>>24765261 (OP)
In general, I don't like who they chose. In fairness, I try to read some selections of their chosen winner. I just don't understand. Some of their selections just seem so bad. Take for instance Handke. You can read his journals ("The Weight of the World"). Here are some of his writings :
"April chill in the schoolroom"
"I am accessible to criticism only within the limits of my ideas of myself."
"Try scratching yourself in a different direction."
"The park policeman holds out his bunch of keys like a tommy gun."
"A monkey wrench feel from the scaffolding and hit the sidewalk with a clank: the doorbell rang; I woke up."
Absolute nonsense. And how about Ernaux? I found her writing interesting, but just seems so auto-fiction centric and very narccisstic. I feel they like they often chose writers who live totally in their own mind (who knows maybe Murnane or Knausgard will win)...echo for Dylan, Gluck and Kang. I know you all don't read black men, but Gurnah seemed more deserving than most. Torchozuck wasn't too bad either. Unfortunately, it seems like anybody who has something intersting to say about the broader world (Vollmann, McCarthy, Houllebecq) are at a disadvantage.
Given all the choices, I feel that Volmann would be the most deserving given his wide range of relevant topics, and the fact that he does a better job of telling stories from multiple perspectives and not stuck in his own head like so many others. Anne Carson or Pierre Michon or Tom Stoppard would be interesting choices as well.
