These are the archived discussions. To participate in active "Talk Literature" discussions go to the
homepage of ReadLiterature
Back To "Talk Literature" Archives
Bertrand Russell's Nobel Prize for Literature
Posted by Lale on 29/8/2001, 12:43:12
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970), a philosopher and a mathematical logician, received the Nobel Prize for
- An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth
- Human Knowledge, Its Scope and Limits
- The Principles of Mathematics
- The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism
- Education and the Social Order
- History of Western Philosophy
Since he won the Nobel Prize for LITERATURE, he has to be included in a web site that is devoted to
literature. But which of his works shall we include in our must-read-literature lists? Were these philosophical
works so literary to warrant a Nobel Prize in Literature? (Maybe 1950 was a slow year on the literature front?)
Please help me pick at least one Bertrand Russell book to list under English Literature page.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Chris Green on 29/8/2001, 17:09:47, in reply to "Bertrand Russell's Nobel Prize for Literature"
Aside from the fact that he probably shouldn't have won anything concerning literature, Russell's closest work
would be "History of Western Philosophy." While it is an analytical as his other works, alone amoung his
writings does it show an inclination towards wordsmithmanship.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Ted Mihran on 30/8/2001, 1:42:30, in reply to "Bertrand Russell's Nobel Prize for Literature"
Your question prompted me to look up the dictionary definition of literature. My Webster's New Collegiate
"writings in prose of verse; esp: writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of
permanent of universal interest."
This would seem to include prose works of philosophy in the category of "literature."
Does anybody have a better definition?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lale on 31/8/2001, 1:09:18, in reply to "Re: Bertrand Russell's Nobel Prize for Literature"
That's very true. In New Oxford, it says "written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting
artistic merit", and Russell's written works are arguably of superior and of long lasting merit, if not artistic.
We are just not used to seeing "literature" not being fiction, play or poetry.
Actually, I have brought up this topic earlier, in question of autobiographies. If you scroll all the way down to
the first post, there is a short discussion on some autobiographies being more literary than most novels.
The other surprising recipient of Nobel Prize for Literature is Winston Churchill. He was given the literature
laureate in 1953 for "his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in
defending exalted human values".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Ted Mihran on 31/8/2001, 2:15:57, in reply to "Re: Bertrand Russell's Nobel Prize for Literature"
I think you (and Oxford) put your finger on the key word, Lale, the word "artistic". Philosophy, in the modern
use of the word does not strive to be "artistic," but rather, to be "rational". In fact, I believe one of its goals is to
eliminate the personal, or subjective, side of issues in its search for "truth."
Art is, almost by definition, subjective. One of my favorite quotes is:
"Science consists of those things which, if you did not do, someone else would do.
Art consists of those things which, if you did not do, no one else would do."
Literature clearly falls into the category of art. But in the presention of philosophy or history (Russell or
Churchhill) there is an art to organizing the logical or historical material in an accurate, appealing, and
persuasive form. However, this is normally called "rhetoric."
So perhaps the question comes down to: is rhetoric literature? Somehow I feel it is not. But the question
Lale, after I had submitted my question, I went down the list and I read the previous comments on this subject
which you had instituted. It must be a good question since both of us came up with it independently.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Michael Sympson on 2/9/2001, 20:25:07, in reply to "Bertrand Russell's Nobel Prize for Literature"
I wouldn't agonize over Russel's Nobel award. His award, like Mommsen's and Churchill's (and many others)
was more or less a political decision. Just think of it: Churchill (as an imaginative writer a second rate
journalist at best) got the award for literature, James Joyce did not. Go figure. So where to draw the line?
Perhaps we should go along the line of "imaginative literature?" Of course, imagination as a mental faculty is
needed for all sorts of activities, philosophy, the sciences, even math included. But only literature makes
imagination its object. That's where to draw the line. (The Nobel Award means a lot of money and for some
artists it is a real life-saver, but is it really an undisputable recognition of excellence? I donÕt think so - for all
sorts of reasons. One, and perhaps the most important reason is the fact that the Nobel committee depends
largely on translations. As a rule of thumbs, literature that is easily to translate is not the most accomplished
in its kind - which curtails the options of the committee. Very often it was as simple as that, and explains why
certain names are on the award list which really donÕt belong there - even without a political quid pro quo.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Guillermo Maynez on 25/9/2001, 4:21:17, in reply to "Re: Bertrand Russell's Nobel Prize for Literature"
Aw -like Duddy says- come on. If we put Russell in, then Newton and Einstein should be in too and we would
never end. Now, the Nobel Prize IS political. I think the highest merit of this prize is that it puts on the spotlight
on some good authors that otherwise we would never get to know, especially authors from countries and
languages that are not very widespread. Think of Halldor Laxness (Iceland), Naguib Mafouz (Egypt) or Paz
(Mexican). But the Nobel committee has committed mortal sins. Just take a look at some of the authors that
didn't receive the prize: Joyce, Proust, Kafka, Borges, Rulfo, Greene, Nabokov, etc.
Prizes should be a guide, but not THE guide, for us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~