When Alfred Nobel established the Nobel prizes in 1895, he designated a prize for writers with “the most outstanding work in an ideal direction."
Mario Vargas Llosa became the next Nobel Laureate in Literature on Thursday.
A reasonable interpretation of Nobel’s intention for the award would be something like: the best, most influential and progressive writer of the day. But human beings award the prizes, and human beings do not always act reasonably.
For much of the early 20th century, the Swedish Academy, which is responsible for awarding the Prize in Literature, interpreted the word choice of “ideal” quite strictly. Meaning that authors like James Joyce, Leo Tolstoy, Mark Twain, Henrik Ibsen and Henry James weren’t optimistic enough to receive awards in their time.
Later the interpretation has broadened but continues to be extremely political.
Many of the indisputable heavy hitters of the literary world have been overlooked in the history of the Nobel prizes. Writers like Marcel Proust, Ezra Pound, Vladimir Nabokov, Jorge Luis Borges, and August Strindberg failed to receive prizes, while less notable, arguably insignificant writers continued to receive them.
After Herta Müller won the prize last year, Thomas Steinfeld, of a leading German newspaper, Süddeutsche Zeitung, said, “Readers and literature critics will have to, until further notice, separate themselves from a much-loved notion: that the Nobel Prize for Literature is a reward for the best writer and the best works.”
Writer and critic Hellmuth Karasek said, “My mantra is always that [American writer] Philip Roth should get the prize. And once again it wasn’t him.”
And Günter Grass, the last German writer to win the Nobel before Müller commented that Israeli writer Amos Oz was his preferred choice.
So where is Oz’s medal? Where was Kurt Vonnegut’s?
But perhaps with Vargas Llosa’s win, we are seeing an upward shifting trend in this Nobel Prize in Literature. He was selected for “‘his cartography of structures of power and his trenchant images of the individual's resistance, revolt and defeat.’”
The Peruvian author made his first great literary contribution with serious novels like “The City and The Dogs” and “Conversation in the Cathedral.” But over the course of his career he has created an impeccable, massive output of important works and shown that he is capable of writing in various styles and forms over a broad range of topics, including humorously satirizing his own work in “Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter.”
As a cultured world traveler and journalist, Vargas Llosa’s affect on culture transcends literary influence. He is also an important political activist around the world — most significantly in Latin America, peaking with his presidential campaign in Peru 20 years ago.
There is little doubt that he has demonstrated his merit as worthy of the Nobel Prize.
As Rubén Gallo, a professor of Spanish-American literature at Princeton University, said, “He’s one of the authors who in the 20th century has written the most eloquently and the most poignantly about the intersection between culture and politics in Latin America.”
For once, this award appears to be almost indisputable. Maybe the world will be able to actually focus on recognizing and celebrating the work of one of its most genius citizens instead of lamenting whom it is not — as I’m sure Alfred Nobel originally intended.
Nominate the writer for a prize at djoconn1@asu.edu
