That said, I haven't read more than a few pieces by Carson and I'm curious to read more.
But in the specific context of the Nobel Prize in Literature... The Prize's official mandate specifies an author who has "in the field of literature, produced the most outstanding work in an idealistic direction". There's also a "for the greatest benefit to humankind" criteria.
With those ground rules, writing Yet More Books in well-trod genres - but just slightly better than any of the other authors there - really doesn't seem to cut it for the Nobel Prize.
None of these two rules imply super duper novelty of the genre? Like, not at all, as far as those two rules are concerned, you can write a biography or genre detective story and still produce "outstanding work in an idealistic direction" or something for the "benefit to humankind".
Look at the list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Lit...
Canadian media doesn't highlight her dual citizenship :)
2024: Han Kang -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2023: Jon Fosse -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2022: Annie Ernaux -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2021: Abdulrazak Gurnah -- there are homoerotic themes in some of his work but the characters are not gay in terms of their identities, and homoeroticism has more to do with the ideas of power rather than sexual identities
2020: Louise Gluck -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2019: Peter Handke -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
2018: Olga Tokarczuk -- I think her work is the one that fits your description best
2017: Kazuo Ishiguro -- no LGBT themes explicitely AFAIK, but queer readings of his work are a thing
2016: Bob Dylan -- no LGBT themes, characters, or plots
Gurnah is an immigrant (a refugee to be more precise) who can be considered living "in a diaspora" and his work does focus on the topic prominently. Ishiguro is a British citizen who thinks of himself as British, I believe, his parents moved when he was very young IIRC. He didn't visit Japan until his adulthood. I don't think his works are "disapora-adjecent" thematically but I only read two of his novels, so not completely confident here.
The rest write in their native languages and live in their birth countries.
I believe when you mention Carson's LGBT text, you refer to Autobiography of Red, it was written in the late 90s, not this year.
Edit: fixing typos, punctuation, and wording
Heavily anti-gay cultures (like Nazi and far right) produce surprising amounts of homoerotic art for some reason. I think it goes with certain kind of masculine supremacy - you need to convince boys they are better off with masculine boys only and somehow end up homoerotic as a result. Plus, I guess, once everybody is obviously not gay, people stop clocking those things as what they are.
Edit: not trying to imply that the book is like that, just want to support the point that homoerotic does not imply gay culture.
Ishiguro, Handke, Kang are known for their ethnic diaspora writings.
If you look at old Nobel Prize winners, you will find plenty of writers who are barely read now (at least in the English speaking world) and some like John Galsworthy whose reputation isn't what it used to be.
https://www.metafilter.com/214757/The-2026-Nobel-Prize-in-Li...
Neither of those things may be true. And that’s tragic because a lot of great work is going to be written off under these pretenses.
> 1) the author has a self righteous agenda and
> 2) the award is not deserved but rather given to signal sides in a culture war.
This is psychological projection from a debased information environment.
She has been studying classics, writing, and winning awards since at least 1975!
Quote: Carson is known to be reticent about her private life, and discourages autobiographical readings of her writings.Information about her in publications is often limited to the phrase: "Anne Carson was born in Canada and teaches ancient Greek for a living." While not a confessional poet, her work is considered personal. Carson has said that in her work, she uses her life democratically as just one set of facts among others in the world.
You should be less online so you don't lose your whole self to bottomless cynicism.
When was it otherwise?
This is true of almost everything nowadays. I recoil at almost anything religious for similar reasons, even though I know not everybody that goes to church is a militant anti-abortionist christian nationalist. Nonetheless I will watch `The 10 Commandments` as it's still a very good example of the golden age of Hollywood epics.