Tweet
SURPRISINGLY NOBEL PINTER
By Caroline Walters and Lianne Vella
Edinburgh Student Newspaper, UK
Oct 17 2005
Considering that in recent years Harold Pinter has been more known for
his politics than his plays, it seems surprising that this year's Nobel
Prize Commitee has chosen him as the recipent of this lauded accolade.
The secretive Swedish Commitee have a massive 1.3 million euros
(c.£890,000) to give away. These judges consistently decide which
literary gods we should worship but have been known for their
unpredictability and the often, can we say, randomness of their
choices.
An example is last year's controversial Elfriede Jelinek, famous for
The Piano Teacher. She's only the tenth woman to ever win. A member of
the jury announced a year after the event, clearly he's a slow reader,
that her books are "whingeing, unenjoyable, violent pornography". Knut
Ahnlund decided to quit the academy in protest against their arbitrary
decisions, as he felt no-one had actually read Jelinek and would have
noted her explicit sexuality. She did cause controversy but her books
are interesting coming from someone who's actually read them.
What should actually constitute an award-winning Nobel prize writer?
Is it given for merit? Or personal preferences?
In the current political climate it was hoped that they might make a
riskier choice. One of the favourite picks to win was Orhan Pamuk,
Turkish author of Snow and My Name is Red. He's currently up for
trial, as he claimed that the Turkish state had committed genocide
against the Armenians and the Kurds. Turkey's current bid to enter
the EU also gives it a more politically interesting context.
Another tipped choice was Joyce Carol Oates, who we personally like,
because of her visceral quality. She has just published her 44th
critically acclaimed novel, quite a feat and proof of her staying
power, at times a rare occurence with Nobel winners. But, the
admittedly well-known Pinter swung out of nowhere and stole the prize.
His career began in 1957 when his first play The Room was performed
at Bristol University. But it was from 1960, with the critically
acclaimed The Caretaker, that his fame really began to bloom. The
Academy's citation about Pinter indicates one of the reasons for his
critical acclaim: his work "uncovers the precipice under everyday
prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms." This is one
of the characteristic features of his absurdist plays that have come
to mean so much to the band of eighteen intellectuals.
However, in the past few years he has decided to abandon his career as
a playwright for that of a poet. This shift to lyricism was sparked
by his fervent beliefs against the war in Iraq. He demonstrated his
passionate opinions by speaking in the House of Commons in 2002: "They
are determined, quite simply, to control the world and[...] they don't
give a damn how many people they murder on the way." Most people are of
the opinion that this is probably the reason he won the award. Although
his political consciousness is admirable and full of venom, he is more
likely to be remembered by the literary community for his 29 plays.
Pinter has an epic back catalogue that clearly deserves the award.
However, in the past the Academy have been arguably unfair in their
decisions. There are some notable ommisions from the 104 winners,
including Joyce, Woolf, Ibsen, Zola, Conrad, Kafka, Tolstoy and
Proust. Prizes by their nature won't include everyone, but you have
to ask, why did they leave these out?
http://www.studentnewspaper.org/view_article .php?article_id=20051017135956
--Boundary_(ID_mhP bJeP+3jopjIeFneX7FQ)--
By Caroline Walters and Lianne Vella
Edinburgh Student Newspaper, UK
Oct 17 2005
Considering that in recent years Harold Pinter has been more known for
his politics than his plays, it seems surprising that this year's Nobel
Prize Commitee has chosen him as the recipent of this lauded accolade.
The secretive Swedish Commitee have a massive 1.3 million euros
(c.£890,000) to give away. These judges consistently decide which
literary gods we should worship but have been known for their
unpredictability and the often, can we say, randomness of their
choices.
An example is last year's controversial Elfriede Jelinek, famous for
The Piano Teacher. She's only the tenth woman to ever win. A member of
the jury announced a year after the event, clearly he's a slow reader,
that her books are "whingeing, unenjoyable, violent pornography". Knut
Ahnlund decided to quit the academy in protest against their arbitrary
decisions, as he felt no-one had actually read Jelinek and would have
noted her explicit sexuality. She did cause controversy but her books
are interesting coming from someone who's actually read them.
What should actually constitute an award-winning Nobel prize writer?
Is it given for merit? Or personal preferences?
In the current political climate it was hoped that they might make a
riskier choice. One of the favourite picks to win was Orhan Pamuk,
Turkish author of Snow and My Name is Red. He's currently up for
trial, as he claimed that the Turkish state had committed genocide
against the Armenians and the Kurds. Turkey's current bid to enter
the EU also gives it a more politically interesting context.
Another tipped choice was Joyce Carol Oates, who we personally like,
because of her visceral quality. She has just published her 44th
critically acclaimed novel, quite a feat and proof of her staying
power, at times a rare occurence with Nobel winners. But, the
admittedly well-known Pinter swung out of nowhere and stole the prize.
His career began in 1957 when his first play The Room was performed
at Bristol University. But it was from 1960, with the critically
acclaimed The Caretaker, that his fame really began to bloom. The
Academy's citation about Pinter indicates one of the reasons for his
critical acclaim: his work "uncovers the precipice under everyday
prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms." This is one
of the characteristic features of his absurdist plays that have come
to mean so much to the band of eighteen intellectuals.
However, in the past few years he has decided to abandon his career as
a playwright for that of a poet. This shift to lyricism was sparked
by his fervent beliefs against the war in Iraq. He demonstrated his
passionate opinions by speaking in the House of Commons in 2002: "They
are determined, quite simply, to control the world and[...] they don't
give a damn how many people they murder on the way." Most people are of
the opinion that this is probably the reason he won the award. Although
his political consciousness is admirable and full of venom, he is more
likely to be remembered by the literary community for his 29 plays.
Pinter has an epic back catalogue that clearly deserves the award.
However, in the past the Academy have been arguably unfair in their
decisions. There are some notable ommisions from the 104 winners,
including Joyce, Woolf, Ibsen, Zola, Conrad, Kafka, Tolstoy and
Proust. Prizes by their nature won't include everyone, but you have
to ask, why did they leave these out?
http://www.studentnewspaper.org/view_article .php?article_id=20051017135956
--Boundary_(ID_mhP bJeP+3jopjIeFneX7FQ)--