Questões de Inglês

Text

[1]   Among the five prizes provided for in  

Alfred Nobel's will (1895), one was  

intended for the person who, in the  

literary field, had produced "the most  

[5] outstanding work in an ideal direction".  

The Laureate should be determined by  

"the Academy in Stockholm", which was  

specified by the statutes of the Nobel  

Foundation to mean the Swedish  

[10] Academy. These statutes defined literature  

as "not only belles-lettres, but also other  

writings which, by virtue of their form and  

style, possess literary value".  

  As guidelines for the distribution of the  

[15] Literature Prize, the Swedish Academy had  

the general requirement for all the prizes  

– the candidate should have bestowed  

"the greatest benefit on mankind" – and  

the special condition for literature, "in an  

[20] ideal direction". Both prescriptions are  

vague and the second, in particular, was  

to cause much discussion. What did Nobel  

actually mean by ideal? In fact, the history  

of the Literature Prize appears as a series  

[25] of attempts to interpret an imprecisely  

worded will. The consecutive phases in  

that history reflect the changing sensibility  

of an Academy continuously renewing  

itself. The main source of knowledge of  

[30] the principles and criteria applied is the  

annual reports which the Committee  

presented to the Academy. Also the  

correspondence between the members is  

often enlightening. There is an obstacle  

[35] though: all Nobel information is to be  

secret for 50 years. 

  A chapter in the history of the Literary  

Prize could be entitled "A Literary Policy of  

Neutrality". The objectives laid down by  

[40] the new chairman of the Academy's Nobel  

Committee at the beginning of the First  

World War kept the belligerent powers  

outside, giving the small nations a chance.  

This policy partly explains the  

[45] Scandinavian overrepresentation on the  

list in this period.  

  Another period, approximately  

coinciding with the 1920s, could be  

labeled "The Great Style". This key  

[50] concept in the reports of the Committee  

reveals the connections with Wirsén's  

epoch and its traits of classicism. With  

such a standard the Academy was, of  

course, out of touch with what happened  

[55] in contemporary literature. It could  

appreciate Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks 

– a masterpiece "approaching the classical  

realism in Tolstoy" – but passed his Magic 

Mountain over in silence.  

[60]   In line with the requirement "the  

greatest benefit on mankind", the  

Academy of the 1930s tried a new  

approach, equating this "mankind" with  

the immediate readership of the works in  

[65] question. A report of its Committee stated  

"universal interest" as a criterion and the  

Academy decided on writers within  

everybody's reach, from Sinclair Lewis to  

Pearl Buck, repudiating exclusive poets  

[70] like Paul Valéry and Paul Claudel. 

  Given a pause for renewal by the  

Second World War and inspired by its new  

secretary, Anders Österling, the post-war  

Academy finished this excursion into  

[75] popular taste, focusing instead on what  

was called "the pioneers". Like in the  

sciences, the Laureates were to be found  

among those who paved the way for new  

developments. In a way, this is another  

[80] interpretation of the formula "the greatest  

benefit on mankind": the perfect candidate  

was the one who had provided world  

literature with new possibilities in outlook  

and language. 

[85]   The “pioneers" criterion lost weight,  

however, as the heroic period of the  

international avant-garde turned into  

history and literary innovation became less  

ostentatious. Instead, the instruments  

[90] pointed at the "pioneers" of specific  

linguistic areas. The 1988 Prize was  

awarded a writer who, from a Western  

point of view, rather administers the  

heritage from Flaubert and Thomas Mann.  

[95] In the Arabic world, on the other hand,  

Naguib Mahfouz appears as the creator of  

its contemporary novel.  

  Another policy, partly coinciding with  

the one just outlined, partly replacing it, is  

[100] "the pragmatic consideration". A growing  

number within the Academy wanted to call  

attention to important but unnoticed  

writers and literatures, thus giving the  

world audience masterpieces they would  

[105] otherwise miss, and at the same time,  

giving an important writer due attention.  

The criterion gives poetry a prominent  

place. In no other period were the poets  

so well provided for as in the years 1990- 

[110] 1996 when four of the seven prizes went  

to Octavio Paz, Derek Walcott, Seamus  

Heaney, and Wislawa Szymborska, all of  

them earlier unknown to the world  

audience. 

[115]   The criteria discussed sometimes  

alternate, sometimes coincide. The  

spotlight on the unknown master Canetti  

in 1981 is thus followed by the laurel to 

the universally hailed "pioneer" of magic  

[120] realism, Gabriel García Márquez, in 1982.  

Some Laureates answer both  

requirements, like Faulkner, who was not  

only "the great experimentalist among  

twentieth-century novelists" – the  

[125] Academy was here fortunate enough to  

anticipate Faulkner's enormous  

importance to later fiction - but also, in  

1950, a fairly unknown writer.  

  It is also realized that on the whole the  

[130] serious literature that is worthy of a prize  

furthers knowledge of man and his  

condition and endeavours to enrich and  

improve his life.  

  The Literary Prize has often given rise  

[135] to discussion of its political implications.  

The Swedish Academy, for its part, has on  

many occasions expressed a desire to  

stand apart from political antagonisms.  

The guiding principle, in Lars Gyllensten's  

[140] words, has been "political integrity". This  

has quite often not been understood.  

  The history of the Literature Prize is  

also the history of its reception in the  

press and in other media. Apart from  

[145] overlooking the changes in outlooks and  

criteria within the Swedish Academy,  

international criticism has tended to  

neglect the crowd of likely names around  

the Prize a specific year. The Academy  

[150] cannot have the ambition to crown all  

worthy writers. What it cannot afford is  

giving Nobel's laurel to a minor talent. Its  

practice during the last full half-century  

has also largely escaped criticism on that  

[155] point. 

Adapted from the text by Kjell Espmark nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature

The policy of pragmatic consideration

Text

[1]   Among the five prizes provided for in  

Alfred Nobel's will (1895), one was  

intended for the person who, in the  

literary field, had produced "the most  

[5] outstanding work in an ideal direction".  

The Laureate should be determined by  

"the Academy in Stockholm", which was  

specified by the statutes of the Nobel  

Foundation to mean the Swedish  

[10] Academy. These statutes defined literature  

as "not only belles-lettres, but also other  

writings which, by virtue of their form and  

style, possess literary value".  

  As guidelines for the distribution of the  

[15] Literature Prize, the Swedish Academy had  

the general requirement for all the prizes  

– the candidate should have bestowed  

"the greatest benefit on mankind" – and  

the special condition for literature, "in an  

[20] ideal direction". Both prescriptions are  

vague and the second, in particular, was  

to cause much discussion. What did Nobel  

actually mean by ideal? In fact, the history  

of the Literature Prize appears as a series  

[25] of attempts to interpret an imprecisely  

worded will. The consecutive phases in  

that history reflect the changing sensibility  

of an Academy continuously renewing  

itself. The main source of knowledge of  

[30] the principles and criteria applied is the  

annual reports which the Committee  

presented to the Academy. Also the  

correspondence between the members is  

often enlightening. There is an obstacle  

[35] though: all Nobel information is to be  

secret for 50 years. 

  A chapter in the history of the Literary  

Prize could be entitled "A Literary Policy of  

Neutrality". The objectives laid down by  

[40] the new chairman of the Academy's Nobel  

Committee at the beginning of the First  

World War kept the belligerent powers  

outside, giving the small nations a chance.  

This policy partly explains the  

[45] Scandinavian overrepresentation on the  

list in this period.  

  Another period, approximately  

coinciding with the 1920s, could be  

labeled "The Great Style". This key  

[50] concept in the reports of the Committee  

reveals the connections with Wirsén's  

epoch and its traits of classicism. With  

such a standard the Academy was, of  

course, out of touch with what happened  

[55] in contemporary literature. It could  

appreciate Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks 

– a masterpiece "approaching the classical  

realism in Tolstoy" – but passed his Magic 

Mountain over in silence.  

[60]   In line with the requirement "the  

greatest benefit on mankind", the  

Academy of the 1930s tried a new  

approach, equating this "mankind" with  

the immediate readership of the works in  

[65] question. A report of its Committee stated  

"universal interest" as a criterion and the  

Academy decided on writers within  

everybody's reach, from Sinclair Lewis to  

Pearl Buck, repudiating exclusive poets  

[70] like Paul Valéry and Paul Claudel. 

  Given a pause for renewal by the  

Second World War and inspired by its new  

secretary, Anders Österling, the post-war  

Academy finished this excursion into  

[75] popular taste, focusing instead on what  

was called "the pioneers". Like in the  

sciences, the Laureates were to be found  

among those who paved the way for new  

developments. In a way, this is another  

[80] interpretation of the formula "the greatest  

benefit on mankind": the perfect candidate  

was the one who had provided world  

literature with new possibilities in outlook  

and language. 

[85]   The “pioneers" criterion lost weight,  

however, as the heroic period of the  

international avant-garde turned into  

history and literary innovation became less  

ostentatious. Instead, the instruments  

[90] pointed at the "pioneers" of specific  

linguistic areas. The 1988 Prize was  

awarded a writer who, from a Western  

point of view, rather administers the  

heritage from Flaubert and Thomas Mann.  

[95] In the Arabic world, on the other hand,  

Naguib Mahfouz appears as the creator of  

its contemporary novel.  

  Another policy, partly coinciding with  

the one just outlined, partly replacing it, is  

[100] "the pragmatic consideration". A growing  

number within the Academy wanted to call  

attention to important but unnoticed  

writers and literatures, thus giving the  

world audience masterpieces they would  

[105] otherwise miss, and at the same time,  

giving an important writer due attention.  

The criterion gives poetry a prominent  

place. In no other period were the poets  

so well provided for as in the years 1990- 

[110] 1996 when four of the seven prizes went  

to Octavio Paz, Derek Walcott, Seamus  

Heaney, and Wislawa Szymborska, all of  

them earlier unknown to the world  

audience. 

[115]   The criteria discussed sometimes  

alternate, sometimes coincide. The  

spotlight on the unknown master Canetti  

in 1981 is thus followed by the laurel to 

the universally hailed "pioneer" of magic  

[120] realism, Gabriel García Márquez, in 1982.  

Some Laureates answer both  

requirements, like Faulkner, who was not  

only "the great experimentalist among  

twentieth-century novelists" – the  

[125] Academy was here fortunate enough to  

anticipate Faulkner's enormous  

importance to later fiction - but also, in  

1950, a fairly unknown writer.  

  It is also realized that on the whole the  

[130] serious literature that is worthy of a prize  

furthers knowledge of man and his  

condition and endeavours to enrich and  

improve his life.  

  The Literary Prize has often given rise  

[135] to discussion of its political implications.  

The Swedish Academy, for its part, has on  

many occasions expressed a desire to  

stand apart from political antagonisms.  

The guiding principle, in Lars Gyllensten's  

[140] words, has been "political integrity". This  

has quite often not been understood.  

  The history of the Literature Prize is  

also the history of its reception in the  

press and in other media. Apart from  

[145] overlooking the changes in outlooks and  

criteria within the Swedish Academy,  

international criticism has tended to  

neglect the crowd of likely names around  

the Prize a specific year. The Academy  

[150] cannot have the ambition to crown all  

worthy writers. What it cannot afford is  

giving Nobel's laurel to a minor talent. Its  

practice during the last full half-century  

has also largely escaped criticism on that  

[155] point. 

Adapted from the text by Kjell Espmark nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature

An Academy’s principle that has frequently been misunderstood is the one concerning

Text

[1]   Among the five prizes provided for in  

Alfred Nobel's will (1895), one was  

intended for the person who, in the  

literary field, had produced "the most  

[5] outstanding work in an ideal direction".  

The Laureate should be determined by  

"the Academy in Stockholm", which was  

specified by the statutes of the Nobel  

Foundation to mean the Swedish  

[10] Academy. These statutes defined literature  

as "not only belles-lettres, but also other  

writings which, by virtue of their form and  

style, possess literary value".  

  As guidelines for the distribution of the  

[15] Literature Prize, the Swedish Academy had  

the general requirement for all the prizes  

– the candidate should have bestowed  

"the greatest benefit on mankind" – and  

the special condition for literature, "in an  

[20] ideal direction". Both prescriptions are  

vague and the second, in particular, was  

to cause much discussion. What did Nobel  

actually mean by ideal? In fact, the history  

of the Literature Prize appears as a series  

[25] of attempts to interpret an imprecisely  

worded will. The consecutive phases in  

that history reflect the changing sensibility  

of an Academy continuously renewing  

itself. The main source of knowledge of  

[30] the principles and criteria applied is the  

annual reports which the Committee  

presented to the Academy. Also the  

correspondence between the members is  

often enlightening. There is an obstacle  

[35] though: all Nobel information is to be  

secret for 50 years. 

  A chapter in the history of the Literary  

Prize could be entitled "A Literary Policy of  

Neutrality". The objectives laid down by  

[40] the new chairman of the Academy's Nobel  

Committee at the beginning of the First  

World War kept the belligerent powers  

outside, giving the small nations a chance.  

This policy partly explains the  

[45] Scandinavian overrepresentation on the  

list in this period.  

  Another period, approximately  

coinciding with the 1920s, could be  

labeled "The Great Style". This key  

[50] concept in the reports of the Committee  

reveals the connections with Wirsén's  

epoch and its traits of classicism. With  

such a standard the Academy was, of  

course, out of touch with what happened  

[55] in contemporary literature. It could  

appreciate Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks 

– a masterpiece "approaching the classical  

realism in Tolstoy" – but passed his Magic 

Mountain over in silence.  

[60]   In line with the requirement "the  

greatest benefit on mankind", the  

Academy of the 1930s tried a new  

approach, equating this "mankind" with  

the immediate readership of the works in  

[65] question. A report of its Committee stated  

"universal interest" as a criterion and the  

Academy decided on writers within  

everybody's reach, from Sinclair Lewis to  

Pearl Buck, repudiating exclusive poets  

[70] like Paul Valéry and Paul Claudel. 

  Given a pause for renewal by the  

Second World War and inspired by its new  

secretary, Anders Österling, the post-war  

Academy finished this excursion into  

[75] popular taste, focusing instead on what  

was called "the pioneers". Like in the  

sciences, the Laureates were to be found  

among those who paved the way for new  

developments. In a way, this is another  

[80] interpretation of the formula "the greatest  

benefit on mankind": the perfect candidate  

was the one who had provided world  

literature with new possibilities in outlook  

and language. 

[85]   The “pioneers" criterion lost weight,  

however, as the heroic period of the  

international avant-garde turned into  

history and literary innovation became less  

ostentatious. Instead, the instruments  

[90] pointed at the "pioneers" of specific  

linguistic areas. The 1988 Prize was  

awarded a writer who, from a Western  

point of view, rather administers the  

heritage from Flaubert and Thomas Mann.  

[95] In the Arabic world, on the other hand,  

Naguib Mahfouz appears as the creator of  

its contemporary novel.  

  Another policy, partly coinciding with  

the one just outlined, partly replacing it, is  

[100] "the pragmatic consideration". A growing  

number within the Academy wanted to call  

attention to important but unnoticed  

writers and literatures, thus giving the  

world audience masterpieces they would  

[105] otherwise miss, and at the same time,  

giving an important writer due attention.  

The criterion gives poetry a prominent  

place. In no other period were the poets  

so well provided for as in the years 1990- 

[110] 1996 when four of the seven prizes went  

to Octavio Paz, Derek Walcott, Seamus  

Heaney, and Wislawa Szymborska, all of  

them earlier unknown to the world  

audience. 

[115]   The criteria discussed sometimes  

alternate, sometimes coincide. The  

spotlight on the unknown master Canetti  

in 1981 is thus followed by the laurel to 

the universally hailed "pioneer" of magic  

[120] realism, Gabriel García Márquez, in 1982.  

Some Laureates answer both  

requirements, like Faulkner, who was not  

only "the great experimentalist among  

twentieth-century novelists" – the  

[125] Academy was here fortunate enough to  

anticipate Faulkner's enormous  

importance to later fiction - but also, in  

1950, a fairly unknown writer.  

  It is also realized that on the whole the  

[130] serious literature that is worthy of a prize  

furthers knowledge of man and his  

condition and endeavours to enrich and  

improve his life.  

  The Literary Prize has often given rise  

[135] to discussion of its political implications.  

The Swedish Academy, for its part, has on  

many occasions expressed a desire to  

stand apart from political antagonisms.  

The guiding principle, in Lars Gyllensten's  

[140] words, has been "political integrity". This  

has quite often not been understood.  

  The history of the Literature Prize is  

also the history of its reception in the  

press and in other media. Apart from  

[145] overlooking the changes in outlooks and  

criteria within the Swedish Academy,  

international criticism has tended to  

neglect the crowd of likely names around  

the Prize a specific year. The Academy  

[150] cannot have the ambition to crown all  

worthy writers. What it cannot afford is  

giving Nobel's laurel to a minor talent. Its  

practice during the last full half-century  

has also largely escaped criticism on that  

[155] point. 

Adapted from the text by Kjell Espmark nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature

The writer who won the Prize in 1988

Text

[1]   Among the five prizes provided for in  

Alfred Nobel's will (1895), one was  

intended for the person who, in the  

literary field, had produced "the most  

[5] outstanding work in an ideal direction".  

The Laureate should be determined by  

"the Academy in Stockholm", which was  

specified by the statutes of the Nobel  

Foundation to mean the Swedish  

[10] Academy. These statutes defined literature  

as "not only belles-lettres, but also other  

writings which, by virtue of their form and  

style, possess literary value".  

  As guidelines for the distribution of the  

[15] Literature Prize, the Swedish Academy had  

the general requirement for all the prizes  

– the candidate should have bestowed  

"the greatest benefit on mankind" – and  

the special condition for literature, "in an  

[20] ideal direction". Both prescriptions are  

vague and the second, in particular, was  

to cause much discussion. What did Nobel  

actually mean by ideal? In fact, the history  

of the Literature Prize appears as a series  

[25] of attempts to interpret an imprecisely  

worded will. The consecutive phases in  

that history reflect the changing sensibility  

of an Academy continuously renewing  

itself. The main source of knowledge of  

[30] the principles and criteria applied is the  

annual reports which the Committee  

presented to the Academy. Also the  

correspondence between the members is  

often enlightening. There is an obstacle  

[35] though: all Nobel information is to be  

secret for 50 years. 

  A chapter in the history of the Literary  

Prize could be entitled "A Literary Policy of  

Neutrality". The objectives laid down by  

[40] the new chairman of the Academy's Nobel  

Committee at the beginning of the First  

World War kept the belligerent powers  

outside, giving the small nations a chance.  

This policy partly explains the  

[45] Scandinavian overrepresentation on the  

list in this period.  

  Another period, approximately  

coinciding with the 1920s, could be  

labeled "The Great Style". This key  

[50] concept in the reports of the Committee  

reveals the connections with Wirsén's  

epoch and its traits of classicism. With  

such a standard the Academy was, of  

course, out of touch with what happened  

[55] in contemporary literature. It could  

appreciate Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks 

– a masterpiece "approaching the classical  

realism in Tolstoy" – but passed his Magic 

Mountain over in silence.  

[60]   In line with the requirement "the  

greatest benefit on mankind", the  

Academy of the 1930s tried a new  

approach, equating this "mankind" with  

the immediate readership of the works in  

[65] question. A report of its Committee stated  

"universal interest" as a criterion and the  

Academy decided on writers within  

everybody's reach, from Sinclair Lewis to  

Pearl Buck, repudiating exclusive poets  

[70] like Paul Valéry and Paul Claudel. 

  Given a pause for renewal by the  

Second World War and inspired by its new  

secretary, Anders Österling, the post-war  

Academy finished this excursion into  

[75] popular taste, focusing instead on what  

was called "the pioneers". Like in the  

sciences, the Laureates were to be found  

among those who paved the way for new  

developments. In a way, this is another  

[80] interpretation of the formula "the greatest  

benefit on mankind": the perfect candidate  

was the one who had provided world  

literature with new possibilities in outlook  

and language. 

[85]   The “pioneers" criterion lost weight,  

however, as the heroic period of the  

international avant-garde turned into  

history and literary innovation became less  

ostentatious. Instead, the instruments  

[90] pointed at the "pioneers" of specific  

linguistic areas. The 1988 Prize was  

awarded a writer who, from a Western  

point of view, rather administers the  

heritage from Flaubert and Thomas Mann.  

[95] In the Arabic world, on the other hand,  

Naguib Mahfouz appears as the creator of  

its contemporary novel.  

  Another policy, partly coinciding with  

the one just outlined, partly replacing it, is  

[100] "the pragmatic consideration". A growing  

number within the Academy wanted to call  

attention to important but unnoticed  

writers and literatures, thus giving the  

world audience masterpieces they would  

[105] otherwise miss, and at the same time,  

giving an important writer due attention.  

The criterion gives poetry a prominent  

place. In no other period were the poets  

so well provided for as in the years 1990- 

[110] 1996 when four of the seven prizes went  

to Octavio Paz, Derek Walcott, Seamus  

Heaney, and Wislawa Szymborska, all of  

them earlier unknown to the world  

audience. 

[115]   The criteria discussed sometimes  

alternate, sometimes coincide. The  

spotlight on the unknown master Canetti  

in 1981 is thus followed by the laurel to 

the universally hailed "pioneer" of magic  

[120] realism, Gabriel García Márquez, in 1982.  

Some Laureates answer both  

requirements, like Faulkner, who was not  

only "the great experimentalist among  

twentieth-century novelists" – the  

[125] Academy was here fortunate enough to  

anticipate Faulkner's enormous  

importance to later fiction - but also, in  

1950, a fairly unknown writer.  

  It is also realized that on the whole the  

[130] serious literature that is worthy of a prize  

furthers knowledge of man and his  

condition and endeavours to enrich and  

improve his life.  

  The Literary Prize has often given rise  

[135] to discussion of its political implications.  

The Swedish Academy, for its part, has on  

many occasions expressed a desire to  

stand apart from political antagonisms.  

The guiding principle, in Lars Gyllensten's  

[140] words, has been "political integrity". This  

has quite often not been understood.  

  The history of the Literature Prize is  

also the history of its reception in the  

press and in other media. Apart from  

[145] overlooking the changes in outlooks and  

criteria within the Swedish Academy,  

international criticism has tended to  

neglect the crowd of likely names around  

the Prize a specific year. The Academy  

[150] cannot have the ambition to crown all  

worthy writers. What it cannot afford is  

giving Nobel's laurel to a minor talent. Its  

practice during the last full half-century  

has also largely escaped criticism on that  

[155] point. 

Adapted from the text by Kjell Espmark nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature

With the secretary Anders Osterling at the Academy, the so-called Laureates would be writers who could 

Text

[1]   Among the five prizes provided for in  

Alfred Nobel's will (1895), one was  

intended for the person who, in the  

literary field, had produced "the most  

[5] outstanding work in an ideal direction".  

The Laureate should be determined by  

"the Academy in Stockholm", which was  

specified by the statutes of the Nobel  

Foundation to mean the Swedish  

[10] Academy. These statutes defined literature  

as "not only belles-lettres, but also other  

writings which, by virtue of their form and  

style, possess literary value".  

  As guidelines for the distribution of the  

[15] Literature Prize, the Swedish Academy had  

the general requirement for all the prizes  

– the candidate should have bestowed  

"the greatest benefit on mankind" – and  

the special condition for literature, "in an  

[20] ideal direction". Both prescriptions are  

vague and the second, in particular, was  

to cause much discussion. What did Nobel  

actually mean by ideal? In fact, the history  

of the Literature Prize appears as a series  

[25] of attempts to interpret an imprecisely  

worded will. The consecutive phases in  

that history reflect the changing sensibility  

of an Academy continuously renewing  

itself. The main source of knowledge of  

[30] the principles and criteria applied is the  

annual reports which the Committee  

presented to the Academy. Also the  

correspondence between the members is  

often enlightening. There is an obstacle  

[35] though: all Nobel information is to be  

secret for 50 years. 

  A chapter in the history of the Literary  

Prize could be entitled "A Literary Policy of  

Neutrality". The objectives laid down by  

[40] the new chairman of the Academy's Nobel  

Committee at the beginning of the First  

World War kept the belligerent powers  

outside, giving the small nations a chance.  

This policy partly explains the  

[45] Scandinavian overrepresentation on the  

list in this period.  

  Another period, approximately  

coinciding with the 1920s, could be  

labeled "The Great Style". This key  

[50] concept in the reports of the Committee  

reveals the connections with Wirsén's  

epoch and its traits of classicism. With  

such a standard the Academy was, of  

course, out of touch with what happened  

[55] in contemporary literature. It could  

appreciate Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks 

– a masterpiece "approaching the classical  

realism in Tolstoy" – but passed his Magic 

Mountain over in silence.  

[60]   In line with the requirement "the  

greatest benefit on mankind", the  

Academy of the 1930s tried a new  

approach, equating this "mankind" with  

the immediate readership of the works in  

[65] question. A report of its Committee stated  

"universal interest" as a criterion and the  

Academy decided on writers within  

everybody's reach, from Sinclair Lewis to  

Pearl Buck, repudiating exclusive poets  

[70] like Paul Valéry and Paul Claudel. 

  Given a pause for renewal by the  

Second World War and inspired by its new  

secretary, Anders Österling, the post-war  

Academy finished this excursion into  

[75] popular taste, focusing instead on what  

was called "the pioneers". Like in the  

sciences, the Laureates were to be found  

among those who paved the way for new  

developments. In a way, this is another  

[80] interpretation of the formula "the greatest  

benefit on mankind": the perfect candidate  

was the one who had provided world  

literature with new possibilities in outlook  

and language. 

[85]   The “pioneers" criterion lost weight,  

however, as the heroic period of the  

international avant-garde turned into  

history and literary innovation became less  

ostentatious. Instead, the instruments  

[90] pointed at the "pioneers" of specific  

linguistic areas. The 1988 Prize was  

awarded a writer who, from a Western  

point of view, rather administers the  

heritage from Flaubert and Thomas Mann.  

[95] In the Arabic world, on the other hand,  

Naguib Mahfouz appears as the creator of  

its contemporary novel.  

  Another policy, partly coinciding with  

the one just outlined, partly replacing it, is  

[100] "the pragmatic consideration". A growing  

number within the Academy wanted to call  

attention to important but unnoticed  

writers and literatures, thus giving the  

world audience masterpieces they would  

[105] otherwise miss, and at the same time,  

giving an important writer due attention.  

The criterion gives poetry a prominent  

place. In no other period were the poets  

so well provided for as in the years 1990- 

[110] 1996 when four of the seven prizes went  

to Octavio Paz, Derek Walcott, Seamus  

Heaney, and Wislawa Szymborska, all of  

them earlier unknown to the world  

audience. 

[115]   The criteria discussed sometimes  

alternate, sometimes coincide. The  

spotlight on the unknown master Canetti  

in 1981 is thus followed by the laurel to 

the universally hailed "pioneer" of magic  

[120] realism, Gabriel García Márquez, in 1982.  

Some Laureates answer both  

requirements, like Faulkner, who was not  

only "the great experimentalist among  

twentieth-century novelists" – the  

[125] Academy was here fortunate enough to  

anticipate Faulkner's enormous  

importance to later fiction - but also, in  

1950, a fairly unknown writer.  

  It is also realized that on the whole the  

[130] serious literature that is worthy of a prize  

furthers knowledge of man and his  

condition and endeavours to enrich and  

improve his life.  

  The Literary Prize has often given rise  

[135] to discussion of its political implications.  

The Swedish Academy, for its part, has on  

many occasions expressed a desire to  

stand apart from political antagonisms.  

The guiding principle, in Lars Gyllensten's  

[140] words, has been "political integrity". This  

has quite often not been understood.  

  The history of the Literature Prize is  

also the history of its reception in the  

press and in other media. Apart from  

[145] overlooking the changes in outlooks and  

criteria within the Swedish Academy,  

international criticism has tended to  

neglect the crowd of likely names around  

the Prize a specific year. The Academy  

[150] cannot have the ambition to crown all  

worthy writers. What it cannot afford is  

giving Nobel's laurel to a minor talent. Its  

practice during the last full half-century  

has also largely escaped criticism on that  

[155] point. 

Adapted from the text by Kjell Espmark nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature

As to criticism toward the Academy, the author of the text says that they tend not to take into account 

Text

[1]   Among the five prizes provided for in  

Alfred Nobel's will (1895), one was  

intended for the person who, in the  

literary field, had produced "the most  

[5] outstanding work in an ideal direction".  

The Laureate should be determined by  

"the Academy in Stockholm", which was  

specified by the statutes of the Nobel  

Foundation to mean the Swedish  

[10] Academy. These statutes defined literature  

as "not only belles-lettres, but also other  

writings which, by virtue of their form and  

style, possess literary value".  

  As guidelines for the distribution of the  

[15] Literature Prize, the Swedish Academy had  

the general requirement for all the prizes  

– the candidate should have bestowed  

"the greatest benefit on mankind" – and  

the special condition for literature, "in an  

[20] ideal direction". Both prescriptions are  

vague and the second, in particular, was  

to cause much discussion. What did Nobel  

actually mean by ideal? In fact, the history  

of the Literature Prize appears as a series  

[25] of attempts to interpret an imprecisely  

worded will. The consecutive phases in  

that history reflect the changing sensibility  

of an Academy continuously renewing  

itself. The main source of knowledge of  

[30] the principles and criteria applied is the  

annual reports which the Committee  

presented to the Academy. Also the  

correspondence between the members is  

often enlightening. There is an obstacle  

[35] though: all Nobel information is to be  

secret for 50 years. 

  A chapter in the history of the Literary  

Prize could be entitled "A Literary Policy of  

Neutrality". The objectives laid down by  

[40] the new chairman of the Academy's Nobel  

Committee at the beginning of the First  

World War kept the belligerent powers  

outside, giving the small nations a chance.  

This policy partly explains the  

[45] Scandinavian overrepresentation on the  

list in this period.  

  Another period, approximately  

coinciding with the 1920s, could be  

labeled "The Great Style". This key  

[50] concept in the reports of the Committee  

reveals the connections with Wirsén's  

epoch and its traits of classicism. With  

such a standard the Academy was, of  

course, out of touch with what happened  

[55] in contemporary literature. It could  

appreciate Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks 

– a masterpiece "approaching the classical  

realism in Tolstoy" – but passed his Magic 

Mountain over in silence.  

[60]   In line with the requirement "the  

greatest benefit on mankind", the  

Academy of the 1930s tried a new  

approach, equating this "mankind" with  

the immediate readership of the works in  

[65] question. A report of its Committee stated  

"universal interest" as a criterion and the  

Academy decided on writers within  

everybody's reach, from Sinclair Lewis to  

Pearl Buck, repudiating exclusive poets  

[70] like Paul Valéry and Paul Claudel. 

  Given a pause for renewal by the  

Second World War and inspired by its new  

secretary, Anders Österling, the post-war  

Academy finished this excursion into  

[75] popular taste, focusing instead on what  

was called "the pioneers". Like in the  

sciences, the Laureates were to be found  

among those who paved the way for new  

developments. In a way, this is another  

[80] interpretation of the formula "the greatest  

benefit on mankind": the perfect candidate  

was the one who had provided world  

literature with new possibilities in outlook  

and language. 

[85]   The “pioneers" criterion lost weight,  

however, as the heroic period of the  

international avant-garde turned into  

history and literary innovation became less  

ostentatious. Instead, the instruments  

[90] pointed at the "pioneers" of specific  

linguistic areas. The 1988 Prize was  

awarded a writer who, from a Western  

point of view, rather administers the  

heritage from Flaubert and Thomas Mann.  

[95] In the Arabic world, on the other hand,  

Naguib Mahfouz appears as the creator of  

its contemporary novel.  

  Another policy, partly coinciding with  

the one just outlined, partly replacing it, is  

[100] "the pragmatic consideration". A growing  

number within the Academy wanted to call  

attention to important but unnoticed  

writers and literatures, thus giving the  

world audience masterpieces they would  

[105] otherwise miss, and at the same time,  

giving an important writer due attention.  

The criterion gives poetry a prominent  

place. In no other period were the poets  

so well provided for as in the years 1990- 

[110] 1996 when four of the seven prizes went  

to Octavio Paz, Derek Walcott, Seamus  

Heaney, and Wislawa Szymborska, all of  

them earlier unknown to the world  

audience. 

[115]   The criteria discussed sometimes  

alternate, sometimes coincide. The  

spotlight on the unknown master Canetti  

in 1981 is thus followed by the laurel to 

the universally hailed "pioneer" of magic  

[120] realism, Gabriel García Márquez, in 1982.  

Some Laureates answer both  

requirements, like Faulkner, who was not  

only "the great experimentalist among  

twentieth-century novelists" – the  

[125] Academy was here fortunate enough to  

anticipate Faulkner's enormous  

importance to later fiction - but also, in  

1950, a fairly unknown writer.  

  It is also realized that on the whole the  

[130] serious literature that is worthy of a prize  

furthers knowledge of man and his  

condition and endeavours to enrich and  

improve his life.  

  The Literary Prize has often given rise  

[135] to discussion of its political implications.  

The Swedish Academy, for its part, has on  

many occasions expressed a desire to  

stand apart from political antagonisms.  

The guiding principle, in Lars Gyllensten's  

[140] words, has been "political integrity". This  

has quite often not been understood.  

  The history of the Literature Prize is  

also the history of its reception in the  

press and in other media. Apart from  

[145] overlooking the changes in outlooks and  

criteria within the Swedish Academy,  

international criticism has tended to  

neglect the crowd of likely names around  

the Prize a specific year. The Academy  

[150] cannot have the ambition to crown all  

worthy writers. What it cannot afford is  

giving Nobel's laurel to a minor talent. Its  

practice during the last full half-century  

has also largely escaped criticism on that  

[155] point. 

Adapted from the text by Kjell Espmark nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature

The choice of Gabriel García Márquez for the Nobel in 1982 is mentioned in the text as an example of a criterion which focused on