Nobel Prize in Literature

The Nobel Prize for Literature
Author(s): RENEE WINEGARTEN

Source: The American Scholar, Vol. 63, No. 1 (Winter 1994), pp. 63-75
Published by: Phi Beta Kappa Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41212206
Accessed: 19-02-2016 23:39 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Phi Beta Kappa Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Scholar.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 216.165.126.13 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 23:39:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Nobel Prizefor
Literature
RENEE WINEGARTEN
JorgeLuis Borgeswasinformed thathis workswereto be

published in French translation in the prestigious and hand-
some Pléiade edition,he inquiredteasingly, "It's betterthan the
NobelPrize,isn'tit?"Thiswasa wryallusionto thefactthatthesuper-
subtleArgentinian had notbeen awardedtheNobel PrizeforLitera-
ture- althoughhe wouldseem to be a primecandidateforit as a
disturbingly labyrinthineand internationally influential writer. More-
over, he had opposed the Peronistdictatorship and had been perse-
cutedbyit.
In a way,Borgeswas on the righttrack.To figureamong the
authorsin the Pléiade editionis a consecrationto be sharedwith
Virgil,withCervantes and Shakespeare, withGoethe,Dickens,Tolstoy
and Proust.It is a morepurely"literary" consecration, remotefrom
nationalor politicalconcerns,or the hintof establishment connec-
tionsand celebratory flummery. Here is to be found the judgmentof
the ages as wellas thewide (ifnot alwaysunanimous)consensusof
the moderns.Would the Nobel PrizeforLiteraturehave added an
inchto Borges'sstature? Has itindeedadded to theliterary statureof
any of those who have received the award? All the same, is com-
it
monlyregardedas the highestprize or accolade to whichwriters
throughout theworldmayaspire.
Literaryprizes,especiallyfor poetryor essays,have existedfor
centuries.Somewerein thegiftofthemonarchor ruler,a rewardfor
theexpressionofloyalsentiments. Often,in thepast,a subjectwould
be set by some literary academy and the candidateswould submit
theirentries.Allwereusuallydealingwiththesametheme,in similar
form,and thatmusthave lightenedsomewhatthe burdenon the
judges.Thesetraditional prizescouldbe relatively
literary small,often
provincial A
affairs. modest sum mighthelp to rescue a youngprize-
© RENEE WINEGARTEN, essayistand literarycritic,is the author of Writers
and
TheDoubleLifeofGeorge
Revolution; Mmede Staël;and Simonede
Sand: Womanand Writer;
Beauvoir:A CriticalView.
63
THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR
winnerfromstarvation, or thevictory itselfmightassistin confirming

a reputation.
The proliferation of famousliterary prizeswould seem to be a
phenomenonof the late nineteenthcenturyand especiallyof the
twentieth century, wheresuch awardsmaywell be quite richlyen-
dowed.The largerthefinancialreward,thegreaterthefascination in
the pressand on television, whereliterature is one moresubjectof
gossipand chatter.The modern,muchpublicizedliterary prizeen-
dowed witha large financialrewardintroducesa competitive and
philistineelement intothe literaryor artistic enterprise, where itdoes
not belong. "Writing is a voluntary activity," said the distinguished
novelistV. S. Naipaulon winninga literary prizeand a largesum.He
added delicately, "The idea of becominga writerin orderto hitthe
jackpotis awful."In publicat least,fewnovelistsresembleNorman
Mailerwhoonce notoriously assessedhisownstandingin relationto
his literary contemporaries. Certainly, it is enlightening to discrimi-
nate betweenTolstoyand Dostoevsky (as demonstrated by George
Steinerin a finestudy) ; it is notunusualto preferone to theother;
buttheveryidea of selectingone ratherthantheotherfora literary
prizewouldbe manifestly absurdand pointless.The primary aim of
thepoet,novelist, or dramatist, understrangecompulsionto writein
one particular wayand no other,is a mattersolelyofartand artistry -
or so it wouldappear to the literary purist.But thenthereare not
many of those about nowadays, when the wholesubjectofliterature is
bedeviledbypolitics.
Not thatthefinancialaspectof literary prizesin generalis to be
despised. William Butler Yeats did not look down on it. His first
on
question hearing that he was to receive the Nobel PrizeforLitera-
tureis said to havebeen a bluntand practical"Howmuch?"Thatis
notquitewhatone mighthaveexpectedof thepoet of "Byzantium,"
versedin occultism and theosophy. The cashcertainly enabledAlbert
Camustobuya house,whichhe and hisfamily loved,at Lourmarin in
theSouthofFrance.Thatdarkly satiricalSpanishnovelist CamiloJosé
Cela, authorof thegrimLa FamiliadePascualDuarte,suggestedthat
he woulduse themoneyto payhisdebts.The Nobel PrizeforLitera-
turemaywellhaveincreasedthesalesoftheprizewinner's booksfora
time,butas faras I knowtheredo notseemto be anystatistics to that
effect.
UsuallytheNobel PrizeforLiterature has gone towriters whoare
not (or notanylonger)impecunious. Bythetimetheyreceiveit,they
are wellestablished and,in a numberofinstances, approachingtheir
demise.An anonymous commentator in a wartime issueof the Times
LiterarySupplement of December 20, 1917,annoyed that theawardhad
64
THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR LITERATURE
been made to a pro-German Danishwriter, declaredacidly:"Itcomes

as a Christmaspresenteveryyear to some verysuccessfulauthor,
apparentlyon the principlethatto him who hath more shall be
given."GeorgeBernardShaw,who acceptedthe awardwhilestating
plainlythathe did notbelievein prizesforliterature, and declining
the cash, said thatthe Nobel Prize for Literaturewas "a life belt
thrownto a swimmer who has alreadyreachedthe shore."He was
echoingSamuelJohnsonwho,on completinghis Dictionary without
LordChesterfield's and
patronage, contemptuous of thenoble lord's
belatedcommendation in twoessaysin a fashionable
journal, uttered
thefamousput-down: "I havesaileda longand painfulvoyageround
the worldof the Englishlanguage,and does he now send out two
cock-boatsto towme intoharbour?"
Some have viewedthe Nobel Prize for Literatureas a kind of
flower-bedecked burial.This was what one amiable French critic
opined when Camus,whowas goingthrougha periodof self-doubt
and writer'sblock,receivedit. T. S. Eliot gloomilysaw the award,
whichhe accepted,as "a ticketto one's funeral."Nobodyeverdid
anything afterwards,he reflectedsourly.Doubtlessthosewhowritein
English,French,German,Spanish,Italian,Russian - languagesthat
-
are most commonlytranslatedinternationallyscarcelyneed the
prize to be widelyknown.In contrast,those figureswho writein
Serbo-Croatian(the Bosnian Serb novelistIvo Andric,author of
BosnianStoryand TheBridgeon theDrina), or in Arabic (the Egyptian
novelistNaguib MahfouzwithThe CairoTrilogy - Palace Walk,Palace of
Desire, , do havetheopportunity
SugarStreet) to reacha largerpublic.
Nonetheless, since the Nobel Prize forLiteraturewas established
in 1901,it has not savedfromoblivionitsfirstprizewinner, thepoet
SullyPrudhomme,and otherswho latercaughtthe mood of their
time(forinstance,PearlS. Buck,withher once-famous novelabout
China,TheGoodEarth) . The Swedish has
Academy frequently crowned
second-rate and third-rate Perhapsthisseemsinevitable,
writers. be-
causewe knowhowfarfromsimpleit is to distinguish thegreatand
possiblyobscuregeniusofone's owndayfromthemodishauthorof
talent.Besides,in manycases,judgmentis being passed on the
strengthof translations, delicatematterin therealmof
a particularly
poetry.At the same time, theSwedish Academyhas overlookedsome
ofthegreatest writers ofthecentury, includingJosephConrad,Henry
James,Leo Tolstoy,Marcel Proust,JamesJoyce,Federico García
Lorca,to namea fewthatspringimmediately to mind.(It cannotbe
accused of failingto recognizeKafka,whosereputationwas largely
posthumous.)
Take theneglectofTolstoy:whywashe not selected?At thetime
65
ofthefoundation oftheNobelprizeshe wascommonly regardedas a

literarygiant,easily the world's greatestliving writer both as novelist
and as controversial In he
sage. short, alreadyoccupied the place he
has neverreallylost in worldliterature. Distinguished travelersto
Russiadid notwantto leavewithout callingon thegreatman.On his
birthday in 1908, seventeen hundred messagesof congratulation
poured in to YasnayaPolyana.
Wordhad reachedTolstoyin 1897 froma seemingly impeccable
sourcethattheNobel committee was thinking of himfortheNobel
Prize,whichwas thenbeing established.Tolstoysent a letterto a
Stockholmnewspaperon August29, 1897,proposingthatthe prize
moneyshouldbe givento theDoukhobors,membersof an old Rus-
sian sectwho (likehimself)advocatednon-resistance and whowere
for
beingpersecuted refusing to serve in the armed forces. Deeply
engagedin a publiccampaignon theirbehalf,he was to donatethe
author'srightsto his novelResurrection to enable theDoukhoborsto
emigrate to Canada. In Tolstoy'sview,theyhad done farmorethan
he forthecause of peace. Fromthisobservation, it seemsclearthat
whatTolstoyhad in mindwastheNobel Peace Prizeratherthanthat
forliterature. Is it possiblethatthe secretiveSwedishAcademywas
put out because Tolstoyhad,as itwere,publicly jumpedthegun?
When the firstNobel PrizeforLiteraturewas awardedto Sully
Prudhommein 1901, Swedishwritersbemoanedthe injusticein a
letterto Tolstoy.On January22, 1902, Tolstoyrepliedin French,
informing themthathe wasreallypleasedat notreceiving theaward
"becauseit has spared me the greatproblemof disposingof the
moneywhich,likeall money,can onlylead to evil,in myview."Given
his earlierintenseactivityto obtain financialhelp for the Dou-
khobors,thiswasyetanotherexampleofhisnotoriousself-contradic-
tion.
In effect,themembersof theSwedishAcademyhad from1901to
November1910,whenTolstoybreathedhislastin therailway station
at Astapovo,to make the awardto him. That theydid not do so,
preferring a numberof lesserand even mediocrefigures,mustre-
mainone oftheoddestenigmasin thehistory of theNobel Prizefor
Literature. The episodereflects on thejudges,of course,not on the
objectoftheirneglect.Thereis a sensein whichTolstoy, withhisrare
of the
gift conveying feeling oflifeas itis lived,was above all that.
An egregiousomissionnearerour owndayis thatoftheAmerican
Russian-born émigrénovelist, VladimirNabokov.By the late 1960s,
Nabokovwasfrequently lauded,especially in theUnitedStates,as the
greatestliving writer, who was bound to receive theNobel Prize,for
whichhe had been nominated.In 1969,a criticin theNewYorkTimes
66
wentso faras to declare:"Ifhe doesn'twintheNobel Prize,it'sonly

because the Nobel Prize doesn'tdeservehim."DoubtlessNabokov
wastoo idiosyncratic a writer,
absorbedin aestheticvalues.As Alfred
Kazin once observed,forNabokov,artis its own excuse,a formof
play.Thiswasnotan approachlikelyto appeal to theNobel commit-
tee.
Muchis explainedbythewayin whichtheNobel PrizeforLitera-
turecame about,thebasesofitscriteria, and themannerin whichit
has to be administered. As everyoneknows,it was foundedby the
nineteenth-century Swedishinventorand industrialist, AlfredNobel
(1833-1896),alongwithprizesforphysics, chemistry, medicine,and
the
peace. Evidently, prizes formedicine and science are lesscontro-
versialthanthe prizeforliterature, sincetheycan be awardedfora
definite discoveryor advanceofa materialkindthatcan be proved.
AlfredNobelhimself had discovereddynamite, whichhe patented
in 1867.He wastheson ofa twice-bankrupt inventor whohad experi-
mentedwithexplosivesand had been honoredby the czar.As for
Alfredhimself, he turnedout tobe an extremely shrewdbusinessman
who made a fortunefromthe developmentof explosives,asserting
(not surprisingly)thattheirmain use was beneficialand especially
constructive in civilengineering.Whatis perhapslesswellknownis
thatAlfredNobel was also a frustrated writer.In his youthhe com-
posed autobiographical poems. In addition he wrotea tragedyafter
Shelley'sTheCena,as well as draftsfor novels,amongotherliterary
efforts of a dramaticor satiricalcharacter.He traveledwidelyand
could read and writein six languages,makingtranslations from
Frenchand Russian.Presumably, Nobel's repressedliterary aspira-
tions,along witha possibletingeof guiltyconscience,playedsome
partin hismunificence.
AccordingtoAlfredNobel'swill,one partofhisbequestwasto go
to "thepersonwho shallhaveproducedin thefieldofliterature the
mostoutstanding workof an idealistictendency." This looks like a
early-nineteenth-century
characteristically notion, current in Alfred
Nobel's childhood,but alreadyoutdatedin the periodof disillusion
thatfollowedthefailureoftherevolution of 1848,theera ofrealism,
positivism,and Darwinism. No wonderthatEmileZola, exponentof
"naturalism"and oftheillsofheredity, did notfindfavorwithAlfred
Nobel. Zola could scarcelypass foran idealist,despitehis standfor
justicein theDreyfus Affair.
WhentheNobel PrizeforLiterature wasfounded,itwasdoubtless
too soon to be preoccupiedwiththequestionof perverted idealism,
whichwouldcome to loom so largein thetwentieth century. How to
foreseethatsomeoftheleadingwriters oftheage would be hostile to
67
liberalparliamentary democracy? How to knowthatKnutHamsun,

theadmiredNorwegian authorofHunger, awardedtheprizein 1920,
wouldturnintoa fervent supporter of the Nazis?Or thatYeatswith
hisfascistic leaningsmightneed W. H. Auden'sodd formofexculpa-
tion(laterexcised).Certainly, bythetimethatT. S. Eliotwasfavored
in 1948,his fondnessforthe proto-Fascist ideas ofActionFrançaise
was well known.As for that masterlySicilian dramatist,Luigi
Pirandello,laureateof 1934,he was an admirerof Mussoliniand a
memberof theItalianFascistparty, despitesomedifferences withit.
PirandellofavoredMussolini'sinvasionofAbyssinia: in 1935,muchto
Swedishindignation, he gave his Nobel Prizegold medallionto be
melteddownfortheimperialist cause. The wholequestionof ideal-
ismis problematic: an "idealistictendency" is nota literaryvirtue.As
has been wellsaid,literature is not made withfineor right-thinking
sentiments.
The perfectprizewinner fromtheidealiststandpoint wasperhaps
thenotedpacifist, RomainRolland.He was crownedin 1915 forhis
desire for Franco-German reconciliation,expressedin his multi-
volumesaga,Jean-Christophe - and well beforehis notoriousfellow-
traveling phase- "as a tributeto thelofty idealismofhisliterary pre-
sentation."Yet idealismas such was inevitablya casualtyof the
holocaustofthe1914-18warand ofFreud.The need to findidealis-
ticgroundsfortheawardbecamemoreof a problemovertheyears
and it has led to some strangecontortions. Thus the citationfor
SamuelBeckett, withhisdeath-haunted viewoflifefromthedustbin,
runs: "For his writing,which- in new formsfor the novel and
drama- in the destitution of modernman acquiresits elevation."
Thismeaningless verbiage enables one to appreciatethedifficulty in
fittingthe termsof theawardto theworkof Beckett,whosereputa-
tionas a minimalist wasthen(in 1969) at itsheight.It wouldnotbe
hard to listthe laureatesof pessimistic inclination, some of whom,
such as KnutHamsun,Pirandello,CamiloJosé Cela, have already
been mentioned."Mythemeis sin and evil.The humanbeingis a
slayer,"said thelaureateof 1983,WilliamGolding,whodepictedthe
fallintosavagery in LardoftheFlies.
Whatindeeddid theSwedishAcademyunderstand by"literature"?
Sometimesthe awardwentto historians(TheodorMommsen,Win-
stonChurchill)or to a philosopher(BertrandRussell).Latterly, this
tendency is less marked. It seems clear that at one time behind the
selectionstherewas some largeviewof belles-lettres, ultimatelyre-
placedbydistinct of
genres poetry, drama, and the novel.But how to
choosebetweenpoets,dramatists, and novelists? The problemforthe
Nobeljudgeswasevidentfromthestart.Accordingto one Permanent
68
Secretary oftheSwedishAcademy, to choosebetweenpoets,novelists,

and playwrights was "likedecidingon the relativemeritsof the elm,
the linden,the oak, the rose,the lilyor theviolet."Writers are less
readyto be characterized and categorizedbysome literary Linnaeus
thanare treesand flowers.
In effect,the name of the candidateis selectedby a committee
consisting of some threeto fivepersons.Thereis oftena fallbackor
compromisecandidate.In 1970,duringthe controversy overAlex-
anderSolzhenitsyn, thiswasapparently thepositionofPatrickWhite,
giftedauthorof Vossand Ridersin theChariot, who in 1973 would
himselfbecome the firstAustraliannovelistto be a Nobel laureate.
Each fall,lettersare sent out to formerprizewinners, to past and
present members of the selection committee, to luminaries ofcertain
academicand literary institutions, alongwithotherchosenindividu-
als and expertswhoare invitedto makenominations. Thus François
Mauriac(Nobel prizewinner of 1952) could nominateSolzhenitsyn
for1970.These are theonlynominations thatare takenintoconsid-
eration.In theory,whatis putforward in thepresscarriesno weight.
Discussionsare held,shortlists are drawnup, and theSwedishAcad-
emyannouncesitsdecision,whichis final.
The "idealistictendency" proposedbythefounderimpliesalso a
certainmoral inclination.The judges have tended to favorthose
writerswhoare concernedwithwhattheycall theproblemsof "man"
in our time,withhis fate,withman in society,withquestionsof
conscience.(WhythenwereGeorgeOrwell,AndréMalraux,Graham
Greeneoverlooked?) Thisethicalleaninghasled to thenobleformof
acceptance address- byWilliamFaulkner(whosespeechwas consid-
ered bysome to be thebest,and byotherstheworstof itskind), by
Saul Bellow,Camus,or Solzhenitsyn (thoughin the last instance,
throughforcemajeure, the lecture could not be deliveredbut was
writtenand publishedafterwards) .
The awardhas oftenbeen grantedto writers who have exposed
injustice(forinstance, JohnGalsworthy with his play TheSilverBox,
whichtreatsofjusticeas metedout differently to the richand the
poor); or whohavespokenfortheunderdog(JohnSteinbeckwithOf
MiceandMenand TheGrapes ofWrath) ; or whohavesubtly penetrated
the evilsof racismin South Africa(Nadine Gordimerin Burger's
Daughter andJuly's People). LatinAmericanwriters on theLeft(Pablo
-
Neruda,GabrielGarcíaMárquez)who giventhestagnation or cor-
ruptionthey witnessed in their own societies - are keen for change,
revolt,or overthrow are notablelaureates.Yetit is curiously ironicto
findwriters whoare desperately opposed to their own establishment,
beingcommendedand fetedbytheSwedishAcademy,and received
69
bytheKingof Sweden,in the presenceof membersof the Swedish

government. The factthatthe Nobel committeeand the Swedish
Academy are bodies independentoftheStateseemsto be blurredby
thearrayofsuchdignitaries and bythecourtly ceremony.
The paradoxwasunderlinedin 1964byJean-PaulSartre,theonly
writer so fareverto haverefusedtheNobel PrizeforLiterature ofhis
ownfreewill(BorisPasternak had been houndedintorenouncingit
in 1958). Sartrehadjust publishedhisautobiographical masterpiece,
LesMots,and he was to receivetheaward,accordingto the citation,
forthespiritoffreedomin hiswork,his questfortruth,and hisfar-
reachinginfluenceon our age. Innocuous soundingenough, al-
thoughSartre'sviewof freedomand truthhad become evermore
equivocaland partialwithhis supportforthe SovietUnion and for
leftist
violenceand terror.
At first,Sartrewas perplexed:should he accept?He consulted
Simonede Beauvoirwho advisedhim to decline.In public,Sartre
declaredhisobjectionto theveryidea ofacceptingtheaward - even
thoughhe could have giventhe moneyto charity, forinstanceto
thosestarving childrenwhomartand literature (so he bitterlymain-
tained) could not save. He admitted himself that he could have given
itto theAnti-Apartheid Committee in London.He claimedtofearfor
hisindependenceas a writer, and thatclearlycame first. In hisview,
theNobel PrizeforLiterature servedas a meanswherebythe State,
therightwing,the right-thinking bourgeoisie,would"reclaim"him:
he wouldbe convertedintoan institution and wouldcease to be a
freeagent.An unlikely scenario:forwhatwouldhaveprevented him
fromcarrying on exactlyas beforein a freeand democraticsociety?
The Nobel PrizeforLiterature was not as influentialas all that:its
sinister tentaclesdid notspreadfarand wide,destroying theintegrity
of its laureates.It is doubtfulwhetherFrenchintellectuals thought
muchof it,exceptas a properconsecration of the preeminenceof
Frenchcultureand civilization.
The wholesubjectbecame one of thosepassingcausescélèbres of
whichtheFrenchare so fond,and whereironyis piledon irony.To
Sartre,theNobel PrizeforLiterature lookedlikean important politi-
cal armofiniquitousWesterncapitalism. "I refusedbecauseI thinkit
has had a politicaltingefor some time,"Sartresaid, whileoddly
confessing without muchlogicthathe wouldgladlyhaveacceptedan
awardfroma PopularFrontgovernment. Sartreappearedto be put
out because (he claimedin politicalterms)theprizehad been given
hithertoto writers in the Westratherthan to Communists or pro-
Soviet authors; because it had gone to the questioning Boris
Pasternakfor his lyricpoetryand his controversial novel,Doctor
70
Zhivago,in 1958,beforeitwenttoMikhailSholokhov(a writer in favor

withtheKhrushchev regime) for his novels about the Don Cossacks.
"It is regrettablethat the prize was given to Pasternakbefore
Sholokhov, and thattheonlySovietworkto be honouredshouldbe a
workpublishedabroadand bannedat home,"Sartreobserved.Thatis
an extraordinary remark:the freedom-loving Sartreacknowledges
and casuallyacceptsthebanningof booksin theSovietUnionwith-
out a murmur.It is callous,too, since publicationof DoctorZhivago
abroadwasPasternak's sole alternativeto silence.
Sartrecouldscarcely be unawarethata viciouscampaignhad been
launchedagainstPasternakas soon as the poet gratefully accepted
theNobel PrizeforLiterature. ThishoundingofPasternak wasspon-
soredbyKhrushchev, who lateradmittedthathe had not evenread
DoctorZhivagoat the time.Pasternakwas expelledfromtheWriters'
Union,whichdemandedthathe be strippedof his citizenship. He
was threatened withbanishment. Dreading exile,Pasternak prevari-
cated,floundered in self-criticism,wavered, and endedbyrenouncing
theprize.In hispoem "NobelPrize,"he wrotethathe wascaughtlike
a beastat bay,hearingonlytheyelpingofthepack,and thattherewas
no wayoutforhim.The greatpoetwasleftpainfully humiliated, and
he died not long afterward. His son would ultimately receive the
awardon hislatefather's behalf.
Sholokhov(lateraccusedof plagiarism)turnedout to be thelau-
reateof1965- thatis,theyearaftertheSartreaffair. WastheSwedish
Academyinfluencedby Sartre'sadvocacyand the whole Sartrian
brouhaha?Sholokhovfoundno difficulties placed in his path.The
abuse that Moscowhad heaped on the SwedishAcademyfor its
choice of Pasternakwas replaced by smiles.In one sense, Sartre
showedup theanomalyoftheindependentwriter whowouldreadily
accept an honor or a reward from the State, thusostensibly compro-
misingpersonalfreedomand integrity, and thedearlycherishedrole
of rebel. In anothersense,Sartreconcurredin the abuse of State
power,in the silencingand persecutionof a fellowwriter;and he
made a purelypoliticalpoint,adoptingthe Sovietline and Soviet
propaganda. Some understoodthe true politicalsignificanceof
Sartre'srefusalto accepttheaward:"Undercoverofa pleasingmani-
festoofindependence, itis reallya perfectlygaugedpoliticalaction,a
in
propagandaoperation support of the Eastern bloc,"declaredthe
surrealistpanjandrumand one-time Communist, André Breton.
Solzhenitsyn, dismayedat the timebythe "shame"of Pasternak's
"voluntary renunciation" of the prize- althoughlatershowingmore
understanding fortheauthorofDoctor Zhivago - wasmade of sterner
stuff.As a formerprisonerof theGulag,he wantedto wintheNobel
71
PrizeforLiterature(so he laterassertedin his memoir,TheOakand

theCalf)in orderto use itto speakthetruthaboutwhatwasgoingon
in his country, to givevoice to all thosefellowvictimsof thecamps,
bothlivingand dead. He wantedto go to Stockholmto hurla "thun-
derbolt."A personofausterehabits,he had no particular esteemfor
the formalsolemnitiesand celebrationsassociatedwiththe prize-
givingceremonies. Buthe deeplydespisedthewayinwhichtheSoviet
regimehad politicized literature:thejudgmentofliterature had been
renderedinseparablefrompolitics.Perhapshe did not knowor was
notinterested in howfarthespreadofMarxismand itsoffshoots had
politicizedliteratureand literary criticismoutsidethe SovietUnion,
so thatevenopponentsofMarxism werenotalwaysexempt.
The awardof the Nobel Prize forLiteratureto Solzhenitsyn in
1970 provoked the thirdgreat uproar in its history,afterthe
Pasternak debacleand theSartreaffair. Solzhenitsyn wastheleading
dissident,namedfor"theethicalforcewithwhichhe has pursuedthe
indispensabletraditions of Russianliterature." The choice was re-
gardedas remarkable. One Frenchwriter wentso faras to statethat
"thechoice of AlexanderSolzhenitsyn justifiesthe existenceof the
Nobel Prize."Solzhenitsyn, who- like Pasternak - had originally in-
tendedto go to Stockholm, fearedlesthe wouldnot be allowedto
returnhome.He askedforthepresentation to be made at theSwed-
ish embassy, but thatwas opposed by the Swedishambassador, who
did not wishto displeasethe Sovietauthorities. The presentation
finallytook place in a privateapartment.Meanwhile,Solzhenitsyn
had succeededin publicizinghis position,as wellas the convoluted
difficulties
and obstaclesfacedbyindependent-minded writersin his
His
country. response made a deep impression throughout theworld.
Byusingtheopportunity providedbytheNobelPrizeto makeknown
thetruth, he had also temporarily giventheawarda vitalimportance
itfundamentally lacked.
The greatmeritof the Nobel Prize for Literatureis thatit is
international in scope- even if internationalism, like idealism,is a
culturalvirtue,not strictlya literaryone. As witheighteenth-century
and theirfar-reaching
philosophes socialcirclesand connections, or in
the gatheringsof liberal-minded writersand thinkersaround Ma-
dame de Staël at Coppetin the Napoleonicera, thejudges forthe
Nobel PrizeforLiteratureappear to presupposethatthereexistsa
commoncultureor civilization, wherethe problemsthatface the
conscienceand the spiritof humanity can be posed and examined,
and wherewriters shouldbe at liberty to speakacrossfrontiers and to
defy barbarism.
Yetthisis onlyone faceoftheaward,forwhiletheNobelPrizefor
72
Literatureis honorablyuniversal,embracingwritersfromIndia
(Rabindranath Tagore),Japan (YasunariKawabata),Nigeria(Wole
Soyinka),theCaribbean(DerekWalcott) , thecitations monotonously
discussliterature in termsofethnicidentity and nationality.To some
degree this seems unavoidable, since the writer's languageitself,as
theessentialmediumor voice,is usuallybound to place ofbirth,and
can somehowmysteriously conveythespiritofa country and a people.
Notableexceptionsto theruleare Conrad,Kafka,and Nabokov,all of
whombecamemastersofan adoptedlanguage.
Individuallaureatesare singledout forworksdealingwiththeir
nativelandand enhancingitstraditions. Latin Americanwriters,
forinstance,are alwayslaudedforwriting aboutLatinAmerica.What
else? The lyricpoetryof GabrielaMistral(Chile, 1945), made her
name"a symboloftheidealisticaspirations oftheentireLatinAmeri-
can world."Similarly, MiguelAngel Asturias (Guatemala,1967) is
praised for hisliteraryachievement "deep rooted in thenationaltraits
and traditions of the Indian peoples ofLatin America." Spanishlaure-
atesare commendedforreviving the traditions of Spanishdramaor
Spanishpoetry. Others are lauded forrenewingtheepic tradition of
Iceland,Poland, or Russia.This national strain is a constanttheme.
The jointwinnersof 1966,thePolish-born IsraelinovelistShmuel
YosefAgnon,a difficult writerin Hebrewas wellas in Englishtransla-
tion,and the poet NellySachs,werehonored- Agnonforhis narra-
tiveart on themes drawn"fromthe lifeof theJewishpeople,"and
Sachs forher writing"whichinterprets Israel's destiny."Rightlyor
wrongly, it would appear as if the Nobel judges feel thata certain
country has been neglected, and that it is the turn,say,of Iceland,
Belgium,or Denmark.Do theythinkthatitis timethatan awardwent
to Israeland themodernrevivalof Hebrewas a spokenand literary
tongue?Do theyinquirewhetherthisyeartheymightthinkmore
closelyofAustralia or SouthAfrica? Well,whynot?
An apt awardin thissense was thatmade in 1978 to a popular
Americanwriter in Yiddish,Isaac BashevisSinger,forhisnarrative art
"withrootsin Polish-Jewish culturaltradition."The award caused
some surprise:MalcolmBradbury, the Britishnovelistand professor
of AmericanStudiesat the University of East Anglia,was expecting
theprizeto go to GrahamGreene,whowouldneverreceiveit.In his
acceptancespeech,the firstevermade in Yiddish,I. B. Singerde-
claredthatthe honordevolvednot onlyon himselfbut "also upon
theYiddishlanguage,a languageof theDiaspora,withouta country,
without frontiers, and unsupported byanyState."Since theawardto
I. B. Singer,Yiddish,whichhas long been much despised,widely
thoughtto be a verypoor second to Hebrew,and virtually a dead
73
language,has knownan astonishing resurrection and not onlyas a

for
subject study. How much this is owing to the air of respectability
and importance conferredon thetonguebytheNobel Prizeremains
problematic butsuggestive.
In some countries,especiallythose whose writersare unaccus-
tomed to much notice,thereis intensepatrioticgratification if a
nativesonor daughter winstheNobelPrizeforLiterature: itis akinto
a victory in international sport. In others, in Great Britain, forin-
stance,whilepeopleare naturally pleased, itmakes relatively stir.
little
Did anyonetherethinkmorehighlyofWilliamGoldingbecausehe
wasa Nobellaureatethantheydid before?Borgessaidonce: "WhenI
write, I do notthinkofmyself as an Argentinian or a Spaniard:I write
in orderto be understood." Loversofliterature wouldbe touchedby
thatobservation, sensingthatthemajorwriter transcends nationality.
It is evidentthatbecausetheNobelPrizeforLiterature is linkedto
an establishment body, the Swedish Academy(howevernominally
independent) , itscelebrationsbeinggracedbytheSwedishmonarch
and government, a controversy cannotbe pursuedto thelimit.The
awardis made, and thenthe laureateis leftto swingin the wind.
WhenPasternak waspersecuted, Camus and otherssenthimlet-
tersof moralsupport.Officially, did the SwedishAcademydo the
same? To have insistedmore stronglyand publiclyas regards
Pasternak and Solzhenitsyn at theheightof theCold Warmightwell
haveprovokedan international incident,or so it thenappeared.The
geographical proximity ofSwedento theformer SovietUnionshould
notbe discountedin assessingthebalanceofcourageand timidity, or
secondthoughts.
Whatwouldhappenif the Nobel PrizeforLiterature wereto be
awardedto theBritish novelistSalmanRushdie,formanyyearsunder
sentenceofdeathfora workoffiction? Wouldtheayatollahs in Iran
and Muslimfundamentalists elsewherewhosustainthefatwadeclare
waron Swedenand promoteterror?Two membersof the Swedish
Academyare said to haveresignedbecauseit did not issuea public
condemnation ofthedeaththreatagainstSalmanRushdie.Whatever
be
may thoughtofRushdie'sperspicacity or hisliterary merits(which
doubtlessare notinferior to thoseof some pastlaureates), he is the
victimofone ofthemostsingularand dangerousattackson freedom
of imaginativeexpressionin modernexperience.As regardsthe
Rushdiephenomenon, AlfredNobel'sfondnessforan "idealistic ten-
dency"withethicalundertones couldbe demonstrated, ifnotquitein
themannerthathe foresaw. Such a standwouldprovethatliterature
stillmatters, something that the awardof theNobel Prizehas consis-
if
tently cautiously implied.
74
Yetfundamentally, theeffect oftheNobel Prizeon literature itself

and on writers is minimal.It does not help to encourageor foster
struggling talent.It does notinfluencethepublicto probethenature
and artof writing or to seek to acquire the qualitiesof literary dis-
crimination and judgment.On the whole,thosewho "hitthejack-
pot,"as V. S. Naipaulphrasedit,are notnecessarily betterwriters than
thosewho failto do so. But one does not look a gifthorsein the
mouth:thelaureatesare simply morefortunate in beingable to enjoy
additionalprestigeand financialreward.Withthe Nobel Prizefor
Literature, too manypoliticaland geographicalmotivescome into
play,too manyextraneousconsiderations thathavelittleor nothing
to do withtheactofwriting or theartofliterature as such.
Owing to the founder's prescription idealism,a certainkindof
of
literaturehas normally been omitted - namely,writing thatdoes not
carry with it anyparticular message, whether of socialjustice,moral
or
concern, religion. The proponent of art for art's sake,thewriter
who sawartitselfas the highestvalue, and who might even sacrifice
his lifeto it,could forgetabouttheNobel PrizeforLiterature - and
doubtlesswouldhave despisedit anywayas a philistineirrelevance,
whichto somedegreeitis.
Had thePrizebeen instituted earlierin thenineteenth century, it
is conceivablethata determinedly hopefulidealistsuch as George
Sand togetherwithmoralistsof the statureof George Eliot and
Dickenswouldhavebeen probablechoices.On theotherhand,it is
extremely unlikely thatthe"immoral" Flaubert,Baudelaire,or Oscar
Wilde(whodied in 1900) wouldeverhavebeen chosenas laureates.
These werein theirvariousways - along withHenryJames,Marcel
Proust, -
JamesJoyce the highpriestsof art.As forthoseironicsati-
ristswho,withBorgesor Nabokov,likedto taketheliterary heritageas
someformofseriousplay,mysterious metaphysical game,or disturb-
inglyequivocalriddle,they could scarcely be accommodated. If the
awardoftheNobel PrizeforLiterature is to be made to thosewriters
who "continuethe illustrioustraditions" of theircountry'spoetry,
and
fiction, drama, it is not going to be givento the difficult loners
-
and the daringinnovatorsor, at least,not untilthey have become
self-parodists or haveturnedintoestablishment figuresaboutto pass
to a betterworld.
75

Nobel Prize in Literature

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Nobel Prize in Literature

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Nobel Prize for Literature

Author(s): RENEE WINEGARTEN

JorgeLuis Borgeswasinformed thathis workswereto be

winnerfromstarvation, or thevictory itselfmightassistin confirming

been made to a pro-German Danishwriter, declaredacidly:"Itcomes

ofthefoundation oftheNobelprizeshe wascommonly regardedas a

wentso faras to declare:"Ifhe doesn'twintheNobel Prize,it'sonly

liberalparliamentary democracy? How to knowthatKnutHamsun,

Secretary oftheSwedishAcademy, to choosebetweenpoets,novelists,

bytheKingof Sweden,in the presenceof membersof the Swedish

Zhivago,in 1958,beforeitwenttoMikhailSholokhov(a writer in favor

PrizeforLiterature(so he laterassertedin his memoir,TheOakand

language,has knownan astonishing resurrection and not onlyas a

Yetfundamentally, theeffect oftheNobel Prizeon literature itself

Potrebbero piacerti anche