Never heard of her before, can someone explain the significance? I see that Autobiography of Red is praised for blending different things like translation/novel in verse/essays together, but that doesn't sound like something new? I've read Milorad Pavic's Dictionary of Khazars before, seems like it fits the same description?
She is typically praised for her translations as well as the creative interplay of classical and modern imagery in her works. An aspect I think often overlooked is the relation of her text with the physical media of reading the text. For example Nox which is printed as a single continuous accordion-folded sheet.
I wish I could see a nice spoken performance of Autobiography of Red some day, it should be read out loud, imo. Her writing is very physical if that makes sense.
Among other things, Carson is a famous/prolific translator of Ancient Greek plays (including the ones that probably come to mind when you hear "Ancient Greek plays").
Why assume that novelty is a criterion for the worth of someone's literary output? Things can tread familiar ground, use familiar forms, and still be remarkable or worthwhile. (Imagine saying to Shakespeare: "Why write a book of love sonnets? Didn't Petrarch already do that?")
That said, I haven't read more than a few pieces by Carson and I'm curious to read more.
As a broad generality, you're right about novelty being a poor criterion.
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.
> "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.
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".
I don't see "new" in either of the criteria you quoted. It also doesn't fit with the explicit reasons given for awarding the prize to many past recipients. Sometimes originality is a factor, but in many cases the reason is just judged merit.
I try to understand what's the criterion, and inferred novelty since the other Nobel prizes seem to be awarded for some novel contributions. As I said, just trying to understand significance.
