Should Death Stop the Nobel? - New Yorker (blog)

The Nobel committee has said that it did not know Steinman was dead when it made the announcement, and earlier today it released a statement offering condolences and continuing to refer to Steinman as a Nobel laureate—which could be a sign that it intends to honor its original decision. And public opinion (judging from this poll on the Two-Way) seems to be leaning toward presenting the award to Steinman's estate.

But what would that mean for the Nobel's guideline? Would this open up the floor for discussion of its merits? After all, the Nobel has been around, in some guise, for a hundred and sixteen years, and for seventy-nine of them there was no stipulation against posthumous awarding. Posthumous awards have been given twice: the 1961 Peace Prize was awarded to Dag Hammerskjöld, and the 1931 Literature Prize was awarded to the Swedish poet Erik Axel Karlfeldt.

This year, there has been plenty of discussion about the ticking biological clock of a perennial Nobel Literature favorite: Philip Roth. The Millions last week posted an open letter to the Swedish Academy stating their concern bluntly: "Can we please stop the nonsense and give Philip Roth a Nobel Prize for Literature before he dies?" There follows a very long essay making the case for Roth, and tackling the most frequently cited arguments against him:

The charges are ? that Roth's oeuvre is uneven, and that, moreover, he's a sexist pig. And you know what? There's something to both these charges?. But you, my esteemed friends, must see past all that, not because Roth's personal failings don't affect the work, since they plainly do, or even because we must take the good with the bad, but because, in Roth's case, the good is inseparable from the bad.

Roth's are perhaps the most dedicated Nobel advocates the world has ever seen or will ever see. If the academy rules this year that Steinman's estate should get the prize, ignoring its own rather egregious mistake, you can bet that a little thing like death won't stand in the Rothians' way. Assuming, of course, that Roth doesn't win the prize while he can still enjoy it. This year's will be announced on Thursday.

Should the statute against posthumous awarding be removed? My colleague Amy Davidson, in a post on News Desk, says no: "That way lies madness." What say you? Should Steinman still receive the prize?