Of prizes and prize commentary
10/17/09 | 6 comments
Kent Ward

Of prizes and prize commentary


By Kent Ward

Upon hearing that President Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize last week, former Polish President Lech Walesa, the 1983 winner, is reported by The Associated Press to have said, “So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is only beginning to act.”

Walesa’s blunt assessment seemed to be shared by many, including Obama himself. But a joke that soon began to circulate on the Internet puts the matter into an even more workaday perspective than did Walesa for commoners who might have wondered what all the fuss over Obama’s selection was about.

“Breaking news: Obama wins the Heisman Trophy after watching a college football game,”’ was the zinger that pretty much summed up the deal. It’s difficult to state the case more succinctly than that.

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by a committee of five lefties chosen by the Norwegian Parliament and routinely goes to anyone but former President George W. Bush.

There were those, mostly disgruntled Republicans, who suggested that Obama should reject the prize, much as a disdainful Chicago Cubs bleacher bum — in a magnificent display of contempt for the enemy, and cheered on by his buddies — might hurl back onto the playing field a baseball that a slugger on the opposing team has just poleaxed over the fence for a home run.

In choosing Obama, the Norwegian Nobel Committee cited his creation of “a new climate in international politics.” Obama has pledged to donate to charity the million dollars in walking-around money that accompanies the prize.

History shows that such high-octane prizes have been rejected by previous nominees and the world has not stopped turning on its axis as a result. In 1926, author and playwright Sinclair Lewis, arguably one of America’s greatest novelists, rejected a Pulitzer Prize offered for his novel “Arrowsmith.” Lewis, whose writing focused on the conformity and boosterism of small-town life, cited several reasons for his nonacceptance, including his disagreement with contests praising one book or author over another in accordance with politically correct standards of the day.

Yet, four years later he accepted a Nobel Prize in literature, mainly for his novel “Babbitt,” but also for his work in general, which included the novels “Main Street” and “Elmer Gantry” and others.

Former Baltimore Sun columnist H.L. Mencken, not known for his modesty, wrote in the Evening Sun on May 20, 1926, that Lewis had refused the Pulitzer “at my instigation.” He argued that Lewis was “certainly justified in spurning the highly dubious accolade, and in protesting against the damage that its approval does to his reputation.” The column is included in “A Second Mencken Chrestomathy” published by Vintage Books in 1995.

“I believed and had often advised him [Lewis] that he should resolutely refuse all prizes, college degrees and other such empty honors, heaving them to the muckers who pulled wires for them,” Mencken wrote. “But the ambitious and go-getting Dorothy Thompson, his second wife, was avid for honors and attention, no matter how cheap, and when in 1930 they took the lordly form of the Nobel Prize, she naturally grabbed for it with loud hosannahs.”

Had he heard of the Nobel award in time, he’d have tried to induce Lewis to decline that prize, as well, Mencken stated, “for I had long been convinced that the Stockholm Academy, which chose the recipients of the prizes for literature, was a diligent player of politics.”

In criticizing the Pulitzer Prize, given for the American novel that best represents “the wholesome atmosphere of American life,” Mencken suggested the selection committee had shown in its eight years of existence “a complete incapacity to distinguish between work that is sound and honest in the novel and work that is cheap and false. Its imbecilities, repeated annually, cannot be accidental. Either the committee is bound by rules that prevent it making intelligent awards, or its members are incompetent.”

He apparently held the Swedish Nobel selection committee for literature of 80 years ago in the same low regard. I don’t know why the man didn’t just come out and say what was on his mind about such things, rather than beat around the bush so.

BDN columnist Kent Ward lives in Limestone. Readers may reach him by e-mail at olddawg@bangordailynews.net.

Not registered? Click here
E-mail this
Print this
Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

Bangordailynews.com is pleased to offer a forum for readers to react to our stories, discuss them and provide additional information. We are reluctant to delete comments, but do reserve that right for those who abuse our forum. For more on using this site, please see our terms of service.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. What does that mean specifically? Here are some guidelines (see more):

Comments
6 comments on this item
On 10/18/09 at 7:57 AM, Ladyslipper wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

When I first learned of Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize, my first reaction was ," Surely he won't accept it, I mean how can he with a clear conscience knowing full well that he has done nothing to earn it?"......Since that time I have learned the ugly truth about these prizes and your column reinforces my findings.

.

Obama will accept the Prize and all its allocades in the same spirit that he accepted the Presidency. In our current world of "make believe', a Junior Senator with No real job experience enjoys a "charmed " campaign propelled along with full mainstream media support declaring Obama's past radical associations and activities off limits to investigations. Obama is not required to produce a Birth Certificate or much of any of his past documentation for that matter and Acorn was out in full force acquiring illegal voter registrations for the guy.The sad truth is that Obama doesn't know what it means to earn any prize ethically and honestly.

.

Mencken would not have wasted his breath advising Obama to decline the Prize.

Report abuse
On 10/18/09 at 10:04 AM, tracywettig wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Yes, well, you Republicans voted for a President who not only brought the US an economic debacle, but who lied us into war. And you continue with misinformation by stating that the Nobel Peace Prize committee has 5 leftists. Rather, it has a conservative and a far-right member among its 5 members, both of whom voted for Obama for the prize, saying that no one has done more in the past year for peace. By January 27th Obama had agreed to change US climate policy to in fact limit US carbon dioxide emissions, something the Bush administration fought against. If you don't understand the impact rising carbon emissions will have on world peace, let me remind you of the statement by the UN Secretary General stating that rising carbon levels will in the future likely be the major driver of war in the world. Let me also remind you of work by the International Rice Research Institute, the same group of scientists who brought Asia relief from famine with the introduction of high-yielding rice varieties that saved the 1 billion people from death by starvation. According to the International Rice Research Institute, a 1 degree C increase in temperature results in a 15% decrease in rice yields. With a forecast of 4-5 degrees C increase in temperatures, you do the math and determine how many Asians are likely to starve to death in the future. What a difference Obama is from George Bush! Let us also remember that in a world with China rising, and an econimically weakened US that cannot afford military adventures, the US must behave quite differently than the model of US dominance pushed by Bush and the neoconservatives. Have you forgotten the Project For a New American Century? It is laughable now.

Report abuse
On 10/18/09 at 10:42 AM, dleon63 wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Although, I agree that the Prez has made great strides in pushing peace as part of his platform I think there is some hidden agenda for this award. It really is up to the Prez whether to accept or turn down this award - it is his prerogative. To turn it down might cause some serious consequences. It is just sad the more and more of these awards are becoming worthless due to people and their political affiliations and agendas. From this day forward, I would second guess the Nobel Peace Prize. Mr. Prez, I respect you and it really is up to you to accept this award or not. Just you and no one elses decision. Don't let this issue distract you from deciding what is right for America. If it takes a mighty hand to take care of Iran - then so be it. Get my drift?

Report abuse
On 10/18/09 at 11:57 AM, Ladyslipper wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

tracywettig, your post did jar my memory to the actual event that surely may have qualified Obama for the Peace Prize. I'll bet it was his brillant idea for the " Beer Summit".......I'm sure you remember the Prof Gates and the Chicago Policeman incident? After Obama added fuel to the fire by saying the Police acted" stupidly" and further claimed the Chcago police are racist, He brilliantly called for his "Beer Summit" in which NO one apologized......and NOTHING was resolved.......Yeah right , The Great Unifier, a real man of Peace .....

Report abuse
On 10/18/09 at 2:43 PM, slurpee wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Interesting bit about Lewis and Mencken.

I was initially surprised at the award and thought it was sort of silly. But rhetoric DOES matter. And for a peace prize--what OTHER countries think is more significant than what people within the U.S. think. I think that Americans tend to underestimate the attention with which the election here (all presidential elections, but especially this one) was watched and the euphoria over having Obama rather than Bush in office and a major figurehead in the world. When it comes to peace, intentions and fine phrases are, in and of themselves, actually an accomplishment.

This is a thoughtful piece on the reasoning behind the awarding of the prize to Obama.

On the other end--marketer John Tantillo published a piece on his blog about how this decision has hurt the brand of the Nobel Prize. " Although he also says that Obama has handled it well (and was still right to accept it). http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2009/10/12/john-tantillos-brand-winner-and-loser-letterman-and-the-nobel-prize.aspx

Report abuse
On 10/18/09 at 2:44 PM, slurpee wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

whoops - link to nytimes piece - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/world/10nobel.htmlx

Report abuse
You must be logged in to post a comment. click here to log in.

Powered by: Creative Circle Advertising Solutions, Inc.