As a casual observer of modern literature and economics, I naturally try to draw broad generalizations about what the Nobel Prizes mean about their disciplines - generalizations only appropriate for blogging.  (In the hard sciences, the extremely narrow contributions of the winners suggests very technical specialization, which I can't say I envy).  In economics, it's all working - sure, maybe Eugene Fama should have one of these already - but the awards give the discipline a chance to show off its range, and hardly look crazy, as  a matter of citation and so on.  The political correctness looks muted - even Krugman, last year's winner, made a lot of long lists.  I suppose you could pretzel twist the Ostrom-Williamson nod into recognition for law and economics too. 

With literature, however, overinterpreting the prize allows one to conclude that it exemplifies all of the problems of the discipline.  The winners are often obscure, political correctness seems to be very important, and even the well-known recipients (Lessing, Naipaul) are never, ever entertaining.  As the Awl said, Herta Muller joins "such recent notables as JMG Le Clézio and Gao Xingjian!"  Perhaps fun and reach shouldn't quite be the anathema that the committee...but then, I suspect, it just wouldn't be Serious Modern Literature.

UPDATE:  Bainbridge, the Volokhs, and Truth on the Market are generally enthused.

Economics | Bookmark

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e20120a5dc4e76970b

Links to weblogs that reference The Nobels as a Symbol of Their Disciplines: