2009 Nobel Prize for Literature Predictions

Thank God for bookies. While literary prognosticators give us wet dreams of lit crushes, bookies give us good old numeric odds, backed up by hard cash. Not that they usually know what they're doing (see: last year. J.M.G. Le Clezio, 14 to 1 odds -- and when Harold Pinter won, he wasn't even in the odds). To be honest, betting on the Nobel prize is crapshoot compared to any other literary prize (Man Booker) where you actually have a shortlist. But it's still fun.

I'm doubling down and picking two this year. Don't hate me because of it. Les Murray, the Australian poet, and Ngugi wa Thiongo, the Kenyan novelist.

I admit, though, I'd love to see Haruki Murakami take it down. I just think it's unlikely because his wave is at an all-time high right now, and the academy has recently picked authors without international fame (J.M.G. Le Clezio), or ones at the end of the career (Doris Lessing), and has focused tightly on European authors (see the last decade).

What really surprises me about these odds is how high Americans are situated, especially in light of the anti-American outburst last year by the academy. And file this in WTF: why is Joyce Carol Oates on the  list at all, much less higher than Philip Roth and Thomas Pynchon? She doesn't stand a chance.

What shifts have been divined in the academy mood since the previous year? Dylan Thomas has shifted from 100 to 1 odds last year up to 25 to 1. Amos Oz, leading the pack this year, was also favored last year. Adonis has slipped a bit -- the poet was previously a unanimous (meaning, the bookies) choice for second.

According to Lanbrokes, Claudio Magris was the forerunner last year, and now he's slipped to a tie for seventh. Milan Kundera has also slipped in the rankings -- perhaps due to that rumor/controversy about selling out a spy to the communists? John Updike's no longer in the running because he passed away.

If you have a favorite pick, on the list or not, tell me in the comments on join the 2009 Nobel Prize for Literature Betting Pool on Facebook.

But still, the current list:

Amos Oz 4/1
Assia Djebar 5/1
Luis Goytisola 6/1
Joyce Carol Oates 7/1
Philip Roth 7/1
Adonis 8/1
Antonio Tabucchi 9/1
Claudio Magris 9/1
Haruki Murakami 9/1
Thomas Pynchon 9/1
Thomas Transtromer 12/1
Arnot Lustig 16/1
Atiq Rahimi 16/1
Don DeLillo 16/1
Ko Un 16/1
Les Murray 16/1
Mario Vargas Llosa 16/1
Yves Bonnefoy 16/1
Cees Nooteboom 20/1
Peter Handke 20/1
Alice Munro 25/1
Bob Dylan 25/1
Juan Marse 25/1
Margaret Atwood 25/1
Ngugi wa Thiongo 25/1
A.B Yehousha 40/1
A. S. Byatt 50/1
Bei Dao 50/1
Carlos Fuentes 50/1
Chinua Achebe 50/1
Gitta Sereny 50/1
Herta Muller 50/1
Mahasweta Devi 50/1
Michael Ondaatje 50/1
Milan Kundera 50/1
Vassilis Aleksakis 50/1
Adam Zagajewski 66/1

Comments

[Michael Katsu]

Well, that outburst was by Horace Engdahl, the former secretary of the academy, not by the academy, as far as I know.

My hopes are as follows:

1. Haruki Murakami
2. Margaret Atwood
3. Ko Un
4. Amos Oz
5. Joyce Carol Oates

[Rob Toscano]

I must ask a basic infantile question. Where are the parameters and outline specific requirements set to qualify for the Nobel Prize? In other words before I place my bet I would like to read the official outline for entry requirements. How do you get nominated for the Nobel Prize? I must beg your Pardon but where do I search for more Info?

[Davin]

I'd also love to see Murakami get it. Alice Munro and Don DeLillo are also high on my personal list.

[BookFox]

Michael, a vital distinction, although it sure seemed like he was representing the views of the academy (perhaps informally, if not formally).

Rob, here are the most important rules:

You must be a living author.

The award is given based upon a lifetime of books, not one single book.

The academy prefers authors active in more than just writing (which is why Pynchon doesn't have much of a chance).

Nobody is nominated for the Nobel and there is no short list. The Academy chooses who they wish.

Lastly, some people have asked when the Nobel Prize for Literature is awarded: It's this week, on Thursday.

[Rob Toscano]

Not much time to get my Bet in. I'm going to keep my ears open and try if I can overhear someone at the ticket window, maybe I'll buy write before post time. What makes it harder is my heart is with many 1930's writers and some 1860's writers. I should really start reading more current with some sense of appreciation. Maybe the list you've made is a good place to start. Thanks for the tips...

[WAM]

How does one go about ranking writers, labeling such and such a high pick and such and such a lower one? How can a writer as limited and predictable as, for example, Phillip Roth be almost seven times (!) more likely to get the prize than someone as fierce and talented as (again an example) Cormac Macarthy? Here we get a glimpse of the politics of Literary Culture where being on the right committees, signing the right petitions and generally having the right connections hold sway. But why confuse this with merit and why, oh why (I ask this of myself too) be at all interested in the outcome?

[BookFox]

WAM, it's not about quality. It's about a host of Swedish concerns with engagement with politics and culture and vague phrases like "enduring merit."

People are interested in the outcome because it can give a boost in attention and sales. Take JMG Clezio, last year's winner. Bookish people care, because his works exploded in popularity. He's much better known in the US, as well as internationally.

It's not just the Nobel that fails to award prizes on merit. It's virtually every award. Read the back story to the Man Booker awards sometimes to know what I mean. It's all politics.

If you want to decide merit, read the books yourself. Only pay attention to the prizes for fun.

[k]

Wait, Kundera hasn't won? What?

[Roberto Remes Tello de Meneses]

Herta Muller 50/1 ... mexicans still have hope for Carlos Fuentes, probably 2010.

[Stewart]

Nobody is nominated for the Nobel and there is no short list. The Academy chooses who they wish.
Actually, hundreds of nominations are sought each year. Academy members, previous laureates, heads of Academy-like bodies worldwide, and literature professors and the like are all invited to nominate who they think should be recognised.

Once all the nominations are in the Committee whittles it down to a more manageable twenty or so - how, I don't know - and get the Academy's approval. Then, from this longlist, further cutting down to size is done until there's five candidates in the running. From May onwards the active members of the Academy then read the candidates' work, debate it, and then take a vote on who should be that year's Nobel laureate in literature.

Shortlists - or candidates - are published fifty years after the prize has been awarded, when it's expected all involved will be dead.

[BookFox]

True, Stewart, thanks for the clarification on the process. It would have been much more accurate for me to write that there is no public shortlist (or at least not for fifty years!)