Joined: July 5th, 2015, 5:03 pm

October 14th, 2017, 5:21 pm #131

I do think one feature of this year's laureate is it validates MFA programs, for whatever good that does.
Quote
Like
Share

Didi
Forum junkie
Didi
Forum junkie
Joined: October 22nd, 2013, 2:46 am

October 14th, 2017, 10:46 pm #132

only read one of his books long ago and from memory was reasonably good but not to the standard where I wanted to read more.

as per some others the benefit of speculation are the discoveries during that process (I have also added Edna O’Brien as an author to read as her name has popped up annually here and I am certain based on extracts that I will enjoy her works) and the winner has rarely prompted anything, and I am not planning to read anything further from this year’s winner

I see he has not been active recently apart from Buried Giant and since that exclusively songwriting....
Quote
Like
Share

oneofmurphysbiscuits
Forum junkie
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 9:12 pm

October 14th, 2017, 10:55 pm #133

Whatever good that does...about covers it
I only think, if that is the name for this vertiginous panic as of hornets smoked out of their nests, once a certain degree of terror has been exceeded
Quote
Like
Share

mandm
Forum junkie
mandm
Forum junkie
Joined: September 27th, 2009, 7:28 pm

November 11th, 2017, 7:42 pm #134

How many Nobel prize winners have you read at least one entire book by per decade ?

Me:

1900: 1
10: 1
20: 4
30: 1
40: 4
50: 3
60: 4
70: 4
80: 4
90: 5
2000: 5
10: 5
Quote
Like
Share

nnyhav
Forum junkie
nnyhav
Forum junkie
Joined: October 6th, 2008, 12:26 pm

November 12th, 2017, 1:28 am #135

mandm wrote:How many Nobel prize winners have you read at least one entire book by per decade ?
okay, did it for giggles, found overall I've read half the laureates, huh:
1900: 1 / 10: 1 / 20: 4 / 30: 2 / 40: 4 / 50: 4 / 60: 7 / 70: 6 / 80: 8 / 90: 7 / 2000: 7 / 10: 5
Quote
Like
Share

Cleanthes
Forum junkie
Cleanthes
Forum junkie
Joined: March 16th, 2013, 12:10 am

November 12th, 2017, 2:12 am #136

Feel a bit silly posting this, but games are often silly:

1901-10: 5 // 11-20: 5 // 21-30: 6 // 31-39: 5 // 44-50: 4 // 51-60: 4 // 61-70: 6 // 71-80: 7 // 81-90: 6 // 91-2000: 3 // 2001-10: 7 // 11-17: 5

The 90s are the less appealing decade to me, laureate-wise.
Don't take life so serious, son. It ain't nohow permanent.
?\_(ツ)_/?
Quote
Like
Share

mandm
Forum junkie
mandm
Forum junkie
Joined: September 27th, 2009, 7:28 pm

November 12th, 2017, 9:17 am #137

Well, of course it is silly. And I'll try to avoid become a gamesmaster... the reason I counted really was to see how 'canonical' (cringe) my reading has been. Silly thing in itself, really.

This Guardian article has some mainly predictable suggestions on expanding the canon. Feels like this debate hasn't moved on enough in twenty years or so...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/ ... e-syllabus
Quote
Like
Share

Funhouse
Forum junkie
Funhouse
Forum junkie
Joined: December 5th, 2006, 10:24 am

November 12th, 2017, 9:38 am #138

Okay, I'll play. I've been making more of an effort with recent winners...

1900: 1
10: 1
20: 3
30: 2
40: 3
50: 2
60: 3
70: 4
80: 3
90: 5
2000: 6
10: 8
?He wishes he had never entered the funhouse. But he has. Then he wishes he were dead. But he's not. Therefore he will construct funhouses for others and be their secret operator--though he would rather be among the lovers for whom funhouses are designed.?
Quote
Like
Share

Bjorn
Forum junkie
Bjorn
Forum junkie
Joined: September 28th, 2011, 8:53 am

November 12th, 2017, 10:35 am #139

Hmmm. If I count individual poems (that I distinctly remember) as opposed to full collections, and at least one that I gave up on halfway through a novel.

1900: 3
10: 1
20: 3
30: 0
40: 2
50: 2
60: 1
70: 5
80: 5
90: 3
2000: 6
10: 8

Some really embarrassing holes in my reading, especially during the 30s-60s.
I did not get into rock'n'roll to play rock'n'roll! (Blixa Bargeld)
Goodreads Movie list Twitter
Quote
Like
Share

param
Literary lunatic
param
Literary lunatic
Joined: October 2nd, 2011, 6:48 am

November 13th, 2017, 9:43 am #140

Here I go.. first half of last century, a lot of reading to do.

1900s : 1
10 : 2
20 : 2
30: 4
40 : 2
50 : 4
60 : 8
70 : 3
80 : 3
90 : 7
00 : 9
10 : 7
Quote
Like
Share