Why Cormac McCarthy Won’t Win the Nobel Prize for Literature

A few days ago Cormac McCarthy spiked in the betting pool rankings for who would win the Nobel. He rose past Philip Roth, Don Dellilo, Thomas Pynchon, and Joyce Carol Oates, going from 66/1 to 8/1 to 6/1 to 3/1 and now 5/2.

Do I think McCarthy’s deserving? Absolutely. And do I adore his books? Again, yes. But do I think he’s going to cinch the most coveted prize in literature? No.

Here’s why:

• He’s actually too popular. The trend over the last few years from the academy is to choose authors that leave a great deal of the world scratching their head and saying “who?” Le Clézio? Please. The most knowledgeable literary folk in the U.S. had to look him up on Wikipedia and figure out how to spell his name, not to mention begin to try to find one of his books (most of which hadn’t been translated). Herta Muller? Not unknown, but hardly well known. Hardly an author that has had two films incarnated by the Hollywood Machine and proliferated across the globe, who recently won the Pulitzer, who was knighted by Oprah. Granted, before that we’ve seen J.M. Coetzee, a household name in the universe in fiction, but these are more rare than the black horse choice.

• The spike in rankings might work against Cormac McCarthy. Ladbrokes hardly has the inside track inside the Swedish committee. Might they have received a leak, as in previous years? Yes. But more likely, the stratospheric rise in odds is due to “punters” (in their lovely British colloquialisms) suddenly deciding in masse to bet on Cormac and they had to lower the odds in order not to lose their shirt. In short: it’s just algorithms, folks. Also, look at the history of Ladbroke predictions. Amos Oz has topped the charts for years, and he’s still Nobel-less. The odds rarely predict the winners.

• MA Orthofer of the Literary Saloon doesn’t think McCarthy will win (He thinks it’s Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o). And he’s really smart about this stuff. He wrote, “As to McCarthy … I can’t see it either, though it’s also a good name to confuse the punters (finally a name Americans recognize !). I wouldn’t be surprised if McCarthy overtakes Ngũgĩ in the final betting (on sheer name-recognition alone) — giving Ladbrokes a chance to win some of their money back ….”

• The Academy Likes Political/Social Engagement.I wouldn’t describe McCarthy as having political influence or advocating for change. This is the guy who until recently could be described as a recluse — maybe not of a Pynchon or Salinger status — but a guy who left well enough alone. He’s hardly active in that arena, and his works aren’t particularly engaged with hot button cultural/political issues either.

All those reasons said, there are some factors working in his favor:

• McCarthy’s recently become less reclusive. I mean, the guy went on Oprah. After a long period of silence, he’s actually given some interviews. Unlike Pynchon, he would actually travel to Sweden to receive the prize. And since the Academy does not like to be snubbed, they would appreciate an author that is mobile and semi-public.

• After all the complaints about the insularity of American fiction, Cormac, by virtue of his border-bending novels, avoids being too American-centric. His characters always flirt with the divide between American and Mexico, and thus achieve a kind of international focus (hardly not like a jet-setter like Roberto Bolano, but still).

Still, as I’ve said before, it’s simply impossible to predict the Nobel. You can, however, make decent decently informed choices. If there’s anything to learn from previous years, check out this post from BookFox last year when I discussed what the Herta Muller pick taught us about Nobel choices. And even though Cormac McCarthy’s rise through the Nobel betting pool rankings mirrors some come-from-nowhere wins from previous years, I think he’s a scapegoat for the betting folk to throw money at.

We’ll learn for sure tomorrow.