Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

murkans cain't write good enough for a Nobel?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • murkans cain't write good enough for a Nobel?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/oc ... lprize.usa

  • #2
    Not true! We won the Ig Nobel for literature in 2006! :P

    Here it is -

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 1&SRETRY=0
    There are no strings on me

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: murkans cain't write good enough for a Nobel?

      Originally posted by gh
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/oct/01/nobelprize.usa
      Today, the literary world on this side of the Atlantic reacted in bemusement and anger to an extraordinary tirade against American writing by Horace Engdahl, the permanent secretary of the Nobel prize jury.
      "The US is too isolated, too insular. They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature," Engdahl said. "That ignorance is restraining."
      Wow - did he just commit the shameful sin of hubris! Yeah, Faulkner and Fitzgerald, Hemingway and Morrison - you're just a bunch of hillbilly rednecks. Great literature is about revealing the truths of the human heart. You don't need to dialogue that or translate that. You just have to feel it. :roll:

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: murkans cain't write good enough for a Nobel?

        Originally posted by Marlow
        "......don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature," Engdahl said.
        You don't need to dialogue that or translate that. You just have to feel it. :roll:
        Maybe the US writers are bored by the big dialogue? And who could blame them.

        Comment


        • #5
          Can you imagine the backlash in Europe if we or somebody American in charge of some award said that about European writers?

          Comment


          • #6
            'Murican's are good at science, though! Who can name the University employing the most Nobel Laureates (past and present)?

            Comment


            • #7
              gee, I have no idea . . . :?

              Comment


              • #8
                Way to spoil a good trivia question . . .

                :roll: :evil:

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bad hammy
                  Way to spoil a good trivia question . . . :roll: :evil:
                  Gee, that's just what I always say when one of my students answers a question I pose! :roll: I've never understood the concept of asking a question you did NOT want the answer to. I insist my students look up answers. That's not cheating; that's research.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Marlow
                    Originally posted by bad hammy
                    Way to spoil a good trivia question . . . :roll: :evil:
                    Gee, that's just what I always say when one of my students answers a question I pose! :roll: I've never understood the concept of asking a question you did NOT want the answer to. I insist my students look up answers. That's not cheating; that's research.
                    Come on, Marlow. This was trivia, and not research. You know that.

                    The answer I was looking for was the University of Chicago, by the way, and not Cambridge (since we were talking 'Muricans and their Nobel prizes).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JRM
                      This was trivia, and not research. You know that.
                      OK, my bad. I guess I was supposed to infer the "answer this without looking it up" caveat. Sorry. I am lock-wired into the 'answer every question asked me" mode. Have been since I learned to talk. Worked really well in my education, my Navy career, and my teaching career. Not so much here. ops:

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JRM
                        The answer I was looking for was the University of Chicago, by the way, and not Cambridge (since we were talking 'Muricans and their Nobel prizes).
                        Of course some universities buy their Nobel laureats. I'd be interested to see who has the most home grown laureats. By the way, I have no idea if Chicago buys its laureats, I assume not.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Marlow
                          Originally posted by JRM
                          This was trivia, and not research. You know that.
                          I am lock-wired into the 'answer every question asked me" mode. Have been since I learned to talk. Worked really well in my education, my Navy career, and my teaching career. Not so much here. ops:
                          But the issue is that you didn't just "answer" off the top of your head. You wiki'ed the information and posted immediately, which of course defeats the challenge for others. And of course, I didn't ask the question because I wanted to know the answer -- I coulda just wiki'd it too! Anyway, we won't belabor this point any further.

                          Originally posted by Daisy
                          Of course some universities buy their Nobel laureats. I'd be interested to see who has the most home grown laureats. By the way, I have no idea if Chicago buys its laureats, I assume not.
                          Yes, but I think that's a more modern trend. UC Santa Barbara, for example, has picked up about 4 Nobel Laureates in Physics over the past couple of years. Chicago is probably somewhat guilty as well, but I think most of those are historical.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: murkans cain't write good enough for a Nobel?

                            Originally posted by Marlow
                            ... - you're just a bunch of hillbilly rednecks. Great literature is about revealing the truths of the human heart. ....roll:
                            Tennessee Williams convinced me that even our hillbilly rednecks catch the attention of the better critics.
                            ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: murkans cain't write good enough for a Nobel?

                              Originally posted by paulthefan
                              Originally posted by Marlow
                              ... - you're just a bunch of hillbilly rednecks. Great literature is about revealing the truths of the human heart. ....roll:
                              Tennessee Williams convinced me that even our hillbilly rednecks catch the attention of the better critics.
                              Try Erskine Caldwell for a great "hillbilly rednecks" literature. You may find him too liberal, though :wink: .
                              "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                              by Thomas Henry Huxley

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X