Nobel Prize for Pinter

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4338082.stm

― jz, Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:23 (nineteen years ago)

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:25 (nineteen years ago)

Oh wow. Well done Harold. Not well done for all that shite "poetry" you keep churning out.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:25 (nineteen years ago)

Aren't you supposed to win it for something?

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:25 (nineteen years ago)

I propose a three-minute silence.

― jz, Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:25 (nineteen years ago)

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:26 (nineteen years ago)

Like for literature?

― Mädchen (Madchen), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:26 (nineteen years ago)

At least it's not Bono and Geldof. But still, confusion here anyway.

― Kv_nol (Kv_nol), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:27 (nineteen years ago)

What's the confusion?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:28 (nineteen years ago)

It's not the Nobel Prize for Peace. It's the Nobel Prize for Literature. For which he's eminently qualified.

― jz, Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:29 (nineteen years ago)

i left my award in sidcup

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:29 (nineteen years ago)

i hope he tells them to stick it up george bush's arse, and blow the shit out of his fuck-shit, you cunts (C) faber 2005

― N_RQ, Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:29 (nineteen years ago)

He's the Roy Keane of British literature

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:31 (nineteen years ago)

Aren't you supposed to win it for something?

As in "specific work(s)"? If that is what you meant, generally no, although it has happened (eg Hamsun in 1920).

― The Vintner's Lipogram (OleM), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:31 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, that's what I meant.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:31 (nineteen years ago)

Like, I thought William Golding won it for Lord of the Flies.

So it can also be a kind of lifetime achievement thing? OK. Good. Well done.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:32 (nineteen years ago)

See http://almaz.com/nobel/literature/literature.html for short versions of the Academy's statements.

Eg:
SIR WILLIAM GOLDING for his novels which, with the perspicuity of realistic narrative art and the diversity and universality of myth, illuminate the human condition in the world of today

― The Vintner's Lipogram (OleM), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:36 (nineteen years ago)

Golding didn't win it for Lord of the Flies, or if he did the panel were a bit slow. He got the prize around 83, didn't he?

It's usually awarded for a body of work.

― Don King of the Mountain (noodle vague), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:38 (nineteen years ago)

Oh yeah. What he said.

― Don King of the Mountain (noodle vague), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:38 (nineteen years ago)

I was fooled.

I know why I was fooled. It's cause on the front of the edition we read at school it said "Winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature".

I call it a swizz.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:44 (nineteen years ago)

i never would have guessed pinter in a million years. dunno why. over on i love books we had money on philip roth. well, some of us did. if a north american won it.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 13 October 2005 10:53 (nineteen years ago)

They often do that, Alba, like on the front of that Chinese book, Soul Manure.

I know very little about Pinter.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Thursday, 13 October 2005 11:17 (nineteen years ago)

The citation not infrequently mentions a specific work, so people often take it to mean that the award is for that book, but that isn't the case.

I am surprised at this. I like Pinter, and I've seen and/or read most of his plays, but I wouldn't have thought any of his great work had the idealistic nature that is supposed to be a requirement. Might he have won for producing great plays and, completely separately from this, producing plenty of evidence of ideological and political commitment? They surely aren't going to claim that the fusion of the two things in his recent poetry is the point of the award, are they?

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 13 October 2005 11:39 (nineteen years ago)

'lord of the flies' isn't notably idealistic!

― N_RQ, Thursday, 13 October 2005 11:43 (nineteen years ago)

Nor did it win the Nobel prize, but Golding did - to be honest, not much of his work was idealistic, but some was. Possibly including LOTF, as all we fanboys call it.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 13 October 2005 11:45 (nineteen years ago)

I am freakin' delighted. Elfriede Jelinek and now this. Great choices, radical writers and commentators with moral backbone, both of them. (Though if you run an ILX search on Pinter you'll find him treated as some kind of literary troll by mark s and others.) Only the Swedes are sane any more, by which I mean liberal any more. Anyway, great "lifetime achievement" choice, for both artistic and literary reasons. (Personally I think he peaked artistically with "The Homecoming", but, like fellow laureate Gunter Grass, he's been politically valuable since then, raging correctly rather than fading quietly.)

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:02 (nineteen years ago)

for both artistic and literary reasons

"for both political and literary reasons", that should read, but I rather like the elision of art and politics there, the suggestion that they're not finally distinguishable.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:04 (nineteen years ago)

for both artistic and literary reasons

"for both political and literary reasons", that should read, but I rather like the elision of art and politics there, the suggestion that they're not finally distinguishable. Pinter's power, after all, always came from revealing the violence implicit in everyday situations, "the weasel beneath the cocktail cabinet". These days he's more likely to focus on the weasels in the Cabinet.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:16 (nineteen years ago)

The interpretation of Nobel's "idealisk rigtning" precept is notoriously difficult/controversial (idealistic? ideal? dealing with ideas?). Also, the way literature has evolved since the testament was written in 1895, the committee would probably have to choose a bit between stretching the criteria and risking irrelevance?

xpost to Martin etc

― The Vintner's Lipogram (OleM), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:17 (nineteen years ago)

From http://www.haroldpinter.org:

"Harold Pinter has been awarded the Wilfred Owen prize for poetry opposing the Iraq Conflict."

I thought there must be some reason, it certainly couldn't be for his poetry.

"Over the years he has spoken out forcefully about the abuse of state power around the world, including, recently, NATO's bombing of Serbia."

Finger on the pulse there Harold!

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:18 (nineteen years ago)

I thought he won it for his literary work, Momus, not his politics. And since you're extolling the politics of Scandinavian writers, let me remind you of Knut Hamsun, another worthy Nobel laureate who openly supported the Third Reich.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:18 (nineteen years ago)

Besides, most of Pinter's post-9/11 remarks have been predictable.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:19 (nineteen years ago)

Harold's just an embarrassment these days. In every sphere. Still deserves the prize for past glories.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:20 (nineteen years ago)

Predictable doesn't mean unimportant, though. It's always useful to have someone prominent saying what "we're all thinking", especially when our elected representatives aren't. And it's important for the people who do make these "predictable" statements to be recognised and decorated and generally designated "good objects", because otherwise all sorts of discrediting allegations can be thrown at them, you know, "sour grapes", "he can't make good art any more so he's making political pronouncements", etc.

That latter charge is why I think it's important to point up the continuities between Pinter's earliest work and his latest positions. He's always been "an actor" and he's always been "blowing whistles", existential and political ones. Steven Berkoff is actually the man who best draws the political meaning out of early Pinter.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:25 (nineteen years ago)

You're bigging Pinter up here as a political activist though, not as a literary figure. Yeah, Pinter amply deserves the prize for his extraordinary run of plays in the fifties and sixties. But his recent turn towards poetry really has been disastrous. Politics and art may not be finally distinguishable, but more art fails in the name of politics than in the name of anything else.

― jz, Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:28 (nineteen years ago)

let me remind you of Knut Hamsun

It might be hard for the Nobel committee to predict a laureate's attitude towards an ideology rising to prominence years after the decision though.

― The Vintner's Lipogram (OleM), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:31 (nineteen years ago)

Hemingway and Faulkner's late works were disastrous too, and they deserved the prize. I can't think of a substantial playwright who, unlike Mamet, Kushner, Tennesse Williams, Eugene O'Neill, hasn't published some disastrous late work.

― Eazy (Eazy), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:32 (nineteen years ago)

... Beckett

― H. Pinter (Dada), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:33 (nineteen years ago)

It might be hard for the Nobel committee to predict a laureate's attitude towards an ideology rising to prominence years after the decision though.

Which is precisely why we should leave politics out of the decision-making.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:34 (nineteen years ago)

"Stirrings Still"?

― Eazy (Eazy), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:34 (nineteen years ago)

Plays not prose

― H. Pinter (Dada), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:35 (nineteen years ago)

Re Pinter: The Academy's comment is pretty clear on the plays being the main reason for his selection.

― The Vintner's Lipogram (OleM), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:36 (nineteen years ago)

I can't think of a substantial playwright who, unlike Mamet, Kushner, Tennesse Williams, Eugene O'Neill, hasn't published some disastrous late work.
-- Eazy (chicagoflaneu...), October 13th, 2005.

... Beckett

I dunno, have you read "Worstward Ho"? The title doesn't lie.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:37 (nineteen years ago)

Beckett's later prose works are not certainly not his best. The later, shorter plays are pretty great, though. "Not I" is actually one of the best things I've ever seen in the theatre (as part of an evening of short Beckett plays, which were all worth seeing).

― jz, Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:44 (nineteen years ago)

Pinter's power, after all, always came from revealing the violence implicit in everyday situations, "the weasel beneath the cocktail cabinet". These days he's more likely to focus on the weasels in the Cabinet.

I'm lost for words.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:52 (nineteen years ago)

If we're talking plays not prose, then I'd say Pinter didn't decline. "Moonlight" is a great play.

― Eazy (Eazy), Thursday, 13 October 2005 13:11 (nineteen years ago)

I'm lost for words.

Come on, how can you not think this stuff is fantastic? Blam blam blam!

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 13 October 2005 13:36 (nineteen years ago)

Hooray for Harold Pinter!

I am glad.

― the pinefox, Thursday, 13 October 2005 13:38 (nineteen years ago)

I thought he won it for his screenplays for Joseph Losey.

― k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 13 October 2005 13:42 (nineteen years ago)

Yay.

― M. V. (M.V.), Thursday, 13 October 2005 13:52 (nineteen years ago)

Pinter's political statements are jejune and misinformed at best and stupid at worst. How can anyone defend this:

The playwright said: "The US is really beyond reason now. It is beyond our imagining to know what they are going to do next and what they are prepared to do. There is only one comparison: Nazi Germany.

"Nazi Germany wanted total domination of Europe and they nearly did it. The US wants total domination of the world and is about to consolidate that. "

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 13 October 2005 14:02 (nineteen years ago)

i never would have guessed pinter in a million years. dunno why. over on i love books we had money on philip roth. well, some of us did. if a north american won it.

Yeah, but Pinter's not North American, so... (Still, I see your point. We should've anticipated who the next British winner would be.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 13 October 2005 14:09 (nineteen years ago)

B-but he's saying exactly what neo-cons Perle and Wolfowitz lay out in "The Project for the New American Century". And it would only be stupid to shout about this if these guys weren't

a) in power

and

b) completely serious about this dominance stuff. Apart from all the wars and so on, look at the recent dispute over the US's intention to maintain control of the internet.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 13 October 2005 14:13 (nineteen years ago)

(More recent story on that...)

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 13 October 2005 14:16 (nineteen years ago)

Somehow, I don't see that the intention to maintain control of the internet is a good parallel to the deaths of six million people in gas chambers, but whatever...

Politically, Pinter's a bit like Michael Moore. The scattergun abuse, hysterical comparisons with Nazis etc ultimately harms the sane, left-leaning cause, not helps it.

― jz, Thursday, 13 October 2005 14:18 (nineteen years ago)

I disagree. We've erected Nazism as the zenith of all evil, an event so monumental that nothing we do could ever be compared with it. And Jewish people are queuing up to be offended if anyone tries to belittle the Holocaust by trying. And here's a Jew comparing the acts and ideologies of other Jews (Perle and Wolfowitz, the state of Israel) to exactly that, and saying that things like the three-year extra-judicial internments at Guantamo Bay are the beginning of something very like Nazism. It's not scattergun and it's no more hysterical than the actual events themselves. Late 2001- now has been a somewhat hysterical time, don't you think, in terms of actual events? And sometimes we need people to scream about it.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 13 October 2005 14:25 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, it has: I agree.

I don't agree that Moore harms the cause: I think we need rough and ready rednecks to fight for us.

I have said all this before.

I like Pinter!

― the pinefox, Thursday, 13 October 2005 14:29 (nineteen years ago)

Well, I agree and I disagree. It hasn't been helpful to mythologise Nazism as the heart of evil itself so that it eclipses all other evils. That still doesn't mean that Bush/Hitler is in any way a useful comparison. Nor would Bush/Stalin or Bush/Pol Pot, for that matter. Guantanamo Bay, ghastly though it is, is simply not in the same category as Auschwitz, Soviet gulags, the Cambodian genocide etc etc. It's ridiculous and counterproductive to suggest it is. And so it is a hysterical comparison.

― jz, Thursday, 13 October 2005 14:35 (nineteen years ago)

"Yeah, but Pinter's not North American, so... (Still, I see your point. We should've anticipated who the next British winner would be.)"

yeah, that thread was about which american would get it next if an american would ever get one again! those dudes are big on "statement" prizes. a mix of politics and art. which is cool. it's their party. and that's actually why i thought roth was a good bet, cuz of his recent book about the nazis taking over the u.s. in the past, yes, but still...

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 13 October 2005 14:47 (nineteen years ago)

It's hysterical and stupid. I question Pinter's intelligence, ability to construct analogies, and taste in literature and history.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 13 October 2005 14:49 (nineteen years ago)

But Roth's novel doesn't construct an analogy between a fictional what-if (Lindberg as president) and contemporary political chicanery.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 13 October 2005 14:50 (nineteen years ago)

Is this the first time a Nobel Prize for literature has been awarded to someone who's retired from writing?

― antexit (antexit), Thursday, 13 October 2005 14:50 (nineteen years ago)

"But Roth's novel doesn't construct an analogy between a fictional what-if (Lindberg as president) and contemporary political chicanery."

it's there anyway. the idea of how easy it is to fall for "evil".

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 13 October 2005 14:53 (nineteen years ago)

Nazi Germany wanted total domination of Europe and they nearly did it. The US wants total domination of the world and is about to consolidate that.

Perhaps he shouldv'e inserted the words "dominant political forces in the" before US. If he'd done that, then what's hysterical or stupid about the analogy?

― Don King of the Mountain (noodle vague), Thursday, 13 October 2005 14:57 (nineteen years ago)

Dear Momus,

I'm sorry for being intrusive in to your blog. But I am Melissa and I am a mother of two that is just trying to get out of an incredible financial debt. See my hubby is away in Iraq trying to protect this great country that we live in, and I am at home with our two kids telling bill collectors please be patiant. When my husband returns from war we will beable to catch up on our payments. We have already had are 2001 Ford repossessed from the bank, and are now down to a 83 buick that is rusted from front to back and the heater don't work, and tire tax is due in November.

I'm not asking for your pitty because we got our ownselfs into this mess but we would love you and thank you in our prayers if you would just keep this link on your blog for others to view.

God Bless You.

Melissa K. W.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 13 October 2005 15:10 (nineteen years ago)

hey alfred, how's your verbal gre study guide? i'm looking for a good one too, need to catch up on my ability to construct analogies.

― fauxhemian (fauxhemian), Thursday, 13 October 2005 16:30 (nineteen years ago)

I really need to improve my wider reading. The only Pinter I know of is some "interview" with a cute kiddie about toy planes, it was actually some Harold Pinter psycho-thriller play, as it turned out...

Any know what that could have been?

― JTS, Thursday, 13 October 2005 21:32 (nineteen years ago)

Dear Melissa,

I'm afraid your government is in debt just like you are. It's in debt because it's spending money on wars that Harold Pinter, and just about everybody else with any sense, knows don't help America, Iraq, or anybody else. It's fine for your government to be spending lots of money -- America is a rich nation, after all -- but it should be spending it on your education, health and welfare rather than on killing people.

I think Harold would agree with what I say here.

Momus

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 13 October 2005 21:41 (nineteen years ago)

hey alfred, how's your verbal gre study guide? i'm looking for a good one too, need to catch up on my ability to construct analogies.

Your GRE scores are probably better than mine, so you can probably do a lot better than Harold fucking Pinter.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 13 October 2005 23:50 (nineteen years ago)

My contempt for the Bush administration knows no bounds, but in an attempt to explain their actions you construct the most recidivist analogy, you join the mob.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 13 October 2005 23:55 (nineteen years ago)

come on, this one is great:

Democracy

"There's no escape.
The big pricks are out.
They'll fuck everything in sight.
Watch your back."

Has Pinter been listening to a lot of Crass? Maybe we do have something in common.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 13 October 2005 23:59 (nineteen years ago)

Aston: You said you wanted me to get you up.
Davis: What for?
Aston: You said you were thinking of going to Sidcup.
Davies: Ay, that'd be a good thing, if I got there.
Aston: Doesn't look like much of a day.
Davies: Ay, well, that¹s shot it, en't it?
Aston: Do they owe us a living?
Davies: Course they do, course they do
Aston: Do they owe us a living?
Davies: Course they fucking do.

― The Blunnet Boy Wonder (noodle vague), Friday, 14 October 2005 00:13 (nineteen years ago)

i have a fondness for punk rock senior citizens. that american football poem is choice. totally southern studios circa 1982.

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 14 October 2005 00:18 (nineteen years ago)

i like dirk bogarde?

― corey c (shock of daylight), Friday, 14 October 2005 04:21 (nineteen years ago)

i have a fondness for punk rock senior citizens. that american football poem is choice. totally southern studios circa 1982.

So how come Steve Ignorant's never won a Nobel Prize?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 14 October 2005 08:16 (nineteen years ago)

the US seems a lot closer (ironically) to the old pre-WWI "sun never sets on the" British empire than to Nazi Germany - ambitious and powerful but not driven by any particular ideological ends. indeed it could be argued that attributing some bogus fascist motivation to the US government is more harmful than helpful, but Pinter obviously knows that shouting "Hitler!" gets you more attention than just saying "imperialism!"

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 14 October 2005 08:38 (nineteen years ago)

Comparing Saddam to Hitler = DUD
Comparing Bush to Hitler = DUD

― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 14 October 2005 08:40 (nineteen years ago)

I dunno, have you read "Worstward Ho"? The title doesn't lie.

It's not great but it's not "disastrous"... and neither is "Stirrings Still"

― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 14 October 2005 08:43 (nineteen years ago)

"Stirrings Still" - is that about OAP nookie?

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Friday, 14 October 2005 09:01 (nineteen years ago)

You never know with Sam

― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 14 October 2005 09:06 (nineteen years ago)

What I agreed with, above, was not about the Nazis, but that 'late-2001 to the present has been a hysterical time in terms of events'. That seems true to me.

You could use a different adjective if you wanted.

― the pinefox, Friday, 14 October 2005 16:40 (nineteen years ago)

Not really fair to judge Beckett on posthumous and semi-posthumous publications.

"No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."

Bushcorp methodologies (propaganda, intimidation of the media, party operatives controlling loyalty throughout the bureaucracy, cult of personality, torture/prison camps) are very similar to Nazi's and his trumped up war has killed over 100,000 people so far. The environmental, economic, and educational policies will destroy or make miserable many more lives. More than imperialism at work. The big-lie swiftboating style is exactly that used by Hitler, Stalin, etc to deal with enemies. Equal to Pol Pot or Hitler? No, but they would be if they could get away with it.

Yay, Harold!

― steve ketchup, Saturday, 15 October 2005 16:08 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...

Anyone see Harold's (taped) acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize on Channel 4 last night? To start with, he looks very very ill, so weak that he can't even manage the booming Pinter actorly voice anymore. Secondly, he spent about 5 minutes talking about his plays and his writing of them and 45 minutes about American foreign policy. He read a poem by Pablo Neruda and one of his own (which was quite good, for a change) and I think he should just left it at that frankly and forgotten telling us the history of the Sandanistas again.

― We Buy a Hammer For Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 8 December 2005 11:21 (nineteen years ago)

I thought it was well written and well delivered but I agree that the Sandanista history went on for a bit. But I forgive him. Problem is, chattering classes will think 'oh yes, very powerful, sock it to the man, Harold' and do fuck all. Which is half his point (the comfortable-cushion-of-lies bit).

― beanz (beanz), Thursday, 8 December 2005 12:22 (nineteen years ago)

Sorry I used the phrase 'chattering classes' by the way

― beanz (beanz), Thursday, 8 December 2005 12:31 (nineteen years ago)

s' okay, just don't do it again!

― We Buy a Hammer For Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 8 December 2005 12:32 (nineteen years ago)

It reminded me how good tv can be when it's just a person delivering a speech/lecture to camera for an hour or so. Don't get that much any more. I suppose a history strand that looked like that wouldn't work nowadays (though there used to be these quite often) but I was glad they didn't overlay Pinter's speech with pictures of dead babies and US planes dropping napalm etc. Makes you concentrate on what he's saying.

― beanz (beanz), Thursday, 8 December 2005 12:47 (nineteen years ago)

i liked it. why the hell does he have to put in his FUCKING AWFUL POETRY tho. stop it with the poetry harold.

― barbarian cities (jaybob3005), Thursday, 8 December 2005 12:54 (nineteen years ago)

Where was his mate Kumar?

― Pete (Pete), Thursday, 8 December 2005 12:54 (nineteen years ago)

Full text of speech:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1661516,00.html

― beanz (beanz), Thursday, 8 December 2005 13:08 (nineteen years ago)

The man may not have long to live, but, fuck's sake, what a way to go, winning the Nobel and excoriating lies and the abuse of power like this:

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 8 December 2005 20:49 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.