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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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").
Yes, what's the point of JsonObject at all? Why JsonString when there is String? Why JsonArray when there is List? JDK only needs a function to convert from JSON format to the normal data structures it already has and back.
Because JSON types don't cleanly map to Java types. For example, a JSON number could be an int, a long, a double, a BigInteger, or a BigDecimal. Which of them the Java code wants is not something you can deduce (most generally, you could represent all JSON numbers as BigDecimal, but that's not very convnient in Java code, so in most cases you'd want to convert that to a primitive type of your choosing anyway). A JSON array is heterogeneous, while Java code typically want to be homogeneous. Representing a JSON array as a `List
Yeah you could go with just Number though, and then keep almost everything a BigInteger/BigDecimal under the covers (or dynamically choose
the correct class)
You could, but it would be significantly worse. Number and JsonNumber are nearly equivalent in this context, except that JsonNumber has the major advantage of being in the same sealed hierarchy as the other JSON types, allowing for nice pattern-matching (and BigDecimal suffers from the same downside). So you gain nothing - you have to convert to the desired type anyway - and lose quite a bit.
It's pretty normal, almost all libs work this way. This way you can parse the JSON string into the matching data structure or print it into a string, and when building you can ensure it's valid JSON.
reply