Text
[1] Among the five prizes provided for in
Alfred Nobel's will (1895), one was
intended for the person who, in the
literary field, had produced "the most
[5] outstanding work in an ideal direction".
The Laureate should be determined by
"the Academy in 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, "in an
[20] ideal direction". Both prescriptions are
vague and the second, in 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 in 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 in this period.
Another period, approximately
coinciding with the 1920s, could be
labeled "The Great Style". This key
[50] concept in 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] in contemporary literature. It could
appreciate Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks
– a masterpiece "approaching the classical
realism in Tolstoy" – but passed his Magic
Mountain over in 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 in 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 in 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 in 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
in 1981 is thus followed by the laurel to
the universally hailed "pioneer" of magic
[120] realism, Gabriel García Márquez, in 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, in 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 in the
press and in other media. Apart from
[145] overlooking the changes in 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
According to the text, one of the things the Swedish Academy should not do is to
