It's no secret that Nobel Prizes are awarded at least partially on political merits. Obama's recent award caused mass outrage and confusion, and his is scarcely the first. However, with all the spotlight on his award this year, I can't help but worry that, once again, the inherent bias of the Nobel Prize for literature will be swept under the table.
I almost feel as I though I am a broken record spouting this stuff- the conversation comes up almost every year, but dissipates just as quickly.
For years now, the literature prize has gone almost exclusively to Europeans. It's certainly true that there are authors from other continents among the ranks of the victors, but in terms of percentages and proportionality both it's almost unarguable that there is a European bias among the awards. The most recent streak stretches back to at least 2000, depending on whether you consider Gao Xingjian to qualify as a French or Chinese author.
It's most certainly true that authors have been denied the award for political reasons. Celebrated writers from Tolstoy to Borges have failed to receive it, and doubtlessly even the greatest literary snobs among us would consider them to have made enormous contributions to the literary world.
As a result, the prize is increasing devalued, and the bias seems to become worse every year.
To be frank, I cannot claim to be familiar with the writings of Herta Muller, this year's winner, but I have no doubt that her writing has some value to it. That said, I have to wonder. Was she really more deserving than Philip Roth or Amos Oz? Both names tend to carry more weight in the literary world. I have the sneaking suspicion that there are even some who would think Murakami Haruki more worthy, despite the large scale failings his writing suffers in translation.
Hopefully, the committee will smarten up and diversify their winner next year. Otherwise, fewer and fewer will come to respect the award, and without legitimacy, it really isn't worthy anything.
