That is not to say that whoever got it this year does not deserve it. But still.
Nobel's choice of emphasis on idealism in his criteria for the Nobel Prize in Literature has led to recurrent controversy. In the original Swedish, the word idealisk translates as either "idealistic" or "ideal".[2] In the early twentieth century, the Nobel Committee interpreted the intent of the will strictly. For this reason, they did not award certain world-renowned authors of the time such as James Joyce, Leo Tolstoy, Anton Chekhov, Marcel Proust, Henrik Ibsen, and Henry James. More recently, the wording has been more liberally interpreted. Thus, the prize is now awarded both for lasting literary merit and for evidence of consistent idealism on some significant level. In recent years, this means a kind of idealism championing human rights on a broad scale. Hence the award is now arguably more political.
This is why a lot of authors, who are otherwise considered world-class, don't win.
That, and the fact that there are, of course, lots and lots and lots of breathtakingly great writers out there. I've had the feeling over the past couple of years that the Nobel for literature was often given to authors the commitee felt deserved more attention.
The Nobel committee is becoming a standing joke. Their general incompetence and overt political bias is even evident in the physics category these days. (Blue LEDs? Really?)
Secondly: There are different committees for each category. The Peace prize (which I agree it's a joke) is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel committee.
I strongly disagree with your claim that the other prizes, specifically physics and chemistry, are either incompetent or obviously biased.
And if there were a Nobel Prize in Engineering, I'd be on board with this.
seriously, what discovery do you have in mind?
I don't know. It's not my job to keep up with physics research, it's the Nobel committee's.