The Measure of Literary Value
On the selection process for the Nobel Prize in Literature, the criteria and how literature is assessed
When a writer wins the Nobel Prize in Literature, two questions usually come to mind: Who is this writer, and which of their works should we read? Following the announcement, publishers prepare new editions, booksellers move the author's books to the front of the shelves, and literary publications explain why the winner is significant. This gives us the opportunity to discover authors whose work we were previously unaware of, or finally read books by authors we have long intended to read. Prestigious awards inevitably forge a new connection between us and literature.
However, another selection process takes place prior to this. One writer is chosen from among those who write in different languages, draw on different traditions and explore different literary possibilities. A statement explaining this selection is then published. This outlines the aspects of the winner that were deemed noteworthy. However, it does not explain with the same clarity why the other nominees were not selected. Meanwhile, nomination records and evaluation reports are kept confidential for fifty years.
The awarding of the 2026 Nobel Prize in Literature to Anne Carson gave me the chance to consider what this means. The Swedish Academy attributed the win to the Canadian poet and writer's bold and inventive oeuvre that, in playful dialogue with the classical tradition, has created new forms for contemporary literature. At first glance, this seems like a reasonable justification. Further investigation revealed that Carson’s engagement with classical philology, her blending of poetry and prose (two literary forms I also enjoy combining), and her combination of different narrative forms all appeared to align with this rationale. However, it is important not to overlook the fact that understanding the committee’s rationale is not the same as knowing how the final selection was made.
Therefore, when examining works honoured by the Nobel Prize, we must also consider and analyse the process by which they came to the world’s attention.
According to Alfred Nobel’s will, the Literature Prize is awarded to the person who in the literary field, had produced “the most outstanding work in an ideal direction”. Initially, the prize was intended for the author of the most outstanding literary work. However, this phrase does not explain what constitutes literary value. Furthermore, there is no universal system by which literature can be evaluated in the same way as a scientific discovery. The language of a novel, the form of a poem, the intellectual power of a narrative and the innovations an author brings to literature cannot be assessed independently of interpretation, even when specific criteria are employed.
In my view, this is the crux of the matter. I consider it highly likely that the "ideal" conception of the prize in its early years — it has been awarded since 1901 — was rooted in more traditional moral values, and that this conception has gradually expanded through increasingly open interpretations over the years. After all, both life and literature are constantly evolving. Consequently, we cannot regard the current criteria as rules that have remained unchanged since the beginning. How 'Nobel-like' is Nobel's vision now?
In a 2024 interview, members of the Nobel Committee stated that they take into account innovators who have contributed to the development of world literature, as well as influential writers and masters of lesser-known languages or literary traditions. In my view, the most important factor is whether a work retains its literary power when translated into other languages.
However, the fact that literary merit is the fundamental criterion does not mean that all works are ranked according to the same characteristics. Can a writer's innovation in their original language (a more specific aspect) be compared with another writer's approach to the human experience (a more general aspect) on a single scale? If such a comparison is made, which characteristics should carry the most weight? Official statements do not provide answers to these questions.
Honestly, this is one of the main reasons why the Nobel Prize in Literature and most other awards fail to inspire confidence. Furthermore, while this prize must be assessed on a global scale, it is only natural that its focus should differ from that of awards given in specific genres and categories. However, the organisers of the Nobel Prize in Literature must believe that the prize would lose its value if it were divided into genres or categories. After all, having a single prize reinforces the perception of its grandeur.
According to the information on its official website, the nomination process works as follows: individuals and organisations specified in the Nobel Foundation’s rules may submit nominations. The Swedish Academy and the Nobel Committee examine these nominations, drawing on external experts where necessary, to gradually narrow down the field. Typically, the process starts with around two hundred nominees and ultimately results in a shortlist of five. In the final stage, Academy members assess the candidates’ work in greater detail, after which the winner is determined by a majority vote.
Writers who have been nominated in previous years may be nominated again in subsequent years. For instance, rumours occasionally circulate that Haruki Murakami has been on the Nobel shortlist, but, as nomination and evaluation records are kept confidential, this remains mere speculation. Furthermore, specialised translations may be prepared where necessary. While this practice is important for overcoming language barriers, I am among those who believe that it is not entirely effective. Do you think it is possible for the Nobel Prize in Literature to forge stronger links with literary circles in different countries? For instance, what if there were committees in every country contributing to the literary evaluation process? Perhaps the Nobel Prize could even be shared between countries.
This is important for understanding the limitations of the prize. The Nobel Committee does not have the capacity to comprehensively examine all works of world literature and select the very best. Instead, it selects candidates for the Literature Prize from those nominated by authorised figures, such as writers and critics, and assesses their work alongside experts in the field. Consequently, winning the prize does not signify achieving undisputed supremacy over all literature.
So, when making its selection, does the committee prioritise a specific literary quality? For instance, does it seek to identify a writer who pushes the formal boundaries of contemporary literature and then select from among those who possess this quality? Or does it identify the characteristics that best describe the winner’s work after evaluating the candidates?
As I mentioned at the outset, attitudes towards literature change over time. From the committee’s statements, it is evident that literary merit and innovation carry significant weight in the selection process. However, it would be unfair to suggest that there is a single, predetermined theme for each year, or that justifications are fabricated after the decision to select the winner has been made. If you have any negative comments or complaints about this year's award, you will have to wait until 2076.
It is important to distinguish between the rationale for the award and the selection process itself. The rationale shows which literary qualities the committee highlighted in the winner’s work. However, on its own, it does not explain why other writers with similar qualities were not selected. So, what should we make of Anne Carson?
Examining Carson’s work, it is said that “Autobiography of Red” transforms a narrative drawn from ancient Greek literature into a contemporary poetic novel. Meanwhile, “Nox” transcends conventional narrative forms by combining poetry, visual material and translation. “Eros the Bittersweet” has also been praised for fusing classical literary scholarship and creative thought.
Judging by these works, Carson does not treat the past as heritage to be preserved; rather, she reinterprets it and relates it to contemporary issues by transposing it into different forms. Her expertise in classical philology must play a significant role in her understanding of the sources she draws upon. I believe that the blurring of the boundaries between poetry and prose, the visual dimension of the text contributing to its meaning, and the fusion of academic research with creative writing provide concrete justification for the award.
I should point out, however, that I have not read any of Carson's works myself, and these remarks are based solely on what I have read about her and the conclusions I have drawn from that. If you have read her work and would like to share your thoughts on this matter, your contribution would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
However, the fact that Carson possesses these qualities does not mean that they cannot also be found in other writers. Many writers reinterpret classical texts, blend different genres and push the boundaries of language. Therefore, identifying the innovative features of Carson’s work alone is insufficient to explain why she was selected.
In my view, two distinct assessments must be made. The first is to examine the ways in which Carson’s works are powerful and innovative. The second is to understand why these qualities were considered significant enough to warrant the Nobel Prize. The first can be discussed through her works and critical analyses. However, to answer the second question, we would also need access to the committee’s assessments of the other nominees. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, we have no such access.
The award citation is therefore both explanatory and limited. While it tells us how to approach Carson’s literary output, it does not explain why she was chosen over the other nominees. This limitation does not mean the rationale is worthless, though. As I said, the issue is not just about whether Carson was selected, but about engaging in a thought experiment to discern the values that have enabled previous winners to stand out within the evolving framework of literary perception.
We should also consider the wider implications of this process. Clearly, there is a strong correlation between authors winning the Nobel Prize and their work reaching a wider audience. Following the award, new editions may be published, creating more opportunities for translation and bringing books that were previously discussed only within limited circles to the fore. In fact, Carson’s works were already recognised in academic and literary circles prior to her winning the Nobel Prize. The prize made her established reputation more visible on an international scale.
However, recognition does not equate to literary merit. Just as a book’s commercial success does not prove its literary merit, a limited readership does not necessarily indicate a lack of value. While these awards do not eliminate this distinction, they do ensure that certain authors and works attract more attention. Furthermore, the decision of a highly prestigious prize such as the Nobel Prize can influence readers' expectations of an author. As I do not intend to delve further into the media and financial aspects of the matter, I will not discuss these topics any further.
The rationale behind the award in question plays a distinct role in this process. Why? Because there is a difference between declaring an author the winner of the year's award and explaining their contribution to literature using specific concepts. Phrases such as “bold”, “creative”, and “in dialogue with the classical tradition”, which are used to describe Carson's work, draw the reader's attention to specific features. This is similar to the overwhelming nature of recommendations and advertisements, which draw you in and encourage deeper engagement with a book. Readers will examine the works through the lens of these concepts. Critics will also discuss these concepts. Publishers will also use them to promote their books. However, this situation can also create a sense of disappointment regarding the work in question.
We realise that winning the prize means more than simply bringing an existing literary work and its author to the fore. It also requires us to identify which aspects of the work are significant. While this interpretation does not determine the work’s meaning entirely, it can influence how readers engage with it.
However, it is also worth bearing in mind that the committee’s selection of an author does not imply that all their works are equally successful, nor that their place in literary history has been definitively established. The prize is simply one evaluation body's decision. This decision may have significant repercussions in the literary world. Nevertheless, it need not put an end to literary debate.
As we are coming to the end, let’s summarise.
Examining the selection process for the Nobel Prize in Literature reveals that it is neither wholly objective nor arbitrary. The process involves stages such as nominations, examination of works, consultation with experts and voting. Committee members define literary merit as the fundamental criterion and base their decisions on the winner’s works. However, it is not possible to ascertain which characteristics carry the most weight, why other writers with similar qualities were overlooked, or how the debates surrounding the evaluations were reflected in the final decision. These limitations prompt us to reconsider our expectations of the prize.
Conversely, it is possible to recognise the limitations of the prize without diminishing its significance. While winning a Nobel Prize can provide an opportunity to examine an author's work, this should not be the only reason to consider their work valuable. The Committee’s rationale also provides an interpretation that we can apply when engaging with these works. Understanding this interpretation is just as important as assessing, through our own reading, the extent to which the works support it. Regardless of the outcome of the award, we must safeguard our right as readers to make our own judgements.
Ultimately, we must ask ourselves how much we rely on awards to determine the value of literature, and how we relate the assessments offered by these awards to our own reading experience.
Awards such as the Nobel Prize should not be regarded as the final authority. Literature's meaning and value become clearer through discussion, not when we stop discussing it.
Comments