Talk:Gunnar Ekelöf
This level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nobel Prize speculation
I just removed this:
(It is curious that Ekelöf never won the Nobel Prize for Literature, which is awarded by the academy of which he was a member. It is possible that the academy has a rule against awarding the Nobel to its own members, in order to preserve objectivity. It is also possibly due to personal modesty.)
It is not at all possible that the academy has had such a rule, since it has awarded the prize to four of its own members: Verner von Heidenstam (1916), Pär Lagerkvist (1951), Harry Martinson, and Eyvind Johnson (both 1974). Additionally, former member Erik Axel Karlfeldt received the prize posthumously in 1931. Nor, for that matter, is it particularly curious that Ekelöf didn't receive it. Far greater writers have been neglected. Tomasboij 12:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree those lines were just a flourish and highly POV but it is true that since Lagerkvist (1951) the Academy has been reluctant to award its own members in any case, and the awarding of Martinson and Johnson in 1974 became highly controversial and sparked an incensed debate at home. Strausszek (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- For the record, Tomas Tranströmer who was awarded the prize in 2011, is not a member of the Academy, though he is very likely to have been asked under hand at some point if he would want to join (his schoolmate Kjell Espmark,. a fellow poet and a literary scholar, holds one of the seats). It used to be a long-running subject of speculation in the Swedish press whether he might win the award or was "off limits" to the Academy simply by virtue of being a Swedish writer.Strausszek (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- It seems clear that the removed quote was not appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agree - for the record it was not one of my edits, though I later contributed a major part of the current text of the article.Strausszek (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- It seems clear that the removed quote was not appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)