Why are Nobel literature winners often so unreadable?

I was reading Laszl6 Krasznahorkai and I thought early humans must have invented entertainment to escape from that feeling.

- MANU JOSEPH

It felt like living in a moment where a voice makes a long, dreary and important comment on it before letting it pass, as though time isa string of beads that moves from one solemn observation to another. That is not what the Nobel Prize committee said a few days ago when it awarded the Hungarian writer its Literature award. The panel said the award was for his “compelling and visionary oeuvre that, in the midst of apocalyptic terror, reaffirms the power ofart.” But what ‘apocalyptic terror’?

Where? Not in his novels. Not in the real world as we know it, and as we know what ‘apocalypse’ means. Shouldn't the gatekeepers of literature at least describe our world without hyperbole?

It was as though the prize committee had pinched that quote from a character in his book Satantango, who says, “We are living in apocalyptic times.” But even in her world, no one takes her seriously because there is no apocalypse. Other guardians of literature have received Krasznahorkai’s honour very well, praising him even as they say his prose is “difficult” and “dense” and “dour.”