I think E.M.Forster should have won one, he was nominated for 16 times or something (can’t remember the exact number), and I really like his style. His stories might not be very creative plot-wise, but I like the themes he dealt with and the subtlety in his writing, and I always find his characters’ thoughts and emotions so relatable, in a ‘that’s exactly what I want to say only I couldn’t express it so well’ sort of way. My favourite novel by him is A Room with a View, and I’ll always have a soft spot for George and Lucy and Florence.
I used to attach a lot of importance to this, but I’m less and less convinced that the Nobel in literature is an accurate indication of anything. I think the first time I really questioned it was when they gave it to Bob Dylan in 2016.
All things considered I think there’s too many deserving writers and only one Nobel awarded per year. Many people are going to get overlooked, especially if they’re writers who aren’t all that widely translated into English and other European languages.
I try to keep up with a bunch of well-regarded awards on the national level (or for works in a particular language), and I’ve discovered so many great writers that way who are considered legends in their respective countries, but just aren’t that widely read internationally. The Nobel is always going to overlook a number of writers like that.
But all that being said, E. M. Forster would definitely have been a very reasonable choice. Also Borges.
Dylan’s work is going to outlast nearly everyone who has one the prize, and is undoubtedly the most engaged with. He deserved to win.
Dylan works in an art form that is different from literature. You may love his lyrics, but they work because they’re set to music, not because they are particularly great poetry
It just seems like recently they primarily award it to authors whos’ main theme is memory or historical memory