If Gibson were to receive the prize expect it around 2025 when he's pushing 80 and heading towards the grave in recognition of a numerous works of "ground breaking" works of fiction over a long career.... or something like that
WI:AHC: Science Fiction Authors winning the Nobel Prize of Literature
- Thread starter Richter10
- Start date
If Gibson were to receive the prize expect it around 2025 when he's pushing 80 and heading towards the grave in recognition of a numerous works of "ground breaking" works of fiction over a long career.... or something like that
George Orwell, if he'd lived longer, would have gotten the Nobel Prize, chiefly for Nineteen Eighty-Four, one of the greatest masterpieces of English literature. And s-f, definitely. The first paperback edition in the U.S. was even flagrantly marketed as such with a wonderfully schlocky cover.
Regarding Heinlein, he is obviously the most influential figure in the history of genre s-f and indeed one of the most influential American literary figures of the middle 20th century, period--you see his influence in the space program, today's Mars program, libertarianism, the Second Amendment movement, the hippie movement, the sexual revolution, the transgender movement, even the civil rights movement in that he was an early and consistent anti-racist. He also spoke out in his books against the religious extremism that morphed into today's Christian Right. If influence was a criteria for the Nobel Prize he would have been at the top of the list. Alas, I have to admit that with the exception of his children's books (which are great in a special way and never got the recognition they deserved from the appropriate prize committees) and Friday (a novel which almost attains the level of an important novel but is marred by some sloppy pulpish plotting) his work never gets there in a literary sense and some of his ideas are, frankly, half baked. Too bad, because I love the guy's work overall, and after reading Citizen of the Galaxy as a kid I could never again tolerate singing "In Dixie Land..."
A similar problem arises with Conan Doyle. What do you do with a writer who creates the most memorable and best-loved characters in world literature--Holmes and Watson? And concocts in just a few paragraphs secondary characters such as Irene Adler, Prof. Moriarty, and Mycroft Holmes who also will live, like, forever? And contains some of the most quoted aphorisms in literature? And yet he puts all these elements in stories in which a literary quality is somewhat lacking (except in the short novel The Hound of the Baskervilles which I believe is on lists as being among the 50 or 100 greatest works of the 20th century). So what do you do with Doyle? You declare his work a tour de force and move on.
Finally, we are forgetting a Nobel Prize winner who did write one science-fiction short story: Winston Churchill, "If Lee Had Not Won the Battle of Gettysburg" (in the 1931 anthology If It Had Happened Otherwise), which may have influenced the 1953 s-f classic Bring the Jubilee by Ward Moore.
Regarding Heinlein, he is obviously the most influential figure in the history of genre s-f and indeed one of the most influential American literary figures of the middle 20th century, period--you see his influence in the space program, today's Mars program, libertarianism, the Second Amendment movement, the hippie movement, the sexual revolution, the transgender movement, even the civil rights movement in that he was an early and consistent anti-racist. He also spoke out in his books against the religious extremism that morphed into today's Christian Right. If influence was a criteria for the Nobel Prize he would have been at the top of the list. Alas, I have to admit that with the exception of his children's books (which are great in a special way and never got the recognition they deserved from the appropriate prize committees) and Friday (a novel which almost attains the level of an important novel but is marred by some sloppy pulpish plotting) his work never gets there in a literary sense and some of his ideas are, frankly, half baked. Too bad, because I love the guy's work overall, and after reading Citizen of the Galaxy as a kid I could never again tolerate singing "In Dixie Land..."
A similar problem arises with Conan Doyle. What do you do with a writer who creates the most memorable and best-loved characters in world literature--Holmes and Watson? And concocts in just a few paragraphs secondary characters such as Irene Adler, Prof. Moriarty, and Mycroft Holmes who also will live, like, forever? And contains some of the most quoted aphorisms in literature? And yet he puts all these elements in stories in which a literary quality is somewhat lacking (except in the short novel The Hound of the Baskervilles which I believe is on lists as being among the 50 or 100 greatest works of the 20th century). So what do you do with Doyle? You declare his work a tour de force and move on.
Finally, we are forgetting a Nobel Prize winner who did write one science-fiction short story: Winston Churchill, "If Lee Had Not Won the Battle of Gettysburg" (in the 1931 anthology If It Had Happened Otherwise), which may have influenced the 1953 s-f classic Bring the Jubilee by Ward Moore.
Last edited:
von hitchofen
Banned
Nobel Prize for Literature 1967-1983
1967 Miguel Angel Asturias
1968 Kawabata Yasunari
1969 Samuel Beckett
1970 Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
1971 Pablo Neruda
1972 Heinrich Boll
1973 Patrick White
1974 Eyvind Johnson/Harry Martinson
1975 Eugenio Montale
1976 Saul Bellow
1977 Vicente Aleixandre
1978 Isaac Bashevis Singer
1979 Oddyseas Elytis
1980 Czeslaw Milosz
1981 Elias Canetti
1982 Gabriel Garcia Marquez
1983 William Golding
the people who chose those winners would not get past page three of "Stranger in a Strange Land" before hurling it in the bin...sorry
1967 Miguel Angel Asturias
1968 Kawabata Yasunari
1969 Samuel Beckett
1970 Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
1971 Pablo Neruda
1972 Heinrich Boll
1973 Patrick White
1974 Eyvind Johnson/Harry Martinson
1975 Eugenio Montale
1976 Saul Bellow
1977 Vicente Aleixandre
1978 Isaac Bashevis Singer
1979 Oddyseas Elytis
1980 Czeslaw Milosz
1981 Elias Canetti
1982 Gabriel Garcia Marquez
1983 William Golding
the people who chose those winners would not get past page three of "Stranger in a Strange Land" before hurling it in the bin...sorry
On the OP, you could pick any of a number of American SF authors- Isaac Asimov, Frank Herbert, Robert Heinlein, Alfred Bester, and a lot of other folks for the Nobel Literature Prize.
I second Zamyatin's We, but why not Stanislaw Lem if we're going for SF as social commentary?
Cheers to whomever nommed Clifford Simak- his City stuff is amazing. I always thought Cyril Kornbluth never got his due either.
IMO HG Wells and Aldous Huxely deserved it, too. Arthur C Clarke, Micheal Moorcock and JG Ballard also should get a mention too while we're at it.
Much as I love George Orwell's politics, 1984 was a hamfisted polemic.
It righteously skewered the slippery slope of solipsistic trends where the ends Always justified the means. I appreciate the need for it, but AFAIC it was an rant disguised as a novel. A in content, D- in style.
@Killer-- IMO RAH wasn't a fascist. He did believe in the Spartan way where every citizen needed to develop themselves to the utmost of their abilities for themselves to have the tools and mindset to keep themselves and society honest.
His big rant Expanded Universe where he goes at length about the public (mis)-education system and welfare system dulling everyone into complacent dependency on the state is about calling everyone of whatever color or gender to the barricades to demand autonomy and dignity. YMMV.
Starship Troopers was aimed at several trends he saw as dangerous.
I second Zamyatin's We, but why not Stanislaw Lem if we're going for SF as social commentary?
Cheers to whomever nommed Clifford Simak- his City stuff is amazing. I always thought Cyril Kornbluth never got his due either.
IMO HG Wells and Aldous Huxely deserved it, too. Arthur C Clarke, Micheal Moorcock and JG Ballard also should get a mention too while we're at it.
Much as I love George Orwell's politics, 1984 was a hamfisted polemic.
It righteously skewered the slippery slope of solipsistic trends where the ends Always justified the means. I appreciate the need for it, but AFAIC it was an rant disguised as a novel. A in content, D- in style.
@Killer-- IMO RAH wasn't a fascist. He did believe in the Spartan way where every citizen needed to develop themselves to the utmost of their abilities for themselves to have the tools and mindset to keep themselves and society honest.
His big rant Expanded Universe where he goes at length about the public (mis)-education system and welfare system dulling everyone into complacent dependency on the state is about calling everyone of whatever color or gender to the barricades to demand autonomy and dignity. YMMV.
Starship Troopers was aimed at several trends he saw as dangerous.
- He saw the United States as unwilling to fight on the ground to defeat Communism. Air strikes and naval interdiction, sure, but not take it to Ivan as we did to Hitler and Tojo.
- He despised the idea of citizenship issued at birth. Citizenship was something he felt you had to choose and earn, thus engaged in exercising what what you sacrificed to achieve. I interpret his stance as whomever wants to be American and do what it takes to be a American citizen can do so but no ethnic pandering, no hyphenation, no accomodations for the lame or lazy.
- He also saw the draft as ridiculous. It created a huge pool of disposable shock troops generals would love to expend to make themselves look good. He wanted an all-volunteer professional military in the 1950's of folks who wanted to be there and do their bit, engaged in doing it well rather than time-serving drones.
- He also lionized mustangs that earned commissions learning their trade the hard way versus Academy ring-knockers hopped up on theory and esprit de corps instead of competence. Ironic as he was an Annapolis grad.
If the Nobel committee had grown a pair and decided not to be concerned about an anti-nazi winner then KarelCpaek would have won the prize for 1936.
As it happened the award was delayed for a year and the prize given to Eugene O Neill, a worthy winner though.
As it happened the award was delayed for a year and the prize given to Eugene O Neill, a worthy winner though.
