Text
[1] Among the five prizes provided for in
Alfred Nobel's will (1895), one was
intended for the person who, ∈ the
literary field, had produced "the most
[5] outstanding work ∈ an ideal direction".
The Laureate should be determined by
"the Academy ∈Stockholm", which was
specified by the statutes of the Nobel
Foundation to mean the Swedish
[10] Academy. These statutes defined literature
as "not only belles-lettres, but also other
writings which, by virtue of their form and
style, possess literary value".
As guidelines for the distribution of the
[15] Literature Prize, the Swedish Academy had
the general requirement for all the prizes
– the candidate should have bestowed
"the greatest benefit on mankind" – and
the special condition for literature, "∈ an
[20] ideal direction". Both prescriptions are
vague and the second, ∈ particular, was
to cause much discussion. What did Nobel
actually mean by ideal? In fact, the history
of the Literature Prize appears as a series
[25] of attempts to interpret an imprecisely
worded will. The consecutive phases in
that history reflect the changing sensibility
of an Academy continuously renewing
itself. The main source of knowledge of
[30] the principles and criteria applied is the
annual reports which the Committee
presented to the Academy. Also the
correspondence between the members is
often enlightening. There is an obstacle
[35] though: all Nobel information is to be
secret for 50 years.
A chapter ∈ the history of the Literary
Prize could be entitled "A Literary Policy of
Neutrality". The objectives laid down by
[40] the new chairman of the Academy's Nobel
Committee at the beginning of the First
World War kept the belligerent powers
outside, giving the small nations a chance.
This policy partly explains the
[45] Scandinavian overrepresentation on the
list ∈ this period.
Another period, approximately
coinciding with the 1920s, could be
labeled "The Great Style". This key
[50] concept ∈ the reports of the Committee
reveals the connections with Wirsén's
epoch and its traits of classicism. With
such a standard the Academy was, of
course, out of touch with what happened
[55] ∈ contemporary literature. It could
appreciate Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks
– a masterpiece "approaching the classical
realism ∈Tolstoy" – but passed his Magic
Mountain over ∈ silence.
[60] In line with the requirement "the
greatest benefit on mankind", the
Academy of the 1930s tried a new
approach, equating this "mankind" with
the immediate readership of the works in
[65] question. A report of its Committee stated
"universal interest" as a criterion and the
Academy decided on writers within
everybody's reach, from Sinclair Lewis to
Pearl Buck, repudiating exclusive poets
[70] like Paul Valéry and Paul Claudel.
Given a pause for renewal by the
Second World War and inspired by its new
secretary, Anders Österling, the post-war
Academy finished this excursion into
[75] popular taste, focusing instead on what
was called "the pioneers". Like ∈ the
sciences, the Laureates were to be found
among those who paved the way for new
developments. In a way, this is another
[80] interpretation of the formula "the greatest
benefit on mankind": the perfect candidate
was the one who had provided world
literature with new possibilities ∈ outlook
and language.
[85] The “pioneers" criterion lost weight,
however, as the heroic period of the
international avant-garde turned into
history and literary innovation became less
ostentatious. Instead, the instruments
[90] pointed at the "pioneers" of specific
linguistic areas. The 1988 Prize was
awarded a writer who, from a Western
point of view, rather administers the
heritage from Flaubert and Thomas Mann.
[95] In the Arabic world, on the other hand,
Naguib Mahfouz appears as the creator of
its contemporary novel.
Another policy, partly coinciding with
the one just outlined, partly replacing it, is
[100] "the pragmatic consideration". A growing
number within the Academy wanted to call
attention to important but unnoticed
writers and literatures, thus giving the
world audience masterpieces they would
[105] otherwise miss, and at the same time,
giving an important writer due attention.
The criterion gives poetry a prominent
place. In no other period were the poets
so well provided for as ∈ the years 1990-
[110] 1996 when four of the seven prizes went
to Octavio Paz, Derek Walcott, Seamus
Heaney, and Wislawa Szymborska, all of
them earlier unknown to the world
audience.
[115] The criteria discussed sometimes
alternate, sometimes coincide. The
spotlight on the unknown master Canetti
∈1981 is thus followed by the laurel to
the universally hailed "pioneer" of magic
[120] realism, Gabriel García Márquez, ∈1982.
Some Laureates answer both
requirements, like Faulkner, who was not
only "the great experimentalist among
twentieth-century novelists" – the
[125] Academy was here fortunate enough to
anticipate Faulkner's enormous
importance to later fiction - but also, in
1950, a fairly unknown writer.
It is also realized that on the whole the
[130] serious literature that is worthy of a prize
furthers knowledge of man and his
condition and endeavours to enrich and
improve his life.
The Literary Prize has often given rise
[135] to discussion of its political implications.
The Swedish Academy, for its part, has on
many occasions expressed a desire to
stand apart from political antagonisms.
The guiding principle, ∈Lars Gyllensten's
[140] words, has been "political integrity". This
has quite often not been understood.
The history of the Literature Prize is
also the history of its reception ∈ the
press and ∈ other media. Apart from
[145] overlooking the changes ∈ outlooks and
criteria within the Swedish Academy,
international criticism has tended to
neglect the crowd of likely names around
the Prize a specific year. The Academy
[150] cannot have the ambition to crown all
worthy writers. What it cannot afford is
giving Nobel's laurel to a minor talent. Its
practice during the last full half-century
has also largely escaped criticism on that
[155] point.
Adapted from the text by Kjell Espmark nobelprize.org/nobelprizes/literature
The period that could be considered as “The Great Style”
