It seems that the Nobel prize is a taboo for the very Dylan – Express

Of the 113 writers awarded the Nobel Literature prize since the prize was first awarded in 1901, only two have rejected it: Boris Pasternak, in 1958, and Jean-Paul Sartre, in 1964. The awarding of the prize this year is Bob Dylan not only motivated the great discussions, sharing journalists, commentators, writers and critics, the angry, and the other, that very celebrated the decision – as it raised an important question: will Dylan, who never was even there for large mediatismos and to the forrobodó of all the academies of this world to accept the prize, he always wanted to be "just a musician" and not even commented on the choice of the Swedish Academy? Or will, on the other hand, become the 3.º writer, and the 1.No. musician, to reject the Nobel Literature prize?

Jean Paul-Sartre, and the letter addressed to the Academy

"according To certain information that I took today knowledge, I would have, this year, some chances of getting the Nobel Prize," wrote Jean Paul Sartre in a letter addressed to Nils Stahle, who was then director of the Nobel Foundation, after reading about the intentions of the Academy in the "Le Figaro Litteraire", in this year of 1964.

it Was the 8.Th time that the name of the novelist and French playwright, appeared among the favorites to the award of the Nobel Literature prize. In the missive, He warned the Swedish Academy that it did not intend to accept the award, if this was assigned. Parco in explanation, only said "no". No and no. "I do not desire to be in the list of possible winners, and can’t nor want to – neither in 1964 nor later – to accept this honorary distinction".

in A public statement later, the author of "Nausea" explained the reasons for which refused to accept any Nobel prize. "A writer who adopts political, social, or literary must act only with the means that holds – that is, the written word. All the honors that you can receive expose his readers to a pressure I do not consider it desirable". Sign Jean-Paul Sartre, "is not the same as sign Jean-Paul Sartre, winner of the Nobel prize", he said still, not curbing leave some criticism of the committee, who accused him of the award "only to writers of the West or the rebels of the east".

"Today, the only battle possible in front of the cultural is the battle for peaceful coexistence between the two cultures, the east and the west. [...] My sympathies go out undeniably to socialism and what is called Eastern Bloc [...] that is why I cannot accept an honor awarded by the cultural, or the western or the eastern," said Sartre, who could not, despite their efforts to avoid that the Nobel Literature prize was awarded that year (and not Samuel Beckett, Nabokov or W. H. Auden, who also were among the favorites). Obviously he refused, suggesting to the Academy I give the prize to the Movement, Anti-Apartheid, for example. "Not if you can ask anyone that, for 250 a thousand crowns, to surrender to the principles that are not just his, but shared by all your comrades," he said.

In 1958, the Russian Boris Pasternak, author of "Doctor Zhivago", he also the Nobel prize – which was awarded "for his important done both in the lyrical poetics of the contemporary as in the area of the great tradition of epic Russian" – but for different reasons. He was forced by the authorities of your country to do so. Many years before, in 1925, George Bernard Shaw, a writer and playwright in English, also, had begun to decline the prize, but in negotiations with Swedish diplomats ended up by accepting it.

Dylan, not a single word (yet)

Bob Dylan was honored on Thursday by the Swedish Academy for "have created new forms of expression poetic in the framework of the great tradition of american music". The decision opened the cracks that, not being insanáveis, gave rise to authentic the riots on social networks. On one side, were those who had no end of complaint or criticism to make to the choice, fans would Dylan be willing to accept the shift towards a radical of the committee, and, on the other, those who considered the decision, at a minimum, espatafúrdia, using arguments such as: with so many writers out there much more deserving of the award and the need to be read, at a time when books and reading were relegated to a place well up there on the tail of the list of interests of the majority, why the hell was the Academy choose Dylan? Just look at the titles of the articles published in "the New Yorker" and the british "The Guardian" to realize this bipolarity that broke out in the media: "Why is it that Bob Dylan did not deserve the Nobel," "Why is that Dylan deserves the Nobel prize". A "why is Dylan’s" this-and-that which began in the opinador common and has reached out to critics allegedly experts on the subject.

The Swedish Academy has already provided for this, which may explain the delay unheard of in the announcement of the prize winner and that explains the statements of the permanent secretary of the Academy, Sara Danius, after being announced the name of Dylan. "Maybe the times are changing," he said, comparing the songs of the musician to the works of Homer and Sappho, who, like Dylan, "they wrote poetic texts intended to be represented." "It is obvious that he deserves the prize. Is a great poet – a great poet in the tradition of the great literature of the English language. During his 54 year career, he has been able to reinvent itself constantly, creating new identities", added the secretary.

The verdadade is that, in the midst of this flurry of analysis and pseudo-analysis and confrontations more or less peaceful and more or less enlightened, and educated, opinions, Bob Dylan still has not ruled on the issue, nor even on Thursday night, when he came to the stage at the Chelsea at The Cosmopolitan in Las Vegas for another concert. Will he say "no", not and not? Or will, on the other hand, accept the prize? Incidentally: will he even talk to any time about the Nobel prize?