It's just a prize, it's not the ultimate truth.
When I start to get agitated because X was chosen at the expense of Y, I remind myself that neither Tolstoy, nor Proust, nor Nabokov etc. have won it. So I calm down

Absolutely. It's like using youtube popularity as an indicator of quality.

Only if you are on crack.

I found it rather dull and boring.

Tom

None of those are fun reads. Good for propping up stuff though.

Not for Herr Schicklgruber, but certainly for Gunther Grass.

That's not very difficult to "predict"!

As did I, and everybody else who ever read it. Literary licence to make my point, Tom!

Also, you left out "turgid". That adjective is compulsory when describing Mein Kampf.

I read (and liked) "House of Day, House of Night" and have recently bought "Flights" and "Primeval and Other Times".
I have to say that (most probably) not everyone will like her books. As it is often the case with many award-winning writers, some/a few readers fail to find those highly acclaimed qualities. And that's OK.

Cannot agree more. It is sad to see how some people are still stuck with the past and cannot get over it. The time has come to move on and celebrate good literature, as Nobel just did.

As I said, the right way for Nobel to restore the glory this prize once had.

That's another good one. You do know why Nobel instituted his annual prizes, don't you?

I do.

So do you see a place for voting in good conscience when it comes to Nobel prizes, then?

No, not really. We could argue the same for the past Nobel prizes (Obama and Ahtisaari, for instance). The bottom line is that it is a private organization and within their prerogative to do with it as they deem appropriate; so no voting by general public is necessary. Again - I am only pleased to see that they are on a good path to restore its glory.