You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning. The author mentioned science prizes to support the view that