Swedish Academy Won’t Award Nobel Prize in Literature This Year(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Swedish Academy Won’t Award Nobel Prize in Literature This Year
https://www.wsj.com/articles/swedish-academy-wont-award-nobel-prize-in-literature-this-year-1525419104
167 comments
I don't think he hangs out with the right crowds in the right places to garner literary awards. From the little he's spoken to the press, it sounds like he spends most of his time chillin' with scientists and eating huevos rancheros in New Mexico:
https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2005/08/cormac-mccarthy-i...
https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2005/08/cormac-mccarthy-i...
Cormac McCarthy has written some truly excellent work (though I find his output rather more inconsistent than some of his passionate fans on the internet are prepared to allow). However, his treatment of female characters (or lack thereof) is already notorious, and with current trends, I believe that this makes it less likely with each year that he will be recognized with this prize.
Someone that also deserves is Lobo Antunes [1]. Also a Portuguese like José Saramago, but IMHO, is way more interesting: a psychiatrist that served in Colonial War.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_Lobo_Antunes
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_Lobo_Antunes
another one frequently mentioned : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_Kadare#Recognition
> José Saramago
his book "The Double" is brilliant.
his book "The Double" is brilliant.
The Dostoevsky-reminiscent title is enough to sell me. I’m excited to read it.
[deleted]
They expect to award two recipients in 2019.
The correct decision, following all the turmoil surrounding Svensk Akademin, any prize given this year would be a lesser one.
Press Release from Swedish Academy : http://www.svenskaakademien.se/en/press/the-swedish-academy-...
Non Paywall Coverage
BBC : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43999240
Guardian : https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/04/nobel-prize-fo...
CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/04/europe/nobel-prize-for-li...
Non Paywall Coverage
BBC : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43999240
Guardian : https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/04/nobel-prize-fo...
CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/04/europe/nobel-prize-for-li...
I don't understand why the Nobel prize is so prestigious. It's the same with the Oscars: it's just some arbitrary committee of people somewhere that decide who wins it. It's not like your peers decide if you win. So why does anyone actually care about the award? It's prestigious because we all agree it's prestigious.
It's spelled "prestigious" because we all agree it's spelled "prestigious."
The word has meaning because we all agree it has meaning.
Corporations exist because we all agree that corporations exist.
Money has value because we all agree that it has value.
The United States of America exists because we all agree that it exists.
Yes, there is a difference between objective reality and intersubjective reality. But I think you're making too much of that difference.
A huge amount of our everyday world is based entirely off broad mass agreement. The vast majority of the things we interact with in modern life would immediately cease to exist if all the people who believed in them just vanished one day - if an extraterrestrial species arrived on Earth the day after, they would not be able to observe almost anything about our lives. That doesn't mean our reality is fake or that our interaction with it is arbitrary. It just means that it is geopolitically and/or culturally defined.
Bottom line: Yes, social science is hard, but lighten up.
The word has meaning because we all agree it has meaning.
Corporations exist because we all agree that corporations exist.
Money has value because we all agree that it has value.
The United States of America exists because we all agree that it exists.
Yes, there is a difference between objective reality and intersubjective reality. But I think you're making too much of that difference.
A huge amount of our everyday world is based entirely off broad mass agreement. The vast majority of the things we interact with in modern life would immediately cease to exist if all the people who believed in them just vanished one day - if an extraterrestrial species arrived on Earth the day after, they would not be able to observe almost anything about our lives. That doesn't mean our reality is fake or that our interaction with it is arbitrary. It just means that it is geopolitically and/or culturally defined.
Bottom line: Yes, social science is hard, but lighten up.
The prize isn’t terribly prestigious in the first place: they’ve been accused of swedish bias since day one, and it doesn’t have a great track record of acknowledging people who actually become loved and/or acclaimed.
Iirc my lit friends follow the Man Booker prize more closely; perhaps there are other non-english prizes that could also compete with the swedes.
Iirc my lit friends follow the Man Booker prize more closely; perhaps there are other non-english prizes that could also compete with the swedes.
> it doesn’t have a great track record of acknowledging people who actually become loved and/or acclaimed
Why should they have? That's not what the statutes say should be awarded so that particular criticism is a bit unfair.
Why should they have? That's not what the statutes say should be awarded so that particular criticism is a bit unfair.
[deleted]
The National Book Award is pretty prestigious in the States.
I'm only suggesting we could consider other awards more prestigious than the Nobel.
Keep in mind that the Nobel prize comes with an approximately $1 million USD cash award. It's not just a fancy gold medal.
And has been around for over 100 years with a pretty good track record of awarding the prize to innovations that have stood the test of time (with some notable exceptions when it comes to the peace prize).
We can. I've never made a decision to read a book due to its author having won a Nobel prize, nor watched a film because of it being an Academy Award winner. The opinions of people in those particular insider-groups are not interesting to me (except indirectly, in how they affect broader society; that's quite interesting).
Actually sometimes after hearing about a book or film I think I might be interested in I'll go and read a load of 'normal people' reviews on Amazon or IMDb and they might sway me one way or the other. They may not be skilled reviewers but they use their own words and it helps me ascertain what kind of persons they are and whether their opinions are likely to be in tune with my own. Also I get a spread, rather than niche view.
So I suppose that means that for me, normal people's opinions hold more prestige than the Nobel Committee's.
Actually sometimes after hearing about a book or film I think I might be interested in I'll go and read a load of 'normal people' reviews on Amazon or IMDb and they might sway me one way or the other. They may not be skilled reviewers but they use their own words and it helps me ascertain what kind of persons they are and whether their opinions are likely to be in tune with my own. Also I get a spread, rather than niche view.
So I suppose that means that for me, normal people's opinions hold more prestige than the Nobel Committee's.
You first. Then analyze the impact that has.
[deleted]
> It's just some arbitrary committee of people somewhere that decide who wins it.
The committee for the literature prize has contained some prestigious literary figures themselves, so it is to a slight degree a judgement of peers. Secondly, the membership of the committee has historically represented a high society that many authors have been members of themselves, or who hoped to have that high society among their audience. Go through the Nobel ceremony archives and you can see some writers getting quite emotional that they are there among the committee and the invited guests.
The committee for the literature prize has contained some prestigious literary figures themselves, so it is to a slight degree a judgement of peers. Secondly, the membership of the committee has historically represented a high society that many authors have been members of themselves, or who hoped to have that high society among their audience. Go through the Nobel ceremony archives and you can see some writers getting quite emotional that they are there among the committee and the invited guests.
I agree that the deciding committee isn't completely incompetent. As you know, there are plenty of other intelligentsia that could also award prizes but they aren't deemed as prestigious. E.g. why the Swedish academy instead of the Royal Society? I think it is a bit strange how we fetisihize the Nobel above all others.
That's just how prestige works. It's a social phenomenon, not an objective reality. It can snowball.
This book has an interesting but slightly reductive take on how prestige works in the arts: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/artworld-prestige-97...
This book has an interesting but slightly reductive take on how prestige works in the arts: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/artworld-prestige-97...
Indeed. One prize gets 1% prestige, so people want to win it. More people want to win it, so the prize gains more prestige, etc.
So you've answered your own questions as to why this isn't strange at all - it's just how social capital works.
Why else would the premier restaurant review have been started by a tire company? It's all path dependence, and once you get enough momentum behind one choice it becomes self reinforcing.
Why else would the premier restaurant review have been started by a tire company? It's all path dependence, and once you get enough momentum behind one choice it becomes self reinforcing.
> So you've answered your own questions
Yes, I am trying to.
Yes, I am trying to.
> E.g. why the Swedish academy instead of the Royal Society?
Because a rich Swede endowed it over a century ago, and its had that time to build up prestige.
It's sort of like why Harvard is so prestigious: it was the first American University, its existed continuously, and has always ran itself like it was elite.
> I think it is a bit strange how we fetisihize the Nobel above all others.
My guess it's one of the oldest extant awards of its kind, if not the oldest.
This scandal (and the hiatus) might allow a competitor to emerge as the most prestigious award in the field of literature, but I doubt such award will have the same popular awareness, because the Nobel's breadth helps a lot with it's fame.
Because a rich Swede endowed it over a century ago, and its had that time to build up prestige.
It's sort of like why Harvard is so prestigious: it was the first American University, its existed continuously, and has always ran itself like it was elite.
> I think it is a bit strange how we fetisihize the Nobel above all others.
My guess it's one of the oldest extant awards of its kind, if not the oldest.
This scandal (and the hiatus) might allow a competitor to emerge as the most prestigious award in the field of literature, but I doubt such award will have the same popular awareness, because the Nobel's breadth helps a lot with it's fame.
Just like Borges never got a Nobel, Kubrick never got an Oscar as director.
These awards systems with arbitrary judges are far from fair.
These awards systems with arbitrary judges are far from fair.
I have recently gone back through Kubrick’s entire filmography from Paths of Glory on, the first time I had seen many of these films since I was a teenager. It was... underwhelming. I am now able to sympathize with Kubrick critics.
With regard to Borges, he shares the same problem in terms of female characters as Cormac McCarthy as mentioned above. Plus, there is a real lack of emotional depth to Borges’ work. His themes may interest anoraks like ourselves, but I don’t think he is a truly universal figure.
With regard to Borges, he shares the same problem in terms of female characters as Cormac McCarthy as mentioned above. Plus, there is a real lack of emotional depth to Borges’ work. His themes may interest anoraks like ourselves, but I don’t think he is a truly universal figure.
IMHO "Barry Lyndon" is one of the best movies ever-made, and I say that as a cinephile who also thinks that Kubrick is slightly (but just slightly) over-rated.
A literature prize like the Nobel is by definition a thing targeted towards literature buffs, and Borges is a god among gods for those kind of people (of which I'm a part of), with or without female characters (come to think of it, I can't remember that many male characters in his books either).
Anyway, I stopped taking the Nobel literature prizes all that seriously the moment when I realized that they hadn't given it to Proust (his duchesse de Guermantes is one of the most important female characters in the history of literature) and Kafka.
A literature prize like the Nobel is by definition a thing targeted towards literature buffs, and Borges is a god among gods for those kind of people (of which I'm a part of), with or without female characters (come to think of it, I can't remember that many male characters in his books either).
Anyway, I stopped taking the Nobel literature prizes all that seriously the moment when I realized that they hadn't given it to Proust (his duchesse de Guermantes is one of the most important female characters in the history of literature) and Kafka.
Timeliness is what made Kubrick “great” — the social commentary aspect of his films. As far as directing quality, I am simply whelmed rather than over or underwhelmed.
The Nobel committee, at least in Physics, consistently selects people who have had a tremendous impact on the field. There are hundreds of people who may qualify who don't get selected, but those who are selected have done something important.
Ergo, a prize winner has a powerful social signal that they have done something important. Scarcity does the rest, as there are three or fewer of them every year in a world with perhaps a few hundred thousand practicing physicists.
Ergo, a prize winner has a powerful social signal that they have done something important. Scarcity does the rest, as there are three or fewer of them every year in a world with perhaps a few hundred thousand practicing physicists.
The Academy has 7000 active/lifetime members who vote on Oscars. That’s not really an arbitrary committee.
Also, the voting members don't necessarily actually decide their own vote. Often if they have no opinion on a category they will ask a relative or friend, who may or may not actually be involved in the industry.
This happens a lot in the voting for best animated feature. It is fairly common for an older voter to have seen none of the nominees. He asks his grandchildren what "cartoon" they liked best that year, or remembers which movie's merchandise they frequently wear, and that's the one he votes for.
I remember seeing a couple article at animation publications where they asked a bunch of voters how they voted and why in years where the winner differed from what the majority of people working in animation expected, and found that the "my grandchildren liked it" factor was the main reason.
I wonder how it works for the more technical categories, like best sound editing? Asking your grandchildren "what movie's sound editing did you like this year?" is probably not going to get a useful response.
This happens a lot in the voting for best animated feature. It is fairly common for an older voter to have seen none of the nominees. He asks his grandchildren what "cartoon" they liked best that year, or remembers which movie's merchandise they frequently wear, and that's the one he votes for.
I remember seeing a couple article at animation publications where they asked a bunch of voters how they voted and why in years where the winner differed from what the majority of people working in animation expected, and found that the "my grandchildren liked it" factor was the main reason.
I wonder how it works for the more technical categories, like best sound editing? Asking your grandchildren "what movie's sound editing did you like this year?" is probably not going to get a useful response.
Here's a video that talks about one of the categories (best Foreign movie). FWIW, I don't dislike the Oscars much, I sometimes even watch the whole thing if I think the host will be funny in a way that pisses off Meryl Streep.
Sorry about non-English words being sprinkled in though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWizRledAr8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFENw9T7qUw
Sorry about non-English words being sprinkled in though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWizRledAr8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFENw9T7qUw
Why are the Oscars more prestigious than the Golden Globes?
Because the Globes are voted on by the film press and not actual film practitioners. As an analog, it would be like patients at a hospital voting for the Nobel Prize in Medicine. Still a nice award but much different in the electorate.
More specifically, the globes are voted on by the foreign film press and the process is notoriously corrupt.
and the Oscars aren't? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhfxo8xPNGU
Part of it is the committee, Nobel prize selection committee is filled with some of the most prestigious people in that field. In addition, their selection process is very good.
Part of it is their long history of very good selections.
Part of it is the one million dollar reward.
Part of it is their long history of very good selections.
Part of it is the one million dollar reward.
The nobel prize committee is far from "an arbitrary commmittee" as far as I know.
At least for the nobel prize in physics I know it's peers who decide and I'd assume it's the same for the other subjects, and it's not just "arbitrary people who have PhDs within the subject" either, it's a few selected ones who are well known in their fields.
At least for the nobel prize in physics I know it's peers who decide and I'd assume it's the same for the other subjects, and it's not just "arbitrary people who have PhDs within the subject" either, it's a few selected ones who are well known in their fields.
I agree that they're not totally arbitrary and there is probably some correlation between broad peer review acceptance of the genius of some work and a Nobel prize. However, there are also plenty of other committees which could award prizes but which don't carry the same prestige for seemingly arbitrary reasons: e.g. the Royal Society.
Both the Nobel prize and the Oscars are decided by peers in the same field.
The reason the Oscars and Nobel are the only two major awards that I care about is because in the past the winners are usually (though not always) worthy, so that indicates their selection process has value. Certainly more value than a conceited waste of time like the Grammys.
Welcome to humanity.
We agree a Olympic gold is prestigious even though it’s just a sport. We agree Lawrence Olivier was great even though he was just acting. We praise Alan Turing even though he was just a mathematician.
We agree a Olympic gold is prestigious even though it’s just a sport. We agree Lawrence Olivier was great even though he was just acting. We praise Alan Turing even though he was just a mathematician.
Olympic gold in most sports are based on excellence measured objectively. It's not a human judgment. You either did race 100m in 9.5 seconds or you didn't. There are some sports where asthetics are included in scoring (like synchronized swimming).
So ? There is little value for a human being to be able to do so. Or humanity. We just decided that this particular challenge was worth a huge deal.
We don't give a gold medal for the fastest people to write from memory an algo for reversing a binary tree, or for the person capable of feeding the most children in a day.
It's completely arbitrary.
We don't give a gold medal for the fastest people to write from memory an algo for reversing a binary tree, or for the person capable of feeding the most children in a day.
It's completely arbitrary.
The GP's point was about "it's just some arbitrary committee of people somewhere that decide who wins it". That's not the case for at least some Olympic sports.
You can't make a blanket statement about all Olympic medals like that. Ironically, some of the most prestigious gold medals are indeed the product of human judgement: figure skating and gymnastics.
In fact at one time figure skating was objective. They would take a clean sheet of ice, the skater would skate a figure 8 ( or whatever) then the judges would measure it. Not fun to watch.
The comment used the words most and some. It also included an example about synchronized swimming.
Maybe prestigious from a mass market perspective; but IMO that’s just because both sports feature very young girls in various states of undress (simulated or not).
Both sports trade on the sexualization of young girls. Why do we even have a sport where the main criteria are older men passing judgment on young girls? The scoring system is vague/complex enough that the “victory” game in both sports is highly rigged anyway, so it’s more about politics than skill when deciding between the top few spots.
Both sports trade on the sexualization of young girls. Why do we even have a sport where the main criteria are older men passing judgment on young girls? The scoring system is vague/complex enough that the “victory” game in both sports is highly rigged anyway, so it’s more about politics than skill when deciding between the top few spots.
That’s just bizzare. Most men don’t watch figure skating or gymnastics, the audience is mostly female. So I’m not sure why they would be sexualized or how they would “trade” on the sexualization; there’s no money in it.
>Olympic gold in most sports are based on excellence measured objectively.
Just because something involves a measurement doesn't mean it's completely objective. All the medal tells you objectively is who ran fastest in that particular race, on that particular day, out of the people participating.
There are many subjective factors contributing to that result, and any "excellence" we infer from it is still highly subjective. Indeed, the very notion that running the fastest is something worthy of prestige is a subjective one.
Just because something involves a measurement doesn't mean it's completely objective. All the medal tells you objectively is who ran fastest in that particular race, on that particular day, out of the people participating.
There are many subjective factors contributing to that result, and any "excellence" we infer from it is still highly subjective. Indeed, the very notion that running the fastest is something worthy of prestige is a subjective one.
And gymnastics, figure skating dressage, ...
It's irrelevant to the point, things are prestigious because enough people decide they are. The longest breath holder gets an entry in the Guinness Book and a cocktail icebreaker, a Synchronized Swimming Gold Medalist is always a gold medalist.
It's irrelevant to the point, things are prestigious because enough people decide they are. The longest breath holder gets an entry in the Guinness Book and a cocktail icebreaker, a Synchronized Swimming Gold Medalist is always a gold medalist.
Ok, but that only tells you how to win it, not how or why it’s more prestigious than other gold medals. That’s the point of the parent I think, that prestige is part of humanity and not always easily defined.
I think the Olympics are prestigious because it is such a large competition. Every nation pretty much competes in a large spectacle. So if you win, it means you're the best in the world. The Olympics has more eyeballs on it than the world championship for most sports. And as said, it's objectively measured (although some sports like diving, boxing and gymnastics are determined by subjective scoring to some extent). The only sport I can think of which has more viewers is the Fifa World Cup, and indeed in football/soccer the Fifa World Cup is considered more prestigious than the Olympics.
And as you know, Alan Turing pioneered computer science and helped saved millions of lives, so he deserves our respect :-) Perhaps prestige is like natural snowball kind of effect, like how the rich will naturally get richer. A prestigious event becomes somewhat prestigious, so people want to win it. Then more people want to win it. Then it becomes more prestigious, etc.
And as you know, Alan Turing pioneered computer science and helped saved millions of lives, so he deserves our respect :-) Perhaps prestige is like natural snowball kind of effect, like how the rich will naturally get richer. A prestigious event becomes somewhat prestigious, so people want to win it. Then more people want to win it. Then it becomes more prestigious, etc.
>> in football/soccer the Fifa World Cup is considered more prestigious than the Olympics
That has nothing to do with number of viewers though. It is just a dirty trick from FIFA to eliminate competition: national teams in Olympics are junior (U-23) teams because FIFA does not allow senior teams to participate.
That has nothing to do with number of viewers though. It is just a dirty trick from FIFA to eliminate competition: national teams in Olympics are junior (U-23) teams because FIFA does not allow senior teams to participate.
Didn't know that. That's weird.
Prestige is often fickle... it’s kind of a truism that the most prestigious artists (painters, writers, sculptors, etc) never enjoy success in their lifetimes, but rather find audiences well after they have passed.
In a hundred years, the olympics and the nobel prize could be seen as quaint reminders of an earlier time — entirely without prestige, leaving the observer wondering why we cared so much in the first place.
In a hundred years, the olympics and the nobel prize could be seen as quaint reminders of an earlier time — entirely without prestige, leaving the observer wondering why we cared so much in the first place.
> Olympic gold in most sports are based on excellence measured objectively.
Athletes may value Olympic Gold more so than gold at a smaller, regional competitions, even when posting better results at the smaller venues ...
Society at large has been "tuned" to regard Olympic Gold as the "gold standard" regardless of whether the athlete performed better at other competitions.
Athletes may value Olympic Gold more so than gold at a smaller, regional competitions, even when posting better results at the smaller venues ...
Society at large has been "tuned" to regard Olympic Gold as the "gold standard" regardless of whether the athlete performed better at other competitions.
Just another subjective aspect, the rules define what exact sports are even awarded medals. Nobody gets anything for best backwards running.
> We praise Alan Turing even though he was just a mathematician.
A mathematician that changed the world to a huge degree. No actor or athlete performance drives the greatest innovations of today or wins wars. They are merely entertainers. Useful, but that's it.
A mathematician that changed the world to a huge degree. No actor or athlete performance drives the greatest innovations of today or wins wars. They are merely entertainers. Useful, but that's it.
While we can discuss the prestige of the Nobel price, please don't associate with the Oscar.
The first is an actual prize for scientist works.
The second is a fictional prize created to let Americans have prizes too.
>The second is a fictional prize created to let Americans have prizes too.
Huh? Doesn't the U.S. have more Nobel laureates than any other country?
Huh? Doesn't the U.S. have more Nobel laureates than any other country?
And between 30-35% of US Nobel laureates are immigrants.
> The first is an actual prize for scientist works
This article is about the Nobel prize for literature.
This article is about the Nobel prize for literature.
This is insulting. The Nobel Prize is “fictional” too. While the article is discussing literature, let’s unpack “fictional” prizes: Yassir Arafat wins a peace prize relating to a war in which he was a primary beligerant. Obama wins the prize before he actually did anything — he won the prize for what he might do rather than for anything he did.
Douglas Prasher getting snubbed for the 2008 Prize in Chemistry while the other three who won that year won because of Prasher’s discovery!
Somorjai getting snubbed in 2007 despite his research partner winning.
Eyring didn’t win because he was a Mormon.
Fritz Haber helped developed poison gas used in World War I, yet he won in 1918, despite the entire raison d’être of Nobel’s mandate.
If we want to talk about Literature, more Swedes have won than the entirety of Asia! Talk about creating a “fictional prize” so that a particular nationality can have prizes too.
The Oscars do have merit and they don’t purport to be international. It’s the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, recognizing excellence in American film; they don’t claim to be an international award, yet Nobel — they explicitly are international oriented. You’re going to say Tolstoy and Mark Twain are less accomplished than Selma Lagerlöf? Really? James Joyce never won a Nobel but Frans Sillanpää did?
Come now.
Douglas Prasher getting snubbed for the 2008 Prize in Chemistry while the other three who won that year won because of Prasher’s discovery!
Somorjai getting snubbed in 2007 despite his research partner winning.
Eyring didn’t win because he was a Mormon.
Fritz Haber helped developed poison gas used in World War I, yet he won in 1918, despite the entire raison d’être of Nobel’s mandate.
If we want to talk about Literature, more Swedes have won than the entirety of Asia! Talk about creating a “fictional prize” so that a particular nationality can have prizes too.
The Oscars do have merit and they don’t purport to be international. It’s the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, recognizing excellence in American film; they don’t claim to be an international award, yet Nobel — they explicitly are international oriented. You’re going to say Tolstoy and Mark Twain are less accomplished than Selma Lagerlöf? Really? James Joyce never won a Nobel but Frans Sillanpää did?
Come now.
Let's not forget bob dylan won(and almost snubbed) the nobel prize in literature. Don't get me wrong the dude's a great song writer, but that's not literature.
I disagree. Song lyrics absolutely count as literature to me, as does the other poetry he was recognized for. He's not the first one to receive the Nobel for poetry either, and his themes and influence line up well with the stated goals of the prize itself.
Irrelevant sidetrack: The word "literature" is also applied to music without lyrics. Try googling for "keyboard literature" or "violin literature", for example. In English, at least. Don't know about Swedish!
Spot on.
I'm not saying that the prizes have equal merit. I'm saying that they're both similarly famous prizes that are judged as prestigious even though the award process isn't based on peer review.
The Oscars are absolutely based on peer review. You have to be a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and you have to be a member within the category of the award being voted upon, except for Best Picture for which all members can vote.
Sound Editing is voted on by Sound Editor members. There is more peer review in terms of number of peers at the Academy than your average Nature article.
Sound Editing is voted on by Sound Editor members. There is more peer review in terms of number of peers at the Academy than your average Nature article.
And I was sure they would give it to Archimboldi this time!
This episode from the freakonomics podcast is apt as it shows some of the inner workings of the Nobel prize selection.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-to-win-a-nobel-prize-a-n...
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-to-win-a-nobel-prize-a-n...
Non-paywalled coverage: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/04/nobel-prize-fo...
Alternatively, here's a tiny firefox extension that replaces your referrer with "Facebook" whenever you try and access the WSJ or the Financial Times:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/read-ft-wsj/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/read-ft-wsj/
Does that actually work? If so I suppose it would be quite easy to port to other browsers.
That actually does work. Also works for Chrome.
On github: https://github.com/JoaoAparicio/read-ft-wsj/
On github: https://github.com/JoaoAparicio/read-ft-wsj/
Just tested and it does indeed work. One should probably use private mode in combination, so cookies get reset every time.
Nice, I just loaded the extension into chrome manually and it seems to work.
Yes, probably. Personally, I always use uMatrix and block all cookies by default (except for some specific websites which I manually whitelist). So I have no idea what happens if you use this extension without blocking cookies.
Or under the submission you can click the "web" link which sends you to a google search and through that you'll have non-paywalled access. (JFYI, since that link is there on HN, and it's periodically forgotten)
The web link no longer works with the Wall Street Journal.
It did for me just now. Android phone, web link into Incognito Mode, open AMP link. Full text.
That trick stopped working a while ago on desktop pc tho.
It seems it still works on mobile.
[deleted]
Wow, that really seems to work! Thanks for the link.
'Accused' - whatever happened to not guilty unless proven otherwise?
There is a difference between the actions of the criminal justice system and of civil society. People routinely lose jobs and experience other consequences without being convicted of a crime or even without committing a crime. Indeed, the vast majority of job firings, for example, do not even involve criminal behavior.
Agree, but when firing is because supposed criminal behaviour, then it's only fair to mention that he was fired because of involvement in such case against him, that it puts commitee in bad light etc. Otherwise it's just passing sentence without tribunal.
No, that's not how this works. Firing is for behavior, and an org can decide on its own what standards it wants to set on proof, evidence, etc. of that behavior, and this is completely independent of whether that behavior is legal as well as the outcome of any prosecution for that behavior. There are legal remedies for "injustices" such as being expelled from a school, being excluded from an organization, being fired from a job, being libeled/slandered or defamed, and so on. This is the way society works and has always worked for thousands of years. The idea that this is "passing sentence without a tribunal" is bunk, these people are not serving sentences, society is choosing how it wants to interact with these individuals, just as it does in countless of other examples.
they give it next year to beyonce
Paywall. Altough I am from Sweden and I already know why.
Here is a free version: https://www.thelocal.se/20180504/no-nobel-literature-prize-i...
pavlov(3)
Fools! Failing to fulfill their most important duty because one member brought a lecherous boor to some of their events and may not have been impartial in the vote on some awards.
Now it's really a scandal.
Now it's really a scandal.
At this point the number of Academy members that have resigned has has left the Academy with fewer members than what is required to make an Nobel prize decision.
Currently there are 10 members, and 11 members is the minimum required.
So it isn't really about choice at this point.
Secondly the reasons for the resignations and turmoil is the unwillingness of some, the majority, of the Academy members to recognize and properly handle the _alleged_ sexual harassment by Jean-Claude Arnault.
To make this matter worse Jean-Claude Arnault is married to an Academy member and the two of them together run a 'culture' organization which is funded and closely related to the Academy.
So it isn't really about choice at this point.
Secondly the reasons for the resignations and turmoil is the unwillingness of some, the majority, of the Academy members to recognize and properly handle the _alleged_ sexual harassment by Jean-Claude Arnault.
To make this matter worse Jean-Claude Arnault is married to an Academy member and the two of them together run a 'culture' organization which is funded and closely related to the Academy.
From the legal perspective, the factual aspect is that the academy should have acted on the corruption where one family member made a decision to grant funding to an other family member. This is classic nepotism and in Sweden a actually crime (Jäv) and a problem which international anti-corruption agency has highlighted to be an issue in Sweden. Its a common theme for the nation funded investigating journalism program called Uppdrag Granskning, through sadly rarely recognized in the public discussions around corruption.
When the Academy issued an internal investigation by a lawyer firm, the report they got back had very little to say about the alleged sexual harassments. It did however recommend that they should report the corruption and for some reason the Academy decide against it. After some major public outcry covering mostly the alleged sexual harassments, the Academy suddenly turned about and are now following the recommendation and has reported the corruption to the police.
What I would like to think is that the corruption charges would have come up to light regardless of the sexual harassment accusations, but I guess thats the current political climate in Sweden. Now it is being used as a proxy to address the sexual harassment accusations which is extremely suboptimal.
When the Academy issued an internal investigation by a lawyer firm, the report they got back had very little to say about the alleged sexual harassments. It did however recommend that they should report the corruption and for some reason the Academy decide against it. After some major public outcry covering mostly the alleged sexual harassments, the Academy suddenly turned about and are now following the recommendation and has reported the corruption to the police.
What I would like to think is that the corruption charges would have come up to light regardless of the sexual harassment accusations, but I guess thats the current political climate in Sweden. Now it is being used as a proxy to address the sexual harassment accusations which is extremely suboptimal.
Alleged sexual harassment, in keeping with the facts reported in the article.
>Secondly the reasons for the resignations and turmoil is the unwillingness of some, the majority, of the Academy members to recognize and properly handle the _alleged_ sexual harassment by Jean-Claude Arnault.
How about their don't recognize or handle anything?
If Jean-Claude Arnault is guilty of sexual harassment, let him legally go to jail / pay a fine / serve community service or whatever.
That's for the law to decide.
They can then take them off the academy (or not) -- if he is convicted.
Otherwise, it's not their business to do anything about it, and even less so for something "alleged".
How about their don't recognize or handle anything?
If Jean-Claude Arnault is guilty of sexual harassment, let him legally go to jail / pay a fine / serve community service or whatever.
That's for the law to decide.
They can then take them off the academy (or not) -- if he is convicted.
Otherwise, it's not their business to do anything about it, and even less so for something "alleged".
Otherwise, it's not their business to do anything about it
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. If a company or organization receives multiple independent accusations against someone, it is absolutely their business to look into it and decide if this is a person they want to keep being involved with, completely separate from any police involvement. It may even be their business to bring this information to the police and provide any evidence they may have if the accusations are serious enough.
At most companies just the serious suspicion of financial fraud, repeated sexual harassment or the covering up of these is plenty enough to get you fired.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. If a company or organization receives multiple independent accusations against someone, it is absolutely their business to look into it and decide if this is a person they want to keep being involved with, completely separate from any police involvement. It may even be their business to bring this information to the police and provide any evidence they may have if the accusations are serious enough.
At most companies just the serious suspicion of financial fraud, repeated sexual harassment or the covering up of these is plenty enough to get you fired.
Organizations, especially ones in the public eye, have to set a higher bar for acceptable behavior than the criminal justice system. Lots of bad behaviors aren't criminal, or aren't usually prosecuted, but should still be grounds for removal.
>Organizations, especially ones in the public eye, have to set a higher bar for acceptable behavior than the criminal justice system.
Not really, and not their job. If we wanted that, we could always set a higher bar for the criminal justice system.
>Lots of bad behaviors aren't criminal, or aren't usually prosecuted, but should still be grounds for removal.
In this case we're not talking about chewing gum on a board meeting, or treating employees bad (e.g. shouting at them) or something like that.
We're talking about actual criminal behaviors -- but only "alleged" ones. Those should be handled legally or not at all.
Else not a point in having a legal system, if any accusation can lead to "mob justice" or ad-hoc measures against someone.
Not really, and not their job. If we wanted that, we could always set a higher bar for the criminal justice system.
>Lots of bad behaviors aren't criminal, or aren't usually prosecuted, but should still be grounds for removal.
In this case we're not talking about chewing gum on a board meeting, or treating employees bad (e.g. shouting at them) or something like that.
We're talking about actual criminal behaviors -- but only "alleged" ones. Those should be handled legally or not at all.
Else not a point in having a legal system, if any accusation can lead to "mob justice" or ad-hoc measures against someone.
if it is alleged then how should you handle it?
everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
In terms of being sentenced yes.
But this guy was given money to run an organization in which I think 14 counts of alleged sexual harassment has been reported.
It would be grossly negligent to continue to sponsor this.
But this guy was given money to run an organization in which I think 14 counts of alleged sexual harassment has been reported.
It would be grossly negligent to continue to sponsor this.
If it hasn't been proven then there's nothing to talk about. They could've made it up just so he they can kick him out.
Continuing to give funding to someone credibly accused to sexual harassment is a very bad look. Especially when that person is also married to a committee member. That is absolutely something to talk about.
They could've made it up just so he they can kick him out.
Kick him out of what?
They could've made it up just so he they can kick him out.
Kick him out of what?
Of the committee. Maybe they just want to ruin his life. Credible? If it's credible, why hasn't he been convicted.
Of the committee.
He's not and never has been on the committee. His wife is. And no one has been kicked off the committee.
If it's credible, why hasn't he been convicted.
Because building a case strong enough to stand up in court in situations like these is really hard and the police/prosecutors have decided not to priorities it.
But the core of the matter isn't really the sexual harassment, it's the fact that the Academy apparently knew about several cases of both sexual harassment and, more importantly, possible financial fraud/corruption involving this individual and instead of dealing with it, decided to protect him. The sexual harassment charges are just the events that brought these more serious charges to light.
He's not and never has been on the committee. His wife is. And no one has been kicked off the committee.
If it's credible, why hasn't he been convicted.
Because building a case strong enough to stand up in court in situations like these is really hard and the police/prosecutors have decided not to priorities it.
But the core of the matter isn't really the sexual harassment, it's the fact that the Academy apparently knew about several cases of both sexual harassment and, more importantly, possible financial fraud/corruption involving this individual and instead of dealing with it, decided to protect him. The sexual harassment charges are just the events that brought these more serious charges to light.
>Because building a case strong enough to stand up in court in situations like these is really hard and the police/prosecutors have decided not to priorities it.
So it's the ideal ground for character assassinations?
Especially since society doesn't blame/shame the victims anymore (which is good) -- so someone wrongfully accusing has all the upside and no downsides (which is bad).
So it's the ideal ground for character assassinations?
Especially since society doesn't blame/shame the victims anymore (which is good) -- so someone wrongfully accusing has all the upside and no downsides (which is bad).
I was under the impression that he was in the committee. Why should his wife leave? I don't understand.
Why should his wife leave?
Primarily because he is accused of improperly getting funding from the Academy and she was accused of enabling and profiting from this as well as blocking any further investigation into the matter.
There are also accusations that she prevented the Academy from looking into earlier accusation of sexual harassment against her husband, but that is secondary.
Primarily because he is accused of improperly getting funding from the Academy and she was accused of enabling and profiting from this as well as blocking any further investigation into the matter.
There are also accusations that she prevented the Academy from looking into earlier accusation of sexual harassment against her husband, but that is secondary.
...in a court of law. For better or for worse, this is a court of public opinion.
Standards of "proof" vary, even in courts of law (beyond reasonable doubt vs preponderance of evidence), let alone outside of them.
because one member brought a lecherous boor to some of their events
Despite that being the part of the scandal that kicked off the investigation and has been getting the most focus, it's not the core of the scandal. The other parts of the scandal is that a venue owned by the above mentioned "lecherous boor" in question (who is married to an academy member) had possibly been getting improper funding from the Academy and that he might have leaked previous winners to his friends in advance.
Despite that being the part of the scandal that kicked off the investigation and has been getting the most focus, it's not the core of the scandal. The other parts of the scandal is that a venue owned by the above mentioned "lecherous boor" in question (who is married to an academy member) had possibly been getting improper funding from the Academy and that he might have leaked previous winners to his friends in advance.
I say the core of the scandal is that the Academy has been protecting its members and him from outside consequences even though it has been clear from a long time he was behaving improperly and even when their own investigation recommended that they should file charges for corruption a majority seems to have resisted taking action.
Agreed. Had the case simply been that the spouse of one of the committee members was accused of sexual harassment then it would never have ended up like this. It's the financial aspect and the academies continued refusal to deal with the problem that caused this. Sexual harassment was mainly the catalyst.
Uh no, you learning about a scandal for the first time is not what makes it a scandal. This crisis been an ever increasing scandal since last year, and reports that the Nobel foundation were considering cancelling the Literature prize this year started surfacing at the start of April.
The academy themselves announcing that there will be no prize this year is a way to avoid the humiliation of being kicked out from that role by the Nobel foundation.
The academy themselves announcing that there will be no prize this year is a way to avoid the humiliation of being kicked out from that role by the Nobel foundation.
Trump will be really upset, having expected to win the Nobel Prize for Literature in honor of his tweets.
What about Justin Bieber ?
I’ve been hoping for Cormac McCarthy to win the Nobel Prize in literature for a number of years. I still think he deserves it, but I’m starting to lose hope.