Why didn't he win the Nobel Prize?
Because the Nobel Committee hates Argentina.
Nobody likes Argies.
Politics
Why didn't Tolstoy, Joyce or Nabokov?
Real answer: supported free market capitalism
He was not a commie.
pic unrelated
>>8091278
Because the Nobel is awarded mostly to leftist. And he liked Pinochet, the chilean right wing dictator. He also had carfuffle with the secretary of the Swedish Academy
At that point he might as well call the entire Academy a bunch of faggots.
Go figure.
>>8091303
Joyce died too young.
>>8091321
>he liked Pinochet
Saying lies do not make them true.
>>8091278
Because he never wrote anything of substantial length and development. He's like the Erik Satie of literature
> nobel prize
because like every award the nobel prize is political nonsense first and foremost and borges didn't play the game right
The nobel is fucking bullshit now, and has been for at least 25 years. The prestige that it had once was lost to progressivism.
>>8091278
The Nobel guys like polticial humanitarian shit so I don't see why they'd give the award to some dude writing about mazes and mirrors and shit.
Why win the Nobel when you can list everyone who won the Nobel in a story which does not win the Nobel?
>>8091278
Would their winning a prize make the stories better? Are they any worse for not having won a prize? The best thing about Borges was that he was just a fucking writer's writer. He wrote, and that's more than enough.
>>8091278
Just about no one worth a damn has ever won it.
>>8092131
This is far from true. Don't be silly.
>>8092131
silly silly man.
>>8091278
This man, in my country he is everything.
>>8092210
He is the Argentinian Murakami after all.
>>8091278
He explicitely announced his support for the military dictatorship in Argentina (not sure about Pinochet) and he disliked democracy. Once he said "Democracy is an abuse of statistics"
No swedish communist refugee-loving cuck would have ever given him the prize.
>>8091303
Because they're awful
>>8092066
It's not a lie, go and google it senpai.
Just reading Ficciones for the first time, masterpieces all of them.
>>8092507
Pinochet gave him a prize and Borges accepted, and that did not go well with some people.
>>8091312
>Arlt
Sabe
>>8092460
Just 'cause you don't understand them that doesn't make them awful.
Although I will admit Finnegan's Wake was puzzling to me.
Politics definitely, and I say this as a leftie.
>>8091278
Ableism
>>8092207
This. Same goes for the Oscars.
>>8092118
>Would their winning a prize make the stories better? Are they any worse for not having won a prize?
'The validity of winning a Nobel prize can be disputed, it is clearly not the only standard of what is considered 'great literature' nor does it try to be.
But Borges wanted to win it, a lot. He wanted to be part of that Parthenon of writers, no matter how foolish of a pursuit that may seem.
>>8092100
True. Too many blacks and females who deserved it much less than other people have won. Great authors still win it sometimes, though.
>>8092893
Pantheon, not Parthenon. The Parthenon is a building.
>>8092207
There are like 50 names worth mentioning at least, unless you don't really care about literature.
>>8092081
Very obviously this - thank you.
>>8093075
It's an absolutely valid point. The literature prize isn't like the science; you win the prize for a body of work, not for a single accomplishment. Read the bases given for each prize: they each reflect in some way on the career and character of the author (with the exception of Albert Camus; who was only awarded it so the committee could counter-snub Sartre, anyway).
>>8093111
What? Borges has a very substantial body of work. He has plenty of great stories, poems and essays, and he's considered one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. I have no idea how he doesn't qualify in this respect.
>>8092706
Yeah, but nobody from the left would have accepted a prize from Pinochet. And he hated Perón and the Argentinian left, so I think is safe to assume that he at least didn't dislike Pinochet.
>>8093118
Eh, maybe you're right.
>>8092207
At least 2/3 of the winners since 1920 have been deserving (discounting earlier winners since they used different criteria at the time). Great authors who won the award include Carducci, Kipling, Hamsun, France, Yeats, Shaw, Undset, Mann, Lewis, Galsworthy, Bunin, Pirandello, O'Neill, Hesse, Gide, Eliot, Faulkner, Lagerkvist, Mauriac, Hemingway, Jimenez, Camus, Pasternak, Quasimodo, Perse, Andric, Steinbeck, Seferis, Sartre, Agnon, Asturias, Beckett, Solzhenitsyn, Neruda, Boll, White, Montale, Bellow, Aleixandre, Singer, Elytis, Milosz, Garcia Marquez, Golding, Seifert, Simon, Soyinka, Brodsky, Mahfouz, Cela, Paz, Gordimer, Walcott, Morrison, Heaney, Saramago, Grass, Naipaul, Coetzee, Pinter, Lessing, Vargas Llosa, Transtromer and Munro.
>>8093180
>Munro
>and not Mo Yan
Please. Munro is just an innovator of plot; in that way she's practically an opponent of literature.
>>8093225
That's a really silly opinion.
>>8093060
Shit. Forget what I said then.
>>8093232
I like to have when I organise my weltanschauung and value-schema. As a part of having fun, I've also let myself have this opinion: the fact that my opinions come from a more fun place than yours, makes them more valid than yours.
Alice Munro a shit.
>>8093248
Oh no! *I like to have fun, I meant
He didn't like democracy.
>>8091321
>he liked Pinochet
Peter Englund has said that he thinks this was the reason. This was also one one of the reason they wanted to give Yan the price.
>>8093180
you forget Tagore you dumbfuck
>>8093962
Didn't say those were the only great ones.
>>8093962
did he take his poo to the loo?
>>8091278
he won Cervantes Prize which is the Spanish superior equivalent so, who cares?
>>8095222
It's not as much money.
