Content Feed

In 1901, the Nobel Committee had a chance to give the very first literature prize to Leo Tolstoy — arguably the greatest novelist who ever lived. They gave it to Sully Prudhomme instead. Who? Exactly. A French poet so forgettable that even the French barely remember him. That single decision set the tone for over a century of literary prize-giving that has less to do with art and more to do with backroom deals, geopolitical posturing, and the occasional desperate attempt to seem relevant.

If you think literary prizes are handed out purely on merit, I have a bridge in Brooklyn and a signed first edition of a Pulitzer winner you've never heard of. The truth is, literary prizes have always been a cocktail of art and politics, shaken vigorously and served with a twist of hypocrisy. And the sooner we admit that, the sooner we can actually enjoy the spectacle for what it is: a blood sport in tweed jackets.

Let's start with the big one. The Nobel Prize in Literature has a rap sheet that would make any credible institution blush. They skipped Tolstoy. They skipped Chekhov. They skipped Proust, Joyce, Kafka, Borges, and Nabokov. Instead, they awarded prizes to writers like Pearl S. Buck in 1938 and Dario Fo in 1997 — choices that made even their defenders squirm. The 2016 prize went to Bob Dylan, a songwriter, which triggered a meltdown among literary purists so spectacular it could have been a Nobel-worthy novel itself. Dylan didn't even bother showing up to the ceremony for weeks. That's either the ultimate power move or the universe's way of saying the prize had jumped the shark.

But here's the dirty secret the Swedish Academy doesn't put in its press releases: the Nobel has always been political. During the Cold War, awarding prizes to Soviet dissidents like Solzhenitsyn (1970) and Pasternak (1958) wasn't just about literary quality — it was a weapon. Pasternak was forced by the Soviet government to decline his prize. The Academy knew exactly what it was doing. It was sticking a thumb in Moscow's eye and calling it culture. Meanwhile, no American writer won between Steinbeck in 1962 and Toni Morrison in 1993 — a thirty-one-year drought that had less to do with American literary output and more to do with European anti-Americanism dressed up as aesthetic judgment.

The Pulitzer Prize is no better, just more parochial. It's essentially a club for the American literary establishment, and like all clubs, it has its favorites and its grudges. In 2012, the fiction jury recommended three finalists — "Train Dreams" by Denis Johnson, "Swamplandia!" by Karen Russell, and "The Pale King" by David Foster Wallace — and the board overruled them and gave no prize at all. No prize. As if none of the novels published in America that year were worthy. The board never explained its reasoning, which is the literary equivalent of flipping the table and walking out of the restaurant.

Then there's the Man Booker Prize, now just the Booker, which has its own comedy of errors. When the prize expanded in 2014 to include American authors alongside Commonwealth writers, the British literary establishment reacted as if someone had invited the Americans to a garden party and they'd shown up with a keg. The fear was that big American publishers would steamroll the competition. And, well, they kind of did — Paul Beatty won in 2016, George Saunders in 2017. The Brits grumbled into their tea, but the books were genuinely excellent, which made the grumbling harder to sustain.

The Goncourt Prize in France takes the absurdity to another level entirely. It's awarded by a jury of ten members who meet for lunch at the Restaurant Drouant in Paris. The prize money? Ten euros. That's not a typo. Ten euros. But the sales boost is enormous — a Goncourt winner can expect to sell hundreds of thousands of copies in France. So the real prize isn't the money or the prestige; it's the commercial bonanza. And because French publishing is a cozy world where everyone knows everyone, the Goncourt has been dogged by accusations of favoritism for decades. The publisher Gallimard has won so many times it might as well have a reserved seat at the table.

What makes all of this both infuriating and fascinating is that prizes genuinely shape what we read. A "National Book Award Winner" sticker on the cover moves copies. It gets books into airport bookshops and onto nightstand piles. It determines which authors get six-figure advances for their next book and which ones go back to teaching freshman composition. The stakes are real, which is exactly why the politics matter. When a prize committee chooses one book over another, they're not just making an aesthetic judgment — they're redirecting rivers of money, attention, and career opportunity.

And let's talk about diversity, because the prizes have been forced to. For decades, literary prizes in the English-speaking world overwhelmingly rewarded white male authors. The Booker didn't go to a Black writer until Ben Okri won in 1991. The Pulitzer for fiction went almost exclusively to white authors until the 1980s. In recent years, there's been a visible correction — more women, more writers of color, more international voices. Critics on one side call this overdue justice. Critics on the other call it tokenism. The truth, as usual, is messy: both things can be true at once.

So is there any hope? Can a literary prize ever be purely about the art? Honestly, no. And that's fine. The fantasy of a perfectly objective literary prize is just that — a fantasy. Literature is not a hundred-meter dash where you can measure the winner to the hundredth of a second. It's subjective, culturally embedded, and deeply personal. Every jury brings its biases, its blind spots, its secret grudges against that one novelist who was rude at a cocktail party in 2003.

The real value of literary prizes isn't that they identify the "best" book. It's that they start arguments. They force people to read things they wouldn't have otherwise picked up. They generate heat, controversy, and — occasionally — genuine discovery. I never would have read Olga Tokarczuk if she hadn't won the Nobel in 2018. Millions discovered Kazuo Ishiguro through the Booker long before the Nobel came calling in 2017. The prizes are flawed messengers, but sometimes they deliver something real.

Here's what I wish more people understood: the next time a prize committee makes a choice that seems baffling, political, or outright wrong, that's not a bug in the system. That IS the system. Literary prizes are where art meets power, money, taste, and ego in a room, and they all have to fight it out. The result is never pure, never clean, and never boring. Tolstoy didn't need a Nobel to be Tolstoy. But Sully Prudhomme? Without that prize, he'd be a footnote in a footnote. And maybe that tells you everything you need to know about what these prizes are really for.

In 1964, Jean-Paul Sartre did something no one had done before: he told the Nobel Committee to shove their prize. Not politely, not diplomatically — he simply refused it. His reasoning? The Nobel Prize for Literature had become a political tool, not a literary one. Sixty years later, nothing has changed. If anything, it's gotten worse.

Every October, the Swedish Academy announces its laureate, and every October, half the literary world erupts in outrage. The other half shrugs, because they stopped caring years ago. The Nobel Prize for Literature is supposed to be the pinnacle of literary achievement. Instead, it's become a barometer of geopolitical mood swings, institutional guilt, and the personal vendettas of a handful of Swedish academics who can't agree on what "literature" even means.

Let's start with the obvious: Leo Tolstoy never won the Nobel. Neither did James Joyce. Or Jorge Luis Borges. Or Marcel Proust. The prize was first awarded in 1901, and Tolstoy was alive until 1910 — plenty of time to honor arguably the greatest novelist who ever lived. Instead, the first prize went to Sully Prudhomme, a French poet whom approximately zero people read today. The committee's reasoning? Tolstoy was too "anarchistic" in his philosophy. Translation: he made them uncomfortable. So they gave the award to a safe, forgettable versifier and set the tone for a century of questionable decisions.

The Pulitzer isn't much better, by the way. In 1974, the Pulitzer board overruled its own jury to give the fiction prize to no one at all, rejecting Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" — a novel now considered one of the greatest American works of the twentieth century. The jury had unanimously recommended it. The board found it "obscene" and "unreadable." One suspects they simply didn't finish it. In 2012, the board pulled the same stunt again, awarding no fiction prize despite having three finalists. The literary community was furious. The board was unmoved. Power, after all, is the point.

But here's where it gets really interesting. The Booker Prize, long considered the gold standard of English-language fiction awards, nearly tore itself apart in 2019 when the judges broke their own rules to award a joint prize to Margaret Atwood and Bernardine Evaristo. The rules explicitly stated one winner only. The judges decided they didn't care. Was it a bold literary statement? A political calculation to honor both a legendary white Canadian author and a groundbreaking Black British one without having to choose? The cynics had a field day. The optimists called it progress. The bookmakers called their lawyers.

And then there's the Bob Dylan incident. In 2016, the Nobel Committee awarded the literature prize to a musician. A brilliant musician, sure. A songwriter whose lyrics rival poetry, absolutely. But a "writer" in the traditional sense? The decision was a hand grenade tossed into the literary establishment. Some celebrated it as an expansion of what literature could be. Others called it an act of contempt — the Committee essentially saying that no living novelist or poet was worthy, so they'd rather give it to a rock star. Dylan himself didn't even bother to show up for the ceremony. He sent Patti Smith instead, who forgot the words to his song. You couldn't script a more perfect metaphor for the absurdity of the whole enterprise.

The deeper problem is structural. Literary prizes are decided by committees, and committees are political animals by nature. The Swedish Academy — the eighteen members who choose the Nobel laureate — has been rocked by scandals ranging from sexual assault allegations against a member's husband to financial impropriety to plain old personal grudges. In 2018, the scandal got so bad they couldn't even award the prize that year. Let that sink in: the most prestigious literary award on Earth was canceled because the people in charge couldn't keep their house in order.

Prizes also create perverse incentives. Publishers now time their releases to coincide with prize seasons. "Booker-bait" is an actual term in the industry — a certain type of serious, mid-length literary novel designed not necessarily to be great, but to look great on a shortlist. Authors who win major prizes see their sales spike dramatically, while equally talented writers who don't get nominated remain invisible. The Matthew Effect is alive and well: to those who have prizes, more prizes shall be given. Once you win a Pulitzer, your next book automatically becomes a National Book Award contender. The system rewards reputation as much as writing.

None of this means prizes are entirely corrupt. The Man Booker International Prize has done extraordinary work bringing translated fiction to English-speaking audiences. The Hugo Awards have championed science fiction and fantasy when the "literary" establishment dismissed the entire genre. Smaller prizes — the Kirkus Prize, the PEN awards, the National Book Critics Circle — often make braver, more interesting choices precisely because they operate outside the spotlight. When the mainstream prizes play it safe, the smaller ones pick up the slack.

But the fundamental tension remains unresolvable. Art is subjective. Committees are political. Money is involved. Egos are enormous. The moment you try to rank creative work — to say this novel is "better" than that one — you've left the realm of art and entered the realm of power. Who gets to decide? On what criteria? And why should we trust them?

Sartre understood this in 1964. "A writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution," he wrote. He was right. The problem is, writers are human, and humans love institutions. We love hierarchies and rankings and gold medals. We love being told what to read, what to admire, what to buy. Literary prizes exploit this need brilliantly.

So the next time the Nobel Committee announces its laureate and your feed explodes with hot takes, remember: the outrage is the point. The debate is the product. The prize itself is just a golden excuse for us to argue about what literature should be, who gets to define it, and whether any of it matters. And that argument — messy, political, infuriating as it is — might be the most literary thing about the whole affair.