Never heard of her before, can someone explain the significance? I see that Autobiography of Red is praised for blending different things like translation/novel in verse/essays together, but that doesn't sound like something new? I've read Milorad Pavic's Dictionary of Khazars before, seems like it fits the same description?
She is typically praised for her translations as well as the creative interplay of classical and modern imagery in her works. An aspect I think often overlooked is the relation of her text with the physical media of reading the text. For example Nox which is printed as a single continuous accordion-folded sheet.
I wish I could see a nice spoken performance of Autobiography of Red some day, it should be read out loud, imo. Her writing is very physical if that makes sense.
Among other things, Carson is a famous/prolific translator of Ancient Greek plays (including the ones that probably come to mind when you hear "Ancient Greek plays").
Why assume that novelty is a criterion for the worth of someone's literary output? Things can tread familiar ground, use familiar forms, and still be remarkable or worthwhile. (Imagine saying to Shakespeare: "Why write a book of love sonnets? Didn't Petrarch already do that?")
That said, I haven't read more than a few pieces by Carson and I'm curious to read more.
As a broad generality, you're right about novelty being a poor criterion.
But in the specific context of the Nobel Prize in Literature... The Prize's official mandate specifies an author who has "in the field of literature, produced the most outstanding work in an idealistic direction". There's also a "for the greatest benefit to humankind" criteria.
With those ground rules, writing Yet More Books in well-trod genres - but just slightly better than any of the other authors there - really doesn't seem to cut it for the Nobel Prize.
> "in the field of literature, produced the most outstanding work in an idealistic direction". There's also a "for the greatest benefit to humankind" criteria.
None of these two rules imply super duper novelty of the genre? Like, not at all, as far as those two rules are concerned, you can write a biography or genre detective story and still produce "outstanding work in an idealistic direction" or something for the "benefit to humankind".
I don't see "new" in either of the criteria you quoted. It also doesn't fit with the explicit reasons given for awarding the prize to many past recipients. Sometimes originality is a factor, but in many cases the reason is just judged merit.
I try to understand what's the criterion, and inferred novelty since the other Nobel prizes seem to be awarded for some novel contributions. As I said, just trying to understand significance.
What are the odds that yet another LGBT diaspora text wins again? I find it kind of hard to believe that this is the best writing this year when 6 of the last 10 Nobels have been LGBQ or ethnic diaspora adjacent.
2025: Krasznahorkai -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2024: Han Kang -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2023: Jon Fosse -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2022: Annie Ernaux -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2021: Abdulrazak Gurnah -- there are homoerotic themes in some of his work but the characters are not gay in terms of their identities, and homoeroticism has more to do with the ideas of power rather than sexual identities
2020: Louise Gluck -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2019: Peter Handke -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2018: Olga Tokarczuk -- I think her work is the one that fits your description best
2017: Kazuo Ishiguro -- no LGBT themes explicitely AFAIK, but queer readings of his work are a thing
2016: Bob Dylan -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
Gurnah is an immigrant (a refugee to be more precise) who can be considered living "in a diaspora" and his work does focus on the topic prominently. Ishiguro is a British citizen who thinks of himself as British, I believe, his parents moved when he was very young IIRC. He didn't visit Japan until his adulthood. I don't think his works are "disapora-adjecent" thematically but I only read two of his novels, so not completely confident here.
The rest write in their native languages and live in their birth countries.
I believe when you mention Carson's LGBT text, you refer to Autobiography of Red, it was written in the late 90s, not this year.
> there are homoerotic themes in some of his work but the characters are not gay in terms of their identities, and homoeroticism has more to do with the ideas of power rather than sexual identities
Heavily anti-gay cultures (like Nazi and far right) produce surprising amounts of homoerotic art for some reason. I think it goes with certain kind of masculine supremacy - you need to convince boys they are better off with masculine boys only and somehow end up homoerotic as a result. Plus, I guess, once everybody is obviously not gay, people stop clocking those things as what they are.
Edit: not trying to imply that the book is like that, just want to support the point that homoerotic does not imply gay culture.
Tbh, I haven't read/watched much of explicitely far-right art but that sounds reasonable. IIRC nazis (as in NSDAP and whoever made art during that time) heavily focused on the idea of vitality, physicality, health, and the beauty of masculine strength which sounds like it is almost destined to produce homoerotic effect. I mean, if you encourage men to depict beautiful male bodies, you will get depictions from and for men who are really, realy into beautiful male bodies. :D
I suppose it really depends on how you see light/heavy and what you consider "diaspora writings" or "LGBT themes", whether you refer to text or subtext.
For example, Han Kang writes a lot about alienation which is a thing that people in diasporas do experience but people experience it in many other contexts. When looking at her texts on the surface, most of her books are set in Korea and are about very Korean things, e.g. Jeju Massacre, Gwangju Uprising, etc.
For a long period, Nobel Prize winners were Nordics. Carson has Icelandic citizenship, so arguably falls into that too.
If you look at old Nobel Prize winners, you will find plenty of writers who are barely read now (at least in the English speaking world) and some like John Galsworthy whose reputation isn't what it used to be.
Having worked on a few Greek translation projects, the thing I always come back to with her is how she leaves the gaps in Sappho visible instead of smoothing them over. Brackets on the page. Most translators can't resist filling those in.
Your loss. One of the most beautiful works of literature and short. Is the depiction of gay people that distressing to you? I read books about straights all the time.
Unfortunately activists have done a fantastic job turning gay into a broad political issue encompassing a lot of ideologies that many people find off-putting. So when you see a plot like this, your first thought is that 1) the author has a self righteous agenda and 2) the award is not deserved but rather given to signal sides in a culture war.
Neither of those things may be true. And that’s tragic because a lot of great work is going to be written off under these pretenses.
> 2) the award is not deserved but rather given to signal sides in a culture war.
This is psychological projection from a debased information environment.
She has been studying classics, writing, and winning awards since at least 1975!
Quote:
Carson is known to be reticent about her private life, and discourages autobiographical readings of her writings.Information about her in publications is often limited to the phrase: "Anne Carson was born in Canada and teaches ancient Greek for a living." While not a confessional poet, her work is considered personal. Carson has said that in her work, she uses her life democratically as just one set of facts among others in the world.
You should be less online so you don't lose your whole self to bottomless cynicism.
The Nobel Prize in literature is given for a body of work, not for a specific publication. The book OP quotes does have gay characters but Anne Carson's body of work is hardly about LGBT issues specifically. Writing it off because of one sentence in an antagonistic comment is a bit strange. The Guardian article lists many other quotes of people describing what's compelling about her work.
When YOU see a plot like this. And that YOU see this says a lot more about YOU and your preoccupations with another person's sexuality. If you would just be honest and say "i don't like LGBT people", we'd save a lot of time.
> Unfortunately activists have done a fantastic job turning gay into a broad political issue encompassing a lot of ideologies that many people find off-putting
This is true of almost everything nowadays. I recoil at almost anything religious for similar reasons, even though I know not everybody that goes to church is a militant anti-abortionist christian nationalist. Nonetheless I will watch `The 10 Commandments` as it's still a very good example of the golden age of Hollywood epics.
I wouldn't call it "distressing", but we are entitled to like some genres and dislike others. Not everything should be for everyone. And generally some genres are over promoted by the big labels and imo have worse quality on average.
Well deserved. Autobiography of Red is stunning, the fragmentary form gives such mythical weight to every word.
Totally agree. Surprised to see this on the front page of HN, but Autobiography of Red absolutely gutted me.
Nobel page: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2026/summary/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50004335)
Never heard of her before, can someone explain the significance? I see that Autobiography of Red is praised for blending different things like translation/novel in verse/essays together, but that doesn't sound like something new? I've read Milorad Pavic's Dictionary of Khazars before, seems like it fits the same description?
She is typically praised for her translations as well as the creative interplay of classical and modern imagery in her works. An aspect I think often overlooked is the relation of her text with the physical media of reading the text. For example Nox which is printed as a single continuous accordion-folded sheet.
I wish I could see a nice spoken performance of Autobiography of Red some day, it should be read out loud, imo. Her writing is very physical if that makes sense.
Among other things, Carson is a famous/prolific translator of Ancient Greek plays (including the ones that probably come to mind when you hear "Ancient Greek plays").
Why assume that novelty is a criterion for the worth of someone's literary output? Things can tread familiar ground, use familiar forms, and still be remarkable or worthwhile. (Imagine saying to Shakespeare: "Why write a book of love sonnets? Didn't Petrarch already do that?")
That said, I haven't read more than a few pieces by Carson and I'm curious to read more.
As a broad generality, you're right about novelty being a poor criterion.
But in the specific context of the Nobel Prize in Literature... The Prize's official mandate specifies an author who has "in the field of literature, produced the most outstanding work in an idealistic direction". There's also a "for the greatest benefit to humankind" criteria.
With those ground rules, writing Yet More Books in well-trod genres - but just slightly better than any of the other authors there - really doesn't seem to cut it for the Nobel Prize.
> "in the field of literature, produced the most outstanding work in an idealistic direction". There's also a "for the greatest benefit to humankind" criteria.
None of these two rules imply super duper novelty of the genre? Like, not at all, as far as those two rules are concerned, you can write a biography or genre detective story and still produce "outstanding work in an idealistic direction" or something for the "benefit to humankind".
I don't see "new" in either of the criteria you quoted. It also doesn't fit with the explicit reasons given for awarding the prize to many past recipients. Sometimes originality is a factor, but in many cases the reason is just judged merit.
Look at the list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Lit...
I try to understand what's the criterion, and inferred novelty since the other Nobel prizes seem to be awarded for some novel contributions. As I said, just trying to understand significance.
Novel contributions, poetry contributions, short story contributions, and so on.
I shouldn't be surprised that this news and Ms. Carson are popular here, but I am and it is delightful.
Iceland now has two Nobel laureates, or around 0.0005% of the population.
Two out of 122 Prizes in literature. Punching quite above its weight!
Is this an AI comment? Anne Carson is Canadian.
Icelandic citizen also and Iceland is one of the places she calls home. She was there when she got the news.
TIL! Apologies if I was too harsh.
Canadian media doesn't highlight her dual citizenship :)
She also has Icelandic citizenship.
What are the odds that yet another LGBT diaspora text wins again? I find it kind of hard to believe that this is the best writing this year when 6 of the last 10 Nobels have been LGBQ or ethnic diaspora adjacent.
2025: Krasznahorkai -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2024: Han Kang -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2023: Jon Fosse -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2022: Annie Ernaux -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2021: Abdulrazak Gurnah -- there are homoerotic themes in some of his work but the characters are not gay in terms of their identities, and homoeroticism has more to do with the ideas of power rather than sexual identities
2020: Louise Gluck -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2019: Peter Handke -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2018: Olga Tokarczuk -- I think her work is the one that fits your description best
2017: Kazuo Ishiguro -- no LGBT themes explicitely AFAIK, but queer readings of his work are a thing
2016: Bob Dylan -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
Gurnah is an immigrant (a refugee to be more precise) who can be considered living "in a diaspora" and his work does focus on the topic prominently. Ishiguro is a British citizen who thinks of himself as British, I believe, his parents moved when he was very young IIRC. He didn't visit Japan until his adulthood. I don't think his works are "disapora-adjecent" thematically but I only read two of his novels, so not completely confident here.
The rest write in their native languages and live in their birth countries.
I believe when you mention Carson's LGBT text, you refer to Autobiography of Red, it was written in the late 90s, not this year.
Edit: fixing typos, punctuation, and wording
> there are homoerotic themes in some of his work but the characters are not gay in terms of their identities, and homoeroticism has more to do with the ideas of power rather than sexual identities
Heavily anti-gay cultures (like Nazi and far right) produce surprising amounts of homoerotic art for some reason. I think it goes with certain kind of masculine supremacy - you need to convince boys they are better off with masculine boys only and somehow end up homoerotic as a result. Plus, I guess, once everybody is obviously not gay, people stop clocking those things as what they are.
Edit: not trying to imply that the book is like that, just want to support the point that homoerotic does not imply gay culture.
Tbh, I haven't read/watched much of explicitely far-right art but that sounds reasonable. IIRC nazis (as in NSDAP and whoever made art during that time) heavily focused on the idea of vitality, physicality, health, and the beauty of masculine strength which sounds like it is almost destined to produce homoerotic effect. I mean, if you encourage men to depict beautiful male bodies, you will get depictions from and for men who are really, realy into beautiful male bodies. :D
Carson, Gurnah have heavy LGB themes. Tokarczuk is an LGBT activist with light themes.
Ishiguro, Handke, Kang are known for their ethnic diaspora writings.
I suppose it really depends on how you see light/heavy and what you consider "diaspora writings" or "LGBT themes", whether you refer to text or subtext. For example, Han Kang writes a lot about alienation which is a thing that people in diasporas do experience but people experience it in many other contexts. When looking at her texts on the surface, most of her books are set in Korea and are about very Korean things, e.g. Jeju Massacre, Gwangju Uprising, etc.
For a long period, Nobel Prize winners were Nordics. Carson has Icelandic citizenship, so arguably falls into that too.
If you look at old Nobel Prize winners, you will find plenty of writers who are barely read now (at least in the English speaking world) and some like John Galsworthy whose reputation isn't what it used to be.
Things change; António Egas Moniz was awarded the1949 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for inventing the frontal lobotomy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_Egas_Moniz
I should have specified I was talking about the literature prize. Lobotomies though are definitely out of favour!!!
Nobels are given for a body of work, not the “best writing this year”, so your underlying premise is simply wrong.
If people are looking for more links/discussion on this subject I thought this little metafilter post did a good job linking out:
https://www.metafilter.com/214757/The-2026-Nobel-Prize-in-Li...
Having worked on a few Greek translation projects, the thing I always come back to with her is how she leaves the gaps in Sappho visible instead of smoothing them over. Brackets on the page. Most translators can't resist filling those in.
For a similar approach I would recommend checking out Guy Davenport's 7 Greeks. His translations of Sappho and Diogenes are commendable.
[flagged]
[dead]
Your loss. One of the most beautiful works of literature and short. Is the depiction of gay people that distressing to you? I read books about straights all the time.
Unfortunately activists have done a fantastic job turning gay into a broad political issue encompassing a lot of ideologies that many people find off-putting. So when you see a plot like this, your first thought is that 1) the author has a self righteous agenda and 2) the award is not deserved but rather given to signal sides in a culture war.
Neither of those things may be true. And that’s tragic because a lot of great work is going to be written off under these pretenses.
> your first thought is that
> 1) the author has a self righteous agenda and
> 2) the award is not deserved but rather given to signal sides in a culture war.
This is psychological projection from a debased information environment.
She has been studying classics, writing, and winning awards since at least 1975!
Quote: Carson is known to be reticent about her private life, and discourages autobiographical readings of her writings.Information about her in publications is often limited to the phrase: "Anne Carson was born in Canada and teaches ancient Greek for a living." While not a confessional poet, her work is considered personal. Carson has said that in her work, she uses her life democratically as just one set of facts among others in the world.
You should be less online so you don't lose your whole self to bottomless cynicism.
I should clarify that I personally would not write this off. But I understand the thinking a lot of people are using when they do.
The Nobel Prize in literature is given for a body of work, not for a specific publication. The book OP quotes does have gay characters but Anne Carson's body of work is hardly about LGBT issues specifically. Writing it off because of one sentence in an antagonistic comment is a bit strange. The Guardian article lists many other quotes of people describing what's compelling about her work.
> turning gay into a broad political issue encompassing a lot of ideologies that many people find off-putting
When was it otherwise?
When YOU see a plot like this. And that YOU see this says a lot more about YOU and your preoccupations with another person's sexuality. If you would just be honest and say "i don't like LGBT people", we'd save a lot of time.
I think you need to read what you’re replying to again, especially the last part.
> Unfortunately activists have done a fantastic job turning gay into a broad political issue encompassing a lot of ideologies that many people find off-putting
This is true of almost everything nowadays. I recoil at almost anything religious for similar reasons, even though I know not everybody that goes to church is a militant anti-abortionist christian nationalist. Nonetheless I will watch `The 10 Commandments` as it's still a very good example of the golden age of Hollywood epics.
I wouldn't call it "distressing", but we are entitled to like some genres and dislike others. Not everything should be for everyone. And generally some genres are over promoted by the big labels and imo have worse quality on average.
I don't really think poetry can reasonably be said to be a genre that's "over promoted by the big labels".
Hey ChatGPT, write poem. Make it so it gets a nobel prize. Make no mistakes, don't stop, keep going, you can do it!
(To clarify, this was supposed to be a jab at "AI culture", not at Anne Carson. To her also, nothing but respect!)
a few moments later ... In totally unrelated news, OpenAi has (all on its own without any help from anyone) created a Nobel prize worthy poem.
Yes yes... all on its own, without any help from anyone...
Holy yas!