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.
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.