical and social models. The medical model is about functional impairment such as a missing limb, while the social is about how society disables that person such as the lack of wheelchair ramps.

We learn about the world through literature. Literature can promote stereotypes and be damaging, but it can also promote discourse that promotes engagement. Literature presents different perspectives and creates a unique space for thinking about disability rights. People’s perception of disability is shaped by the language used in stories, therefore reading and writing sensitizes us to how the narratives are constructed. Disability is a shifting category that is constantly being rewritten.

Toni Morrison’s works matter for disability rights as they collapse the boundaries between the author and the reader, allowing us to get under the skin of the characters, sensitizing us to others’ points of view while acknowledging the limits of the struggle to do so. From her Nobel lecture:

Oppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge. Whether it is obscuring state language or the faux-language of mindless media; whether it is the proud but calcified language of the academy or the commodity driven language of science; whether it is the malign language of law-without-ethics, or language designed for the estrangement of minorities, hiding its racist plunder in its literary cheek – it must be rejected, altered and exposed.

Morrison shows how language can be a tool of oppression and the enactment of violence, therefore the process of studying the use of language helps challenge those stereotypes.

Hall chose Faulkner, Morrison and Coetzee as subjects for her book in order to challenge most people’s view that disability is a niche concern. Three celebrated canonical writers with great prestige help highlight the fact that disability is actually a key concern among some of the most important 20^th and 21^st century writers. Disability is everywhere in a whole wealth of representation. These three are also public intellectuals. Their Nobel lectures outlined their views on what it is to be a writer and why it is important. Interestingly they all used disability as metaphors at key moments in their careers as a way of structuring their own contributions to the field.

All three also spoke of the responsibility of the writer; Faulkner said “this award is only mine in trust”.  Writers have an ethical responsibility of dealing with disability, race, gender etc. With language comes power, an agency. There is an ethical weight that comes with complexity, ambiguity, challenges and the difficulties manifested in their works as writers experiment with form.

Alfred Nobel stipulated that the literature prize is to be awarded to “the most outstanding work in an idealistic direction”. Idealism in literature in 1901 meant it was not realism, but works of transcendent values. These values today are how writers mediate between the roles of the writer and the critic, the writer and the character and the writer and the reader. There is process of working towards an ideal, Moving between the physical and metaphorical, between different levels of consciousness, between the fictional and the critical. The ideal is malleable. The process of moving towards the ideal is what connects these three different writers.

In Morrison’s Nobel lecture she uses a relatively classic format of a fable, fairy tale like structure of the blind old woman and the young people with a bird in the hand. During the story she intervenes as the writer by taking control of the language, inviting a range of metaphorical readings of the tale. The bird is the metaphorical representation of language as something one holds in one’s hand; it can be moulded, changed and for which one takes responsibility. The collaborative story telling between the old lady and the young people is a move towards the ideal of meaning as an unfinished process. Rather than explaining the metaphor, Morrison invites people to have agency over literature rather than just be passive participants.

This quote from Faulkner’s Nobel lecture is often mis-interpreted as a late 19^th century view of the writer whose work is spiritual and perpetuates a nostalgia for old ideals, a loss of the golden age of the American South.

… writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself …. [man] is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The … writer’s, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past.

But in reality this quote is more about the fragility of the individual body versus universal ideals The direct question of the Cold War era: “There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up?” There is a constant fear of physical threat. The process of writing is very physical; a life’s work of agony and sweat of the spirit. One must write with compassion. Faulkner wrote about what it meant for young men to come back from war and not fit the ideals of masculinity imposed on them. The scars are the images of the challenges of writing.

The ideal of the Nobel prize moves away from the pre-war writers and marks the moment when the kind of work to be rewarded are those that challenge and are experimental in their approach to what is ideal. It is a process of piecing together the elements of a story, which is a painful process in itself.

Coetzee had a very clear adoration of Faulkner. He was especially interested in Faulkner as a biographer who portrayed himself as a war hero and feigned disability. This fantasy of disability becomes the trigger of fiction writing. Morrison did her MA dissertation on Faulkner and was interested in the alienated outsider in his works and the big effect this had on her. All three refuse to look away from the unspeakable and try to find form to address the taboos and what is unspoken of in society. This discomforting yet compelling element is shared by them all.

Kenzaburo Oe is a Nobel laureate with a clear disability engagement. In his Nobel lecture he imagines the world from the perspective of his disabled son. Harold Pinter used his disability as part of his performance of the Nobel lecture, as well as the backdrop for the visceral and physical metaphor of his criticism of Blair, Bush and the media’s role in the invasion of Iraq. Pinter was very focused on the physical aspect of his disability which made speaking a struggle, but yet he felt a responsibility to do so as a physical and political defiance.

Perspectives of disability studies, health and embodiment are becoming a greater part of English literature. Hall has edited books that allow students to access this field by allowing thinking of critical movements such as feminism, disability studies, post-colonial studies, and how they are rooted within activist campaigns.  

The Swedes are a reading people. But the readership rate has been declining. Sales of books are down as is the usage of public libraries, probably due to the many different ways of getting cultural information, such as through the internet or Netflix. Thus, there is no need to read anymore. But during the pandemic, book sales soared. People realized the important role played by literature in connecting with the times as well as learning about the past, the world and the self. The education reform instilled by the social democrats since the early 20^th century ensured every child had a chance to read and have access to an academic education. Therefore, Swedes read. Unlike Hong Kong which also has universal education, the Swedes do not measure success by material wealth.

The Nobel prize doesn’t hold the same weight in Sweden as it does in some other countries. Sweden has many literary prizes whose winners are more accessible to the reader. The prestige of the Nobel is important to booksellers, but not so for the Swedish literary audience. Nobel prize winners tend to be either story tellers or language innovators. The language innovators tend to be difficult to read and are less relevant to the ordinary reader.

The Swedish Academy, founded in 1768, is a very influential cultural institution. The Nobel is the prize of the prizes and the Swedes do look forward to this great literary event. But two events have led to a diminishing interest and respect for the Nobel prize.

The first was the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie in 1989. The Academy is supposed to support free speech and intellectual freedom, but it did nothing at the time. Three members resigned.

The second was the 2018 Me Too sex scandal which shook the Academy from within and from the outside. Equality is extremely important for the Swedes, and women are strong. This scandal ‘pulled the [Academy’s} underpants down’, and nobody wanted to see this.

The Academy was regarded by the Swedes as a strong unshakable institution that was above all doubts and affairs. Both these events were shocking for the Swedes as they tainted the Academy, and by extension, the Nobel prize. The Academy took a long while to clear its name, but its reputation had been tarnished. The disgrace of the institution was of greater concern to the Swedes.

The Swedes feel the Academy has a responsibility to uphold the ideals of the prize as espoused in Alfred Nobel’s will. But its structural flaws that make this a difficult task. For one, works need to be translated. The Academy relies on PEN associations, writers’ associations and former Nobel laureates who promote writers they think should get the prize. Sometimes there are writers in languages that Academy members cannot read, so translations are ordered. For example, there was not a single work by Naguib Mahfouz, the Egyptian laureate in 1988, that had been translated into Swedish. But the Academy understood that the Arabic speaking world were unified in having Mahfouz’s works recognized, and so commissioned 4 to 5 works for translations and found others that had been translated into languages they could read.

The Academy has limitations. All members can read western languages but not so for Asian and African ones, thus the predominance of western literature prize winners. This is something that is being addressed through its network that helps pick writers from different parts of the world. For example, the 2021 laureate Abdulrazak Gurnah was a surprise choice as nobody knew this Tanzanian author who actually wrote in English. The Academy is trying to rectify the imbalance between western and non-western as well as male and female writers.

Winners are chosen based on literary merit and whether their works are interesting and deal with the human condition and how the world exists. Public expectations are not a consideration. Academy members have different views which results in power plays between regions and countries. Göran Malmqvist the sinologue pushed very strongly for Mo Yan (2012) as well as Gao Xinjiang (2000). Gabriel García Márquez (1982) had many friends in the Academy who were knowledgeable about Latin literature. Per Wästberg, the champion for African literature pushed for Nadine Gordimer (1991).

Although winners are difficult to predict, Kazuo Ishiguro (2017) was considered a popular choice. He is a talented story teller. Story tellers are easier to read than the language innovators and can become liked and popular. But when writers are too easy to read, they tend not to get the prize. Notable is Graham Greene, perhaps deemed uninteresting and not innovative enough by the Academy’s standards. Joyce Carol Oates and Margaret Atwood have probably been on the list for many years but have never won. They are all too popular and have published a few too many works.

As a translator of both Haruki Murakami and Kenzaburō Ōe (1994 Nobel prize), Duke considers them both very successful at expressing what goes on in Japanese society and its dark side, even if they are of different generations. Ōe tells of Japan’s modernization post World War II that created an anxiety as the change was happening too fast. People had a traditional mindset but were forced into modern living. Murakami is of the generation after Ōe and had no connection with traditional culture yet did not really feel part of the new modern American society in which they were living, which also creates an anxiety. His characters are mostly drifters who have no place in society as they are unable to choose the kind of life they live. The younger Japanese writers today, and many are women, such as Hiromi Kawakami, write about issues that have not been previously dealt with. Such as what it is like to be Korean-Japanese amid the racial discrimination, what it means to have an abusive father or mothers who don’t or can’t care. The anxiety is still prevalent.

Dylan’s initial apparent reluctance to accept the Nobel prize may stem from a number of factors. He was honoured and flattered and it is not as though he doesn’t accept prizes and recognitions. For example he was awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012 and the Légion d’Honneur in 2013 and has received numerous Grammys, a Golden Globe and an Oscar. But he only wants to accept honours that judge him on the records he releases and his concerts. The Nobel is for literature but he is a singer-songwriter, so this may have contributed to his hesitancy. But more importantly, Dylan didn’t want to go through the rituals and make a speech.

In 1963 he was awarded the Tom Paine Civil Liberties prize. He was quite inebriated when he gave his speech at the formal ceremony. He most inappropriately identified with Lee Harvey Oswald. This earned him booing by the audience and subsequently slamming by the media. The Nobel prize giving ceremony is heavy in pomp and circumstance: the laureate has to make a speech, there are press conferences and media attention. As this was not an environment Dylan is comfortable in he avoided being there. He recorded his speech and picked up his prize a few days later in private. Any public performance has to be on his terms.

Each year the Nobel committee gives a specific reason for their choice. The interpretation of literature has expanded over the years beyond just novelists and poets. For example in 1953 Winston Churchill was awarded the literature prize for ‘his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values’. Dylan was for ‘having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition’. 

Bartlett’s criticism of considering Dylan’s work as just poetry would mean separating the lyrics from the music and thereby not being able to appreciate what he is doing artistically. The New York Times claimed him to be a brilliant lyricist, he also writes poetry, but his writing is inseparable from his music. The Nobel committee would probably encourage people to listen to his songs.

Dylan’s Nobel speech is interesting. He discussed books that inspired him such as Moby Dick and Homer’s Odyssey. He mentions Buddy Holly who set the template for rock n’ roll. Buddy Holly’s lyrics are simple and not really poetic but are marvellous together with the music in songs. There is a danger of elevating the fun side of rock n’ roll to the level of high brow literature and talk about Dylan in the same language as one would a novelist or poet. This will make Dylan’s material seem inaccessible, even irrelevant. Dylan has songs for all occasions, such as falling in love, sadness or loss, growing old – facets of life that people understand and relate to.

Bartlett is not sure if the Nobel prize raises the winner to celebrity status. For example, Abdulrazak Gurnah, the 2021 literature laurate is hardly a household name. In the 1960s Dylan wasn’t praised as part of the literary canon. In fact students who listened to Dylan felt rebellious and Dylan himself was raising the finger to literature. He was then, and still is, working within a tradition. A problem with the prize is that the work may be too technical, too high brow for the average student, and instead of stimulating an interest in the subject, it will be off-putting. Educators need to encourage students to study literature rather than make the task daunting. Some of Dylan’s work can be quite difficult to understand, especially those that touch on religion, but others are very simple.

Is Dylan a literary genius? In almost all Dylan’s songs over the past 50 years there is the ‘I’. The ‘I’ is a literary device to create a persona. But how much of this ‘I’ relates to him? He tours, writes songs, writes books, but very little is known about him as a person. He doesn’t talk about his family, where he lives, he’s a very private person. Therefore people project onto him these magical qualities that turn him into a genius. That is a burden. In studying Dylan as literature, it is worth spending time in seeing how songs progress, how narrative is expressed in songs, the tropes in rhymes. With Dylan there is an appreciation of lyric writing that reflects the times.

If the Academy’s objective was to expand the definition of literature to include song writing, was this the reason why Dylan won? Other contemporary music contenders could have been Joni Mitchell or Leonard Cohen. But Dylan is the most literary – he quotes from Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, uses surrealism, incorporates other traditions – balladeering, country, gospel etc. And he is still very active in not only singing and song writing, but also is writing books and organising art exhibitions. Therefore he was the obvious choice. Sara Danius, Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, who announced Dylan as the 2016 winner didn’t have a great knowledge of his works. She should have prepared better. Maybe this hints at a disconnect – did the Academy really appreciate his works or were they using him for some other purpose, like to extend the definition of literature? The Nobel cannot be the arbiter of global excellence in literature, therefore it must have other functions.

Since winning the Nobel in 2016, Dylan recorded several albums of Sinatra songs, perhaps as a reminder that he works in the great American song tradition. The only original album was the 2020 Rough and Rowdy Ways, a very creative work that shows how energised he is. The literary style draws on many different sources and fuses them together. There is a song about the murder of JFK, perhaps as a way of making amends for his inappropriate remarks during his 1963 speech? Maybe the concept of receiving the Nobel and giving a speech brought back the 1963 speech and fed into his song writing imagination? In a way the Nobel prize gave him the credibility to be more academic. He is writing a book ‘The Philosophy of Modern Song’ that will come out in November 2022. It is ‘academic’ in that it analyses pop songs. His last book was Chronicles, an autobiography, published in 2004. It received good reviews. It is a rarity to write something so reflective.

Bartlett likes the idea of universities offering courses in Dylan or other singer song writers, if these are fun and enjoyable. Rock n’ roll stars don’t stand in front of an audience and deliver a speech. The experience of rock n’ roll cannot be divorced from learning about it. The course must be real and make people feel they can pick up a guitar and sing while thinking about the lyrics. There is always a worry about putting people off, as such a course could be quite difficult with an in-depth study of both music and lyrics. Rather than burden Dylan, people must be encouraged to listen, to let his music speak to their hearts.

Xu Xi defines success as being able to live life as a writer. That is to continue reading, writing, publishing, talking with other writers and having time to loaf. Monetary success is less important as she has always had and still has other jobs, but her greatest satisfaction comes from being a writer.

Literary prizes do help a writer’s career, although many are constraint by constructs.  Xu Xi is often “not qualified” for many prizes, in that she does not fit the constructs by which those prizes were awarded. The Nobel prize profiles the country and thus introduces writers onto the stage of world literature. But there is also the language and how that person’s writing fits into the constructs of literature, and there is generally some literary merit regardless of whether one likes the works or not.

As a judge for literary prizes, Xu Xi suspends her own prejudices and preferences for form. Good writing has to have a combination of how well the piece works within its form, how well it respects the conventions and how well the writer uses language.

There have been criticisms of Nobel winners as being not very meaningful. In academics, literature is something with a cultural aesthetic value that somehow survives the passage of time. Many contenders but non-winners of the Nobel prize are still being read today.  While the Nobel draws attention and preserves the works, there are some winners who will not be important in the future.

The literature that survives are due in part to the publishing industry, to literary prizes and what time and tide preserves. Book burnings happened in many cultures. Much has been lost and what remains is what has gotten pieced together. Then there are long lost works like the Dead Sea Scrolls that somehow find their way into the future. Digital adds a layer of complication – what will be retained?

Xu Xi does not write for a particular reader, she writes for that unknown person who will somewhere, sometime, pick up her work and that her work will make an impression. In the same way some authors and stories made an impact and influenced her as a young writer.

Academia tends to deemphasize the role of the author. In some genres the author cannot be ignored, namely creative non-fiction and memoirs. Here the author is important to understanding their writings in the context of their place and time. Trying to relate an author’s biography to the works is not particularly useful. Although when teaching literature the professor has a duty to provide the context, not about the author, but about when it was written. Context helps explicate a story, yet a story can be read as just that. Most writers like to tell stories and love using the language. Both of these are of little concern with what the author represents. The tendency to over-interpret who or what the author represents leads to a politicization of literature.

The Nobel recognises a life’s works and goes to someone who has had some recognition in his/her own country. The recognition of the author, especially if some works still command attention, is of real value. Such lifetime awards says something about what authors have provided readers over the span of their lives.  The Nobel has to highlight the author and cannot get away from the politics. The prize is national and Eurocentric, but not surprising since it started in Sweden.   

Nobel laureate Hong Kong writer? Xi Xi was definitely on the list as a 2021 Nobel contender. She won the Newman prize in 2019 and her works are now seriously looked at. P.K. Leung, had he lived, would have certainly been in the running. Both could be described as embracing the cosmopolitan culture of what was Hong Kong; both were intellectuals, fluent in English, bi-cultural and yet could be very local Hong Kong. Sadly Hong Kong does not have a vast literature: publishers are only interested in pop culture, and Hong Kong literature is not even taught.

The Nobel has not embraced pop culture as it is not considered literature. But does literature have space for science fiction or the graphic memories that are more than just comic books? Literature is the written word and use of language. Will it transform and cross over to other media in the future? Will performance take on new meaning? Literature is becoming amorphous. But the story will never go away.  

It is important to write good books for students. His research activities include new research as well as outcomes from teaching. The latter is not new research but makes topics interesting and approachable which is very important when writing teaching books for students.

Choice of topics for publication comes either in response to a request to write about something, or through his own decision to pursue a subject of interest without any idea of its saleability. Writing today receives little encouragement, and publishers can be quite unhelpful. Unlike in the 1980s and 1990s, a contract for the first book would often include a clause that the publisher has the right of first refusal for the second book. This practice is now gone. 

Now his two areas of interest are 19th century literature and comparative literature mainly with Dante, the topic of his PhD (1984). Dante and Difference: Writing in the Commedia was the subsequent publication in 1988 by Cambridge University Press. Although very different from other Dante studies, the publisher saw this book as a provocative outlier. The book was widely reviewed with responses ranging from the favourable to the suspicious to the hostile.

Single author studies were frowned upon when Tambling did his PhD at the University of Essex. Structuralist theory was very much in vogue at the time. The author was a concept that belonged to the bourgeois liberal humanism; it was an ideology.  Authors are not individual geniuses but are embodiments of cultural history. The sociology of literature is in engaging with the text and looking at a single author through different lens. For example ‘Prison-bound: Dickens and Foucault, Essays in Criticism 37 (1986), 11-31 was his first publication of Dickens and the publisher did not require any cuts or compromise.

Tambling studies particular writers because he is interested in them as it would be very difficult to research or teach writers or issues in texts that are of no interest. In addition he keeps up to date with critical theory and notes the growing importance of gender criticism. He has never written anything with which he has had a problem where there was a need to balance critical dialogue with a preferred author. Writing is not for mere academic purposes, but for probing, investigating.

The Nobel prize is about literature, not the author, but it is difficult to define what literature should be. In a utopian way, literature is uncensored. Engaging with the public sphere is essential. Even if one does not agree with the choice of winner, having literature in the title is better than nothing. Preserving the idea of the author was an accidental outcome of protecting literature.

Nobel’s original concept was of the single author battling alien forces, the idealism of a writer. Which means that a writer can only be idealistic when the odds are against him/her. In a sense Nobel was trying to reward this struggle so that the writer could go for a better society, a better life. Unlike the other prizes where the work is often collaborative, literature is solitary, but great literature has been influenced by other writers and works. The prize then glorifies the author who has been writing for 30 years or more. It is an impressive recognition at the end of a journey. Yet there are always some who should have been recognized but were not. For example Chinua Achebe set African literature in a new direction, Jorge Luis Borges defined Latin American literature for the 20th and even the 21st centuries. Therefore the Nobel not only celebrates the single author, it celebrates all those who had an influence. 

Tambling’s experience as a literary prize judge for the 2019 DSC prize for South Asian literature was a steep learning curve. The first challenge was meeting the deadline of reading 90 novels in 90 days. The second challenge was having to learn about South Asian history and customs as he was not a specialist in this genre. There then followed meetings and discussions with other jury members to arrive at a final short list of six works. The discussion of literature means different things to academics as it does to journalists; their views of writing and the public sphere differed. The DSC prize triggered debates on what is literature. The Nobel has been criticised for its Eurocentrism. The DSC offered a more level playing field – the literature was within its own situations and countries.  

Beckett studies have often down played the importance and relevance of the Nobel prize. Yet it remains useful in understanding his works since they are so diametrically opposed to the historical framework of the prize. It is strange he was even awarded the prize. He was a strong contender in 1968, and possibly in 1964, but his works were considered too dispiriting. Beckett’s works are bleak whereas the Alfred Nobel stipulated the prize be awarded to “the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction”. Ideal can mean many things, though the Nobel committees have taken this in the religious sense of high standards of morality that uplifts behaviour. Therefore, Beckett was “repackaged” as an idealist when he was awarded the prize.

Prior to winning the Nobel prize in 1969, Beckett was already an established and respected writer of international standing. His new works were immediately translated upon publication. He had received other literary prizes and were not opposed to such honours. He had no problems with his works being recognized. Beckett’s issue with the Nobel prize was its sheer power. The mass recognition, the intense media scrutiny and that his works got categorized and explained. Labelling him an idealist was a justification for his winning. The Nobel is accorded without the writer’s agreement, who then gets swallowed up by the institution that is the Nobel prize. Beckett’s decision to not turn down the prize, unlike Sartre in 1964, was because the act of refusal would have most likely attracted as much, if not even more publicity.

Catastrophe was commissioned by the A.I.D.A. (Association Internationale de Défense des Artistes) to show support for Václav Havel. The play has a very explicit political message which is quite unusual for Beckett. But Beckett’s works have multiple meanings. The central message in Catastrophe is resistance to categorization and manipulation as portrayed by the Protagonist. Censorship can be from external forces such that imposed by the Communist party on Havel, or it can be covert as in the structure an institution like the Nobel imposes. It's an internalised censorship for the writer to produce idealised works.

The tyrannical behaviour of the Director in Catastrophe mirrors how Beckett himself behaved when he directed the plays he wrote. To him actors were tools of the script and he demanded extreme precision. Actors consent to being “tortured” and “oppressed” by the roles they play and the stage directions. The ability of actors to submit to these directives is a form of creative agency; his/her work is turned over to the public, likewise for the playwright. As a genre theatre uses the human body as a material form.

Gao was very much influenced by Beckett and there are parallels between them. Gao stated that the ideal performance comes from the “neutral actor’, that is the one who is between the self and the character. Beckett was also opposed to actors becoming immersed in their roles. He never gave actors more information about the character than what was already in the script.

Interest in Gao came after he won the Nobel in 2000, funding for research came from this prestige. Whereas for Beckett, he was already well established before the Nobel in 1969. In both cases the Nobel makes the writer a bit of a celebrity. The Irish government has co-opted Beckett’s celebrity status to promote its tourism.

In Chinese literature subversive implies expressing disapproval of the political circumstances. But Mo Yan goes beyond the political and subverts the reading experience of his Chinese audience. He challenges the concept of history found in revolutionary historical fiction. His experimental writing style, his use of language, adverbs and colours and fictional characters are so different from the revolutionary literature Chinese readers are used to, and as such he has subverted old traditions and reading experiences by introducing new ones. Subversiveness for a writer is not limited to just the political stance, but now encompasses audience expectations. As it is difficult to separate politics from literature, Mo Yan developed a new voice in order to give a different message to society.

His 2012 Nobel Prize sparked controversy around the world. Critics claimed it was not appropriate that an institutionalised mouthpiece of the Communist Party should win and questioned the fairness of the choice. These critics felt he was not worthy of the prize as he was not subversive and politically rebellious.

But Mo Yan was awarded the prize for literature, not peace. There was no need for him to be a Liu Xiaobo, whose “long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China’ won him the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Prize in Literature 2012 was awarded to Mo Yan "who with hallucinatory realism merges folk tales, history and the contemporary." Nowhere is politics mentioned. There are two Mo Yan – one of literature and one of reality. It is the Mo Yan of literature who deserved the prize.

As a CCP member and army writer Mo Yan has a lot of restrictions being part of the system. Outside China it is easier to criticise. For example, Toni Morrison criticises the government and doesn’t get thrown in gaol, but in China the writer would. It is important to judge a writer in context. Mo Yan is in a grim environment where he is pushing the boundaries. Frog (2009) makes a very indirect criticism of the June 4^th incident but severely criticises the one child policy. The 2006 Life and Death are Wearing Me Out is about the only independent peasant in the entire country.

Only with an understanding of the historical context and significance of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, can one understand why a writer may refrain from overtly challenging the government and still produce beautiful literature.

The benefits of world literature lie in its ethical, political, aesthetic and material dimensions. The reader gains a humanistic empathy with a hitherto unknown culture at the same time as acquiring more social capital à la Bourdieu and a global outlook. The writer has to learn how to access the influential publishers in order to get global exposure for his/her works.

Pamuk exemplifies the tension of a trans-cultural non-western author. Western readers expect writers to take a political stance, which Pamuk indirectly did by referring to mass killings in Turkey but never mentioning genocide. He was awarded the prize for his “quest for the melancholic soul of his native city has discovered new symbols for the clash and interlacing of cultures”, so fulfilling Alfred Nobel’s idealistic vision. Pamuk is criticized for pandering to western expectations of speaking the truth about the ‘Terrible Turks’, and then for not being ‘authentic’ as he wrote for a western and not for a Turkish audience.

Parallels are drawn with Mo Yan, the 2012 literature Nobel laureate. As he was very close to the CCP, many western critics felt he did not deserve the prize as his writing could not be that good as he could not freely express himself. His supporters claim he was subversive as he wrote of social inequalities but stopped short of commenting on the Chinese government; a protest writer with Chinese characteristics.

The dilemma of the non-western but trans-cultural writer is that he/she makes allusions to the ills of the country but does not or cannot be overtly critical. Western writers with a political bent do not understand the concept of staying within boundaries.

Keywords: Orhan Pamuk, World Literature, Transcultural Studies, Nobel Prize

Keywords: Literary Criticism, Nobel Prize, Literature, Human Condition, Disability