The 2016 Nobel Prize for Literature
Dylwho! I exclaimed, when I heard
of the selection a few days after the announcement. I realized to my
astonishment that this might well have sounded like an Anglicized Indian name.
I Might well have said Dilhu, or Dylwho, Suru, Lalloo, Lallu, I am of Indian
ancestry, after all. The 2016 Nobel Prize for literature emphasizes, yet again,
how crazy and biased judges of literary prizes are. Awarding the Nobel Prize to
a singer-songwriter for “poetry” – someone who would probably not even qualify
to get into the starting blocks for poetry - shows that the 2016 Nobel
Committee has gone off the deep end—to reverse IKEA’s slogan, definitely not
Swedish for common sense. Soyinka notes:“Since I’ve written quite a number of songs for my plays, I would like
to be nominated for a Grammy.” One can understand the desire to push the boundaries
of what is acceptable as “Great Literature,” or even “literature.” But to use
the prize, any prize, as a medium for literary and social activism is....not new, or unusual. We circle back to
that old, old-boys-old-girls network of friends supporting friends, and that often
discussed ideal that for literary prizes to have any meaning judging should be
based on work judges read without knowing who the writers are. Any judging
where the judges know the work and the writer is already deeply flawed and biased.
This includes all the major literary awards: the Neustadt, the Pulitzer, the
Scotiabank Giller, the Governor General, the Man Booker, the Commonwealth etc.
We didn’t even look at the diabolical cycle of judges who become winners who
become judges selecting winners who were judges who selected them as winners,
or who they hope will select them in turn when they become judges. Confusing,
senseless? Yes: Dylwho, Dilhu, Suru, Duru, Lalloo, Lallu, the 2016 Nobel and
prizes and why we vie for them. Ha ha ha!
