Nobel hostility unwarranted

Upon reading Yahya Chaudhry’s column concerning the Nobel Prize in literature, I was a bit concerned by the hostility toward this prize. Even the title “Nobel is not noble” is an attack against Nobel and the prize.

It is true that he made his fortune through the discovery of dynamite, and it is also unfortunately true that his discovery is accountable for myriad human sufferings. It would have been easy for him to simply pass that fortune on to someone else. Instead, he established a prize that awards individuals who work toward peace.

In fact, the original name of this prize was the Nobel Peace Prize, though it has become many prizes through the years. Obviously, Nobel felt guilty and responsible for his terrible discovery, but instead of passing his “blood money” on to his heirs, he passed it on to people who promote peace, understanding and reason in the world. The fact that he sought to rectify the terror that he brought into the world seems, to me, a very noble act.

Also, I highly doubt that Nobel had any jocular intentions when he created his prize and that he put his “war profits” to the best use he possibly could. It is hard, therefore, for me to think of the Nobel Prize as “shallow and vulgar.”

Another issue that bothers me in this column is the attack on the Swedish Academy. Perhaps Secretary Engdahl said some things which reflect poorly on the Academy, but we must remember that he is one man and does not represent the stance of the entire organization.

Chaudhry also claims that the Academy is not doing its job because it has not awarded some great authors in the past, such as Joyce. It is a bit anachronistic, however, for us to say that he should have won the prize. His work affected literature in ways that nobody could have known about in his respective time. Let us also remember some great authors who have won the Nobel Prize including William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway and Toni Morrison, all of whom are Americans.