RE: Pinter's speech

> The Peace Prize is a heavily political one, that tends
> to highlight cpntemporary political agendas rather
> than anything else. In fact, ever since Kissinger was
> awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, satire has lost its
> meaning... 
> 
> Still, this is the winner of the Literature Prize, not
> the Peace one. A more "technical" choice. That's why I
> would consider his speech an important one. 

In what way do you consider the Nobel Prize in Literature to be a
"technical" choice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Literature

-- The Nobel Prize in Literature is awarded annually to an author from any
country who has, in the words of Alfred Nobel, produced "the most
outstanding work of an idealistic tendency". --

And even if we accept that it is a technical choice, can we honestly say
that any kind of artist is to be valued for his political opinions purely
based on the quality of his art?  Why not sportsmen then?

It should come as no surprise that Pinter will take any opportunity for his
political campaigning.  He is the literary equivalent to Michael Moore,
looking for any passing bandwagon to leap on.  He's supported Saddam against
the US, the Taliban against the US, Milosovic against the US, Castro against
the US.  Are you seeing a common theme here?

I don't necessarily disagree with his sentiment in this particular case, but
Pinter saying it out loud has done nothing to swing my opinion either way.

P



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/7tRolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->