Does Mo Yan really have what it takes to win the Nobel Prize for Literature?

This topic asks actually have a bit of a problem, it seems that literature is single thread, and set up the answer in advance like the Language exam, rating a division delimits a file on the line, the highest vertex is a Nobel Prize, have enough character strength to this level naturally, then ask Mo Yan to not to this level naturally. But literature is not like this. The Nobel Prize in Literature is awarded only to those who produce the best works with the ideal tendency. They are not necessarily the best written or the best written (which is not even what the Prize is about), but whether they are pushing the boundaries of literary rules and whether they have higher ideals. Many of the people who answered this question said how wonderful mo Yan's story was and how beautiful his writing was. This was true, but it was not the point. The world is too big for writers who can write great stories, and not every one of them deserves to be in the Nobel circle. To some extent, the "literary level" of a Nobel prize-winning author is not so important. For example, Winston Churchill, the British prime minister who led the Allies to victory in World War II, also won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Note that Churchill did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize, but the Literature prize. Churchill was a journalist by training, a good writer, an inspirational speaker and an excellent author of his memoirs of the second World War. But to tell the truth, Churchill's "literary strength" is only a relatively strong writer's level, compared with ordinary people has been very good, from the real great writer there is a certain gap. But he won the literature prize because of all the speeches he gave, all the things he wrote, all the things he revealed since World War II, all with high ideals, pushing the boundaries of the impossible. Mankind has never experienced a war on such a scale, recorded in the first person by Churchill as one of his key witnesses. This is extremely rare in literature. We can read Tolstoy's war and peace, but where did Napoleon write it himself? Churchill did, and he pushed the boundaries of the war narrative, even if it was weaker than many writers, and he won the Nobel Prize for literature. Gao Xingjian wrote "Lingshan" won the Nobel Prize, if you look at this book according to the eyes of some of the main answers to this problem, will only feel confused, do not know what story to tell. But Gao Xingjian didn't want to tell a story at all. What he tried was the transformation of different people. The narrating Angle could be you, me or him. Under three different people, the same person has their own you, me and him. Gao xingjian is purely exploring how "person" can be used in literary narration. We used to think of person as the service of the story, but in Gao Xingjian's pen, person is no longer a means to tell the story, but directly cut down the story, using scale structure instead of plot structure. This sounds impossible at first, but Gao xingjian wrote it in spite of all kinds of interference and difficulties (interference outside the text, difficulties in the text itself), and he did it! As we all know, literature is inseparable from narrative, and this is the bottom line of what makes literature literature. So what can we do, given this big immutable premise? Where is the boundary? Gao Xingjian replaces story structure with name structure, and pushes the original boundaries of literature. Such people are eligible for the Nobel Prize. It's not about how good his story is or how beautiful his writing is. Many of the answers to this question praise Mo Yan can not praise the point, always say how true the description of sandalwood torture is, so Mo Yan is awesome. But what could be more real? The audio-visual means are so advanced now, with special effects production, or live broadcast a cruel sandalwood torture, it is more realistic than Mo Yan wrote. If you only think that Mo Yan's writing is true, therefore Mo Yan is awesome, in fact, it derogates his upper limit, because no matter how real his writing is, it can never be more real than reality. If the writer's upper limit is like this, it is no better than a camera or live performance. What really qualifies Mo Yan to compete for the Nobel Prize is what he calls "structure is politics". In spirit, Mo Yan is a disciple of Gabriel Marquez, writing about China in a way of magical realism. He didn't exactly inherit magical reality, but he made his own innovations. In "Frog," for example, mo yan doesn't tell the story in a straight line over several decades. Instead, it takes four long letters and nine stage plays to complete the narrative. Folktale, history and contemporary society are integrated in a subtle and innovative structure. The structural arrangement of reached unprecedented levels, structure directly involved in the story, the story directly involved in politics, that are connected to the political structure, and been together again, this is the innovation of literature itself, his masterpiece, challenge is the boundary of literature, literature itself can constitute a political structure. This is why Mo Yan deserves the attention of the Nobel Prize for Literature. Rather than his story written very not good-looking, in fact, mo yan's words in the Nobel scale writer is not good, even in domestic writer, his style of writing is not the best, to be honest, use other ways to perform the story of mo yan those works still can satisfy ordinary readers, if made into a TV series the reader can see quite well, even make you feel better. But that's just a story, and it's a long way from the Nobel Prize (which can go beyond books, of course; singer Bob Dylan also won the Nobel Prize for Literature). No one wins a Nobel Prize for a good story or for good writing. So Mo Yan certainly meets the criteria for the Nobel Prize. Just as a final note, the Nobel Prize is not the end of literature, nor is it the only dimension in which literature is judged. It's great to encourage the Nobel Prize to focus only on those who push boundaries in the narrative rules, and that's the rules of the Nobel Prize. Without much concern for how tall the author stands or how much he makes within the boundaries of established literary rules. The Nobel Prize doesn't care about that. Readers do. Now many people see their favorite writers, they rang to give him the Nobel Prize, for example, zhihu has a lot of questions, why did Jin Yong not win the Nobel Prize ah, WHY did JK Rowling not win the Nobel Prize ah... Problems like this keep cropping up. These writers are great, of course, and their stories are wonderful, and they can write at their own height, but they write within the established rules of literature, and that's not what the Nobel Prize is about. Leave these writers alone and the Nobel Prize alone. Do not always think that the Nobel Prize is the only criterion, do not use this standard to set every writer, if the ultimate goal of writing is only the Nobel Prize, it is too narrow.