WLF Prize in Literature 2021

[Bartleby]

As jokingly suggested here, and then further considered in these posts, what do you guys think of making our own literary life achievement award?

We could democratically establish its rules, but I’d suggest each member to nominate a candidate (either said member were to eventually participate in the readings of authors or discussions of them being irrelevant), or maybe some two to three candidates (if few people contribute), then opening a voting poll in which members can select some two to three writers, the three ones with most votes being the selected shortlisted authors for us to read during the next year, after some point discussing our readings and reaching to a consensus. So as not to be too underwhelming, we needn’t read their entire output (or at least that which is available in English — our lingua franca), but some three-five very distinctive works, at minimum (specially in the case of those 1000-page novelists). Oh and it would be nice to have the authors be alive and without the Nobel being received by them (just so we could form our own opinions, unbiased by the assessment of those Swedes).

But then again, these are just suggestions, and every amendment or new idea would be very much welcome.

I believe having this reading experience together would be an enriching one, with each one enlightening the other, and thinking about important topics such as what Literature and merit means. Hopefully the conversations would run smooth and rationally, without personal attacks.

So what are your thoughts on such a project?


If this thing doesn’t fly, I’ll just delete this thread and pretend it never happened .-. =p

 

[Liam]

Naturally, I'm going to win for the single heartrending haiku I wrote back in high school

 

[Johnny]

As jokingly suggested here, and then further considered in these posts, what do you guys think of making our own literary life achievement award?

We could democratically establish its rules, but I’d suggest each member to nominate a candidate (either said member were to eventually participate in the readings of authors or discussions of them being irrelevant), or maybe some two to three candidates (if few people contribute), then opening a voting poll in which members can select some two to three writers, the three ones with most votes being the selected shortlisted authors for us to read during the next year, after some point discussing our readings and reaching to a consensus. So as not to be too underwhelming, we needn’t read their entire output (or at least that which is available in English — our lingua franca), but some three-five very distinctive works, at minimum (specially in the case of those 1000-page novelists). Oh and it would be nice to have the authors be alive and without the Nobel being received by them (just so we could form our own opinions, unbiased by the assessment of those Swedes).

But then again, these are just suggestions, and every amendment or new idea would be very much welcome.

I believe having this reading experience together would be an enriching one, with each one enlightening the other, and thinking about important topics such as what Literature and merit means. Hopefully the conversations would run smooth and rationally, without personal attacks.

So what are your thoughts on such a project?


If this thing doesn’t fly, I’ll just delete this thread and pretend it never happened .-. =p

I’m in, let’s go for it!

 

[DouglasM]

I think it's a very cool idea. I also believe that for the process to be more democratic and interesting, there need not be a minimum limit of books to read by each author, so that people are free to participate as they want.

One indication per member, as you suggested, is a great start. We could expound arguments as to why these writers deserve such a high honor and then we vote for the shortlist.

 

[Johnny]

So living authors only who have not won the Nobel or wider than that? I can see the rules taking a while to agree!

 

[Bartleby]

So living authors only who have not won the Nobel or wider than that? I can see the rules taking a while to agree!

I see living ones as being the most important one; if not, we’d have to establish lots of criteria for that, like, can we nominate Cervantes, then? But we can certainly talk about the living authors thing.

 

[hayden]

So living authors only who have not won the Nobel or wider than that? I can see the rules taking a while to agree!

I would gladly participate under those guidelines.

Kinda feels like that alternative Nobel that Conde won.

 

[tiganeasca]

"Hmmm," he said, stroking his chin thoughtfully, reflecting widely and deeply (but not, we hope, impertinently) on the matter. "This seems positively...interesting."

 

[Americanreader]

I think this sounds fun!

 

[Leemo]

Sounds like fun to me as well.

 

[nagisa]

Sounds fun. We can model it off the SA's modeus operandi: winnow it down to 5 top candidates after proposals, read intensely, and vote on the winner. (We could be two distinct rounds: living writers and recently deceased. Goytisolo FTW!!)

 

[Bartleby]

winnow it down to 5 top candidates after proposals,

yeah I was about to ask that. I first said of a 3 writers shortlist, but maybe we should follow the SA and go with 5? Or would that be too much? But maybe, as Douglas suggested, without a minimum limit of works to be read by each author, a 5 people shortlist should be feasible.

I think it’s important too when nominating to check if an author has some works translated into English (and with their titles still available), since it’s the forum’s language and not many of us read in many languages, like French, Spanish, or German, to cite some that have a habit of translating a lot.

(We could be two distinct rounds: living writers and recently deceased. Goytisolo FTW!!)

Humm. Yeah that could be fun. I just wonder if it wouldn’t be too much to read/consider, having two simultaneous rounds, even while done over a year? And we’d have to establish a rule for how many years ago qualifies for being “recently deceased”. (Or maybe we could just incorporate the recently deceased ones into the main discussion? Our prize our rules ).

what all of you guys think about these points?

 

[Stiffelio]

A fun idea. Let's each of us propose three writers before a deadline for submission, then rank these writers according to their aggregate votes and select the top five to make up the shortlist.

 

[Bartleby]

A fun idea. Let's each of us propose three writers before a deadline for submission, then rank these writers according to their aggregate votes and select the top five to make up the shortlist.

Nice! I think tho, since a considerable number of people have shown interest (and more may be yet to do so too) we could each nominate/propose just 1 writer for being voted for the shortlist? With each person being able to vote for three of them?

but whatever is the majority’s opinion should have the say.

 

[nagisa]

Nice! I think tho, since a considerable number of people have shown interest (and more may be yet to do so too) we could each nominate/propose just 1 writer for being voted for the shortlist? With each person being able to vote for three of them?

but whatever is the majority’s opinion should have the say.

Better to have many people submit many (three should suffice) to rank and aggregate first, as Stiffelio said. It should provide a more diverse and surprising shortlist (but 5 may be a bit many to read all in depth — 3?)

 

[Stevie B]

Naturally, I'm going to win for my single heartrending haiku I wrote back in high school

Is it better than your limerick that began, "There once was a guy from Nantucket..."?

 

[Bartleby]

So, I believe it’s good to let about a week pass, to let the other members who may not yet have seen this thread catch-up, before we discuss the rules more in-depth (don’t feel discouraged to throw in any opinions in the meantime tho), and start nominating.

I’ll be tagging some active users here I can remember that haven’t shown up yet in this thread, but, please, don’t feel under any pressure to reply or participate.

@kpjayan @Ludus @Daniel del Real
@Uemarasan @namelesshere @JCamilo @lucasdiniz @Bagharu @kadare @Corswandt @Ater Lividus Ruber & V @Isahoinp @redheadshadz @Marba @Cleanthess @peter_d @errequatro
@SpaceCadet

 

[Bagharu]

To be honest, I thought about it once to myself and then pushed it away from my mind thinking it's not practical (mainly I thought nobody would be interested after that Read the Past Nobel Candidates based on the archives was not successful), but I'm really overjoyed that so many members are so enthusiastic about an annual award. Particularly Kudos to Bartleby for his optimism and courage! Yes, I am in!

I agree with the idea of one nomination from each willing member. Then narrow it down after a few months (3, 4?) to 5 candidates and then spend another few months to finally start deciding our Laureate (and doesn't that sound really awesome!) As for eligibility for nomination, I think writers who have passed away in the last 3 or 5 years can be included. Well, let me just propose some rules:

1. Any member can nominate one candidate, the writer has to be alive or passed away within the last 3/5 years of the awarding year
2. Since English is the common language of the forum, while nominating, the member has to ensure whether their proposed writer has at least 2/3 books available in English (not rare also). I personally would prefer if they are also available in e-books ?
3. When a member nominates a writer, they should (must?) also recommend a book or two of the writer.
4. After the primary nomination, over a period of 3 or 4 months members will evaluate the nominees and on a specific date after online voting, the top 5 voted candidates will be shortlisted for final evaluation.
6. To be eligible to vote on the online voting, a member must read at least one book of the 80% of the primary nominees. I think it's only fair for the nominees.
7. Over a period of 4/5 months members of WLF will read, analyze and evaluate the final shortlisted nominees and on the 5/6th month will sit in online meetings to defend and determine the Laureate. The Laureate must secure more than 50% of the votes. Each member must read at least 2 books by each writer to be eligible to elect the Laureate (2/3 books a month, not overbearing I guess?)
8. Last but not least, all the members of WLF must avow of utmost secrecy throughout the election process ???

The only problem I find is the availability of the writers in English, which limits the nominations. Also, considering the summer and winter holidays, we'll have to start the whole process in late January or early February, and only then we can hope to elect our Laureate before October. Also, I find it tricky to narrow down the authors into 5 (reading at least one book from each author). Only SA knows how it narrows down 300+ nominees to a shortlist within a few months!

 

[Verkhovensky]

I’ll be tagging some active users here I can remember that haven’t shown up yet in this thread, but, please, don’t feel under any pressure to reply or participate.

Bartleby my dear, you forgot me

I think that idea has the potential. Living writers, Nobel-less, but maybe really recently deceased ones (died in 2019/2020) could also be eligible. I mean, we are not giving out $1 million, so person doesn't necessarily need to be alive, but just needs to be contemporary.

 

[redhead]

I’m down