They've announced that:
Media speculation predictably enough focuses on the ready-made bookies' lists -- a good starting point (and movement on them can certainly hint at some of the behind-the-scenes doings), but not something one should rely on too much. Less so this year than most too: there hasn't been that much movement, especially not among authors who didn't feature as favorites last year, and especially not in the time before the final decision (likely) was made. For the most part -- until right near announcement time -- the lists have been probably most useful at the time when the prize had reached the shortlist stage -- not surprisingly, given that that stretches all summer, and when it's more likely that it slips out, one way or another, what authors the academician' are reading -- think Mo Yan a couple of years ago suddenly popping up on the betting-lists, or more recently Jon Fosse and Svetlana Alexievich, who were (and remain) plausible shortlist-candidates. (Of course, it's also worth remembering that the old geezers who seem to be somewhere among the five or ten favorites every year -- think Philip Roth, Adonis, Joyce Carol Oates, Ismail Kadare, and Ko Un this year -- do wind up winning occasionally too: Tomas Tranströmer was a betting-favorite at times in 2010, and in 2011 (when he won it) -- leaving aside the last-hours betting surge obviously due to a leak -- he was among the favorites. (True, 2011 is not a great example, especially regarding the Ladbrokes odds -- Bob Dylan was actually the betting-favorite going into the last days .....)
Ladbrokes has the most-quoted odds -- but of course that doesn't mean they have the most betting action.
NicerOdds has a nice odds comparison list, listing odds from various betting shops -- useful because any large discrepancy in odds is highly suspect (why put money down at worse odds when you can get a lot more bang for your bet elsewhere ?). Svetlana Alexievich's consistent range -- 6/1 to 7/1 as I write this -- is reassuring, for example; the Jon Fosse spread 6/1 to 16.5/1 eyebrow-raising, as is John Banville's (11/1 to 29/1). Consistent odds across the board of course don't signal actual odds, but one would expect any author about which there is any inside information to have more consistent odds (since those with that information would surely want to try to maximize their profit from it, spreading their bets and driving the odds to roughly the same level from place to place).
A dpa (German press agency) Q & A with Nobel-leading Swedish Academy permanent secretary Sara Danius isn't very revealing ('There is really only one criterion: quality') -- though it rubs in that the crack-down of her predecessors on leakage seems to have paid off .....
I don't have any good sense what the Swedish Academy might be thinking ... but I'll have some final pre-Nobel thoughts tomorrow.
The Swedish Academy will announce this year's Nobel Laureate in literature at 1 p.m. on Thursday, October 8 in the Grand Hall in the Exchange.It's safe to assume that this announcement signals that they have settled on a winning author (unlike the other Nobels, the literature prize doesn't have a set announcement date; they leave themselves free to announce on any Thursday in October, and so if they had needed more time to deliberate they could have taken it). (Of course, since a new permanent secretary has taken over it's possible she has a different way of doing things and only wants the selection made at the last possible minute, when all the pressure is on .....)
Media speculation predictably enough focuses on the ready-made bookies' lists -- a good starting point (and movement on them can certainly hint at some of the behind-the-scenes doings), but not something one should rely on too much. Less so this year than most too: there hasn't been that much movement, especially not among authors who didn't feature as favorites last year, and especially not in the time before the final decision (likely) was made. For the most part -- until right near announcement time -- the lists have been probably most useful at the time when the prize had reached the shortlist stage -- not surprisingly, given that that stretches all summer, and when it's more likely that it slips out, one way or another, what authors the academician' are reading -- think Mo Yan a couple of years ago suddenly popping up on the betting-lists, or more recently Jon Fosse and Svetlana Alexievich, who were (and remain) plausible shortlist-candidates. (Of course, it's also worth remembering that the old geezers who seem to be somewhere among the five or ten favorites every year -- think Philip Roth, Adonis, Joyce Carol Oates, Ismail Kadare, and Ko Un this year -- do wind up winning occasionally too: Tomas Tranströmer was a betting-favorite at times in 2010, and in 2011 (when he won it) -- leaving aside the last-hours betting surge obviously due to a leak -- he was among the favorites. (True, 2011 is not a great example, especially regarding the Ladbrokes odds -- Bob Dylan was actually the betting-favorite going into the last days .....)
Ladbrokes has the most-quoted odds -- but of course that doesn't mean they have the most betting action.
NicerOdds has a nice odds comparison list, listing odds from various betting shops -- useful because any large discrepancy in odds is highly suspect (why put money down at worse odds when you can get a lot more bang for your bet elsewhere ?). Svetlana Alexievich's consistent range -- 6/1 to 7/1 as I write this -- is reassuring, for example; the Jon Fosse spread 6/1 to 16.5/1 eyebrow-raising, as is John Banville's (11/1 to 29/1). Consistent odds across the board of course don't signal actual odds, but one would expect any author about which there is any inside information to have more consistent odds (since those with that information would surely want to try to maximize their profit from it, spreading their bets and driving the odds to roughly the same level from place to place).
A dpa (German press agency) Q & A with Nobel-leading Swedish Academy permanent secretary Sara Danius isn't very revealing ('There is really only one criterion: quality') -- though it rubs in that the crack-down of her predecessors on leakage seems to have paid off .....
I don't have any good sense what the Swedish Academy might be thinking ... but I'll have some final pre-Nobel thoughts tomorrow.