I am a bit confused as to why he was chosen. Not to diminish his tremendous body of work, but rather by the definition of the rules laid down by Alfred Nobel in his will:
"All of my remaining realisable assets are to be disbursed as follows: the capital, converted to safe securities by my executors, is to constitute a fund, the interest on which is to be distributed annually as prizes to those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind … one part to the person who, in the field of literature, produced the most outstanding work in an ideal direction;"
The Nobel Prize hasn't been a prize for work done in the previous year in a long time. This originates in the science prizes because some prizes were given to discoveries that were later discredited. But even the literature prize is generally given in honor of a body of work. And if you look at the list on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Lit...), even those who are cited for a particular work (which was mostly in the first half of the 20th century) didn't get the prize for some time after that work. I suspect there was the same idea that the work needed to be one recognized to have lasting literary value.
The Nobel Prize in all fields has become an award for lifetime achievement, even though the wording of Nobel's will could also be interpreted as meaning that it should be awarded for work that had the greatest impact during the preceding year.
I don't know, but I suspect the interpretation is that the impact should be during the preceding year, the wording doesn't say the work has to occur in the preceding year. So arguably the work could have been decades ago, but if the impact has only recently become apparent that counts.
I think that's fine. Often it's not really possible to assess the impact of a contribution until long after, it takes a lot of context to be able to do that.
Strangely enough though, there is a conflict around the foundation managing Hilma af Klint's art collection and they are now trying to change how the works are displayed and loaned based on stricter interpretations of her words.
This is a sensible and reasonable proposition, which is ironic considering the USA is run based on interpretations of intentions of slave owners or those copacetic with slavery who have been dead for almost twice as long.
Which is basically a cut-and-paste of the British constitutional model of the 1780s, but with an elected King George III and upper house. Presidents are just elected kings. The modern parliamentary model is much better.
This is a pretty common model for countries which became independent of the UK; Ireland did more or less the same copy-paste job, but in the 1920s, so ended up with a _way_ weaker president than in the US model (the Irish presidency is more or less a standin for a constitutional monarch, with ~no real powers) and upper house, and stronger lower house.
Good point, and I think the fact that most commonwealth countries adopted more recent and therefore more modern iterations of the british model is a good thing.
In comparison the US system seems hopelessly outdated, and even riven with the many of the same problems we had during the George III mad king era, except we managed to move on.
Conveniently those interpretations can be whatever suits the current lifetime-appointed guardians of the sacred legal text. It helps that the text is old and originally ambiguous.
When Napoleon seized power in 1799, he crafted a French constitution that he wanted to be “short and obscure”, the better to enable his authoritarian power. The United States has ended in the same place.
When Napoleon seized power in 1799, he crafted a French constitution that he wanted to be “short and obscure”, the better to enable his authoritarian power. The United States has ended in the same place.
What is “obscure” in the US constitution?
The first amendment is the one thing that makes it impossible for authoritarian US to be reality.
Authoritarian US is becoming the reality right now and the first amendment provides exactly zero protection. We are watching US constitution collapse right now.
Second, its meaning IS obscure. It get reinterpreted and modified by supreme court to unrecognizable degree. The words dont mean what they used to mean back then, because court used some alternative history to achieve their political goal. It is also not like the court was grounded in contemporary reality when making those decisions and explaining them.
Most of constitutional protections are weak. There is no recourse if your rights are broken, only ever increasing maze of special conditions and requirements you need to fill if you want those protections to apply.
Authoritarian US is becoming the reality right now and the first amendment provides exactly zero protection.
Well, this is not true. As a matter of fact, you can talk about it without fear that you would be arrested for your speech. In real authoritarian regimes, e.g., Jordan, Qatar, China, Russia (de jure protections exist, de facto not so much) you have no protections at all. In those places speaking out means you end up in jail.
We are watching US constitution collapse right now.
Can you give an example?
Second, its meaning IS obscure. It get reinterpreted and modified by supreme court to unrecognizable degree.
What article do you think was interpreted to unrecognizable degree?
The words dont mean what they used to mean back then, because court used some alternative history to achieve their political goal.
Can you provide an example for that as well?
It is also not like the court was grounded in contemporary reality when making those decisions and explaining them.
I think this is the case with all the precedent-based judicial systems, no?
Most of constitutional protections are weak. There is no recourse if your rights are broken, only ever increasing maze of special conditions and requirements you need to fill if you want those protections to apply.
In order to argue about that you would have to be specific. It seems to me that the constitutional protections are the only ones that actually work, e.g., 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments are really powerful, and go without saying.
Off-topic, but reading that will is a fascinating study in 19th-century international economics: In the initial outlays, I count 5 different currencies (crowns, francs, florins, dollars, marks). I don't think anyone now would bequest cash in anything other than their native currency (to be converted by the heir).
I don't see a requirement that the work was created or released during the preceding year, only that it conferred benefit to humankind during that time. Presumably the argument is that Nobel-worthy acts continue to confer benefit for long periods.
That's not the basis the award is decided on, I presume it may have been in the early years of the award, but generally it's given as a lifetime achievement kind of thing - the recipients are often decades removed from their most influential work.
I'm curious about the moral underlying an objection like this. Why do you care about whether the prize exactly reflects his will? And why specifically for this prize, when your objection has applied for most of a century across every field?
It was a genuine question, I have no objections. I am rather illiterate about the Nobel Prize, it just caught my attention this year. I just noticed a discrepancy after checking the body of his work after reading the will. That's all.
There's actually a second issue with the Literature prize, which is that it's supposed to be given for work "in an idealistic direction", but nobody knows what that means.
And since the literature committee tends to be run by extremely pretentious artists they don't like idealism anyway. Artists are supposed to be tortured postmodern souls you know.
A lot of people want Haruki Murakami to get the prize, but I don't think his work would pass this.
Comments
I am a bit confused as to why he was chosen. Not to diminish his tremendous body of work, but rather by the definition of the rules laid down by Alfred Nobel in his will:
"All of my remaining realisable assets are to be disbursed as follows: the capital, converted to safe securities by my executors, is to constitute a fund, the interest on which is to be distributed annually as prizes to those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind … one part to the person who, in the field of literature, produced the most outstanding work in an ideal direction;"
Has anyone any insight on this?
https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/full-text-of-alfred-...
The Nobel Prize hasn't been a prize for work done in the previous year in a long time. This originates in the science prizes because some prizes were given to discoveries that were later discredited. But even the literature prize is generally given in honor of a body of work. And if you look at the list on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Lit...), even those who are cited for a particular work (which was mostly in the first half of the 20th century) didn't get the prize for some time after that work. I suspect there was the same idea that the work needed to be one recognized to have lasting literary value.
In Krasznahorkai's case, it's pretty clear they're recognizing the sustained impact and distinctiveness of his entire body of work
The Nobel Prize in all fields has become an award for lifetime achievement, even though the wording of Nobel's will could also be interpreted as meaning that it should be awarded for work that had the greatest impact during the preceding year.
I don't know, but I suspect the interpretation is that the impact should be during the preceding year, the wording doesn't say the work has to occur in the preceding year. So arguably the work could have been decades ago, but if the impact has only recently become apparent that counts.
I think that's fine. Often it's not really possible to assess the impact of a contribution until long after, it takes a lot of context to be able to do that.
I don’t think we should consider too strictly the intention of someone who has been dead for 130 years.
Strangely enough though, there is a conflict around the foundation managing Hilma af Klint's art collection and they are now trying to change how the works are displayed and loaned based on stricter interpretations of her words.
This is a sensible and reasonable proposition, which is ironic considering the USA is run based on interpretations of intentions of slave owners or those copacetic with slavery who have been dead for almost twice as long.
France has had something like 16 constitutions since 1791. I think I’ll take the US model.
Which has 27 merged PRs in its git repository.
Which is basically a cut-and-paste of the British constitutional model of the 1780s, but with an elected King George III and upper house. Presidents are just elected kings. The modern parliamentary model is much better.
This is a pretty common model for countries which became independent of the UK; Ireland did more or less the same copy-paste job, but in the 1920s, so ended up with a _way_ weaker president than in the US model (the Irish presidency is more or less a standin for a constitutional monarch, with ~no real powers) and upper house, and stronger lower house.
Good point, and I think the fact that most commonwealth countries adopted more recent and therefore more modern iterations of the british model is a good thing.
In comparison the US system seems hopelessly outdated, and even riven with the many of the same problems we had during the George III mad king era, except we managed to move on.
Sure, stick to the Model T, why not. It had wheels and seats, so there's that.
Conveniently those interpretations can be whatever suits the current lifetime-appointed guardians of the sacred legal text. It helps that the text is old and originally ambiguous.
When Napoleon seized power in 1799, he crafted a French constitution that he wanted to be “short and obscure”, the better to enable his authoritarian power. The United States has ended in the same place.
What is “obscure” in the US constitution?
The first amendment is the one thing that makes it impossible for authoritarian US to be reality.
Authoritarian US is becoming the reality right now and the first amendment provides exactly zero protection. We are watching US constitution collapse right now.
Second, its meaning IS obscure. It get reinterpreted and modified by supreme court to unrecognizable degree. The words dont mean what they used to mean back then, because court used some alternative history to achieve their political goal. It is also not like the court was grounded in contemporary reality when making those decisions and explaining them.
Most of constitutional protections are weak. There is no recourse if your rights are broken, only ever increasing maze of special conditions and requirements you need to fill if you want those protections to apply.
Well, this is not true. As a matter of fact, you can talk about it without fear that you would be arrested for your speech. In real authoritarian regimes, e.g., Jordan, Qatar, China, Russia (de jure protections exist, de facto not so much) you have no protections at all. In those places speaking out means you end up in jail.
Can you give an example?
What article do you think was interpreted to unrecognizable degree?
Can you provide an example for that as well?
I think this is the case with all the precedent-based judicial systems, no?
In order to argue about that you would have to be specific. It seems to me that the constitutional protections are the only ones that actually work, e.g., 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments are really powerful, and go without saying.
I mean, ol' minihands is certainly _trying_ to erode the first amendment. Now the question is whether the courts will let him.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/09/us/politics/trump-freedom...
Off-topic, but reading that will is a fascinating study in 19th-century international economics: In the initial outlays, I count 5 different currencies (crowns, francs, florins, dollars, marks). I don't think anyone now would bequest cash in anything other than their native currency (to be converted by the heir).
I don't see a requirement that the work was created or released during the preceding year, only that it conferred benefit to humankind during that time. Presumably the argument is that Nobel-worthy acts continue to confer benefit for long periods.
That's not the basis the award is decided on, I presume it may have been in the early years of the award, but generally it's given as a lifetime achievement kind of thing - the recipients are often decades removed from their most influential work.
I'm curious about the moral underlying an objection like this. Why do you care about whether the prize exactly reflects his will? And why specifically for this prize, when your objection has applied for most of a century across every field?
It was a genuine question, I have no objections. I am rather illiterate about the Nobel Prize, it just caught my attention this year. I just noticed a discrepancy after checking the body of his work after reading the will. That's all.
There's actually a second issue with the Literature prize, which is that it's supposed to be given for work "in an idealistic direction", but nobody knows what that means.
And since the literature committee tends to be run by extremely pretentious artists they don't like idealism anyway. Artists are supposed to be tortured postmodern souls you know.
A lot of people want Haruki Murakami to get the prize, but I don't think his work would pass this.