How to evaluate ian mcewan as a popular candidate for the Nobel Prize?

First of all, Nobel Prize in Literature is not an insightful and independent literary prize. It has been influenced by the world political and economic structure, which has to be said to be quite remarkable. Moreover, the quality of translation greatly affects the experience of the works in Swedish Grandpa.

For literature, awards may be the most insignificant part. Besides, I'm afraid the Nobel Prize can't compare with Goncourt, Naoki and Booker, which are relatively small but fine awards, just for literary knowledge.

So let's be clear: those who don't win the Nobel Prize are not necessarily good writers, and those who win the Nobel Prize are not necessarily first-class writers.

Nobel prizes also have their own preferences. (Say what you have read, nearly ten or twenty years)

First, I prefer pure literature to serious literature. There is a tendency to favor more obscure works. Therefore, we generally don't think Murakami will win the prize ... Although his works before 1Q84 have this strength, they may be too "easy to understand". For example, Orhan Pamuk and Doris Lessing have a sense of redundancy, although sometimes it is profound.

The second is to prefer works with local/national characteristics. Such as Coetzee (South Africa), Gao Xingjian (Memories of the Cultural Revolution and China), Mo Yan (………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Third, I am very concerned about the depth of thought, self-reflection, and the first choice is grand and traditional. For example, Coetzee's immersion in man and self, Marquez's sense of history, and Doris Lessing's thinking on women's status. Are all of this "eternal motif" type. Those less mainstream (non-derogatory) themes are hard to win the love of grandfathers. (For example, Mishima Sang's same-sex love+evil beauty+death+reincarnation, the core is very oriental, so they can't understand)

So in this way, I think Ian's chances of winning the prize are really slim. Although I like him very much, there are angela carter of the same type, all of which are particularly beautiful but feel a little lacking in vitality. ..............

Tell me why.

First of all, I want to say that Ian's writing is excellent, and his writing is beyond words. Academic school, writing is very powerful, long sentences are beautiful, materials are turning around, and the scenes are very round. Storytelling is also a good hand, any type will do, suspense is also well set, and psychological description is also in place. And the details are really great! ! ! In a word, he is a guy with excellent hardware.

Brilliant and whimsical. Satire (Kirk on the stage), criminal suspense (butterflies, crazy foreigners), ethics (self-control, on the beach in Cheshire), legends and Borges-style anecdotes (solid geometry) are all bad.

In recent years, the development direction has also expanded. Children of Time sees truth in daily life. I haven't seen Chasing the Sun. I'll add it after reading it.

However, compared with the above preference for the Nobel Prize, I think he may really not get it.

Tell me about his shortcomings (actually, I don't think it's enough, um, so stupid)

First, the theme is too "partial" and too "dark", focusing on the dark side of human nature, and the characters are basically a little abnormal. So I got the title of "Ian the Terror". I think it's nothing, but I'm afraid it's a little too cough for the Nobel Prize judges who like the works of Three Views.

Second, the whole style of writing is more popular. Like Jun Murakami, he belongs to a writer who crosses the dividing line between pure literature and popular literature. Some people will classify him as a popular novel. Like Mr. Murakami, although his writing style has its own characteristics, it is still relatively easy to understand, which leads to insufficient depth, thickness and thin aftertaste.

Third, his skill is relatively strong, and his structure and ideological connotation are not enough compared with his writing skills. Some Hinayana. Knowledge density is not as good as Eco, and I think it has a lot to do with types.

Four ... no four.

By the way, do you think Ian's novels give people the impression of "uncle with bad smile and gloomy mood", while the Nobel Prize works basically give people the impression of "forcing grandpa/grandma/middle-aged man" ... So, I think the temperament is not appropriate.

However, since Mo Yan won the Nobel Prize, I think anything can happen.

Finally, I think the Nobel Prize is really nothing. Too serious. It may be quite authoritative in other fields, but in the field of literature ... literature itself is not "authoritative".