“The Nobel Prize for Literature goes to…Doris Lessing”. And then, as usual, the debate starts: Did they make the right choice? Although Lessing is widely regarded as a worthy winner there are voices of dissent. It is argued that she is too uneven; the worst novels in her enormous production are simply too bad and because of that it doesn’t really matter how good the good ones are. Luckily, the committee chose to look at it from the opposite perspective; it doesn't matter how bad the bad ones are.
Even though she crosses barriers between cultures as well as genres in her narratives I’m not going to let her exemplify intersectional innovation. However, her claimed unevenness makes her a very good example of the correlation between quantity and quality and The Medici Effect argues that those who create a lot are those who have the most significant innovative impact. Not because of the quantity itself but if someone produces many things there is a greater chance that some of them are really good. One or two may even be groundbreakingly innovative. Such is the case with Lessing’s books and originality is one of the criteria for the Nobel Prize.
“I have written an awful lot of books” she says in one interview, and concludes that nobody can be expected to like them all. And, in theory, the less qualitative of those are arguably necessary parts in the lifelong creative process that enables her to write masterpieces.