A member of the Nobel Prize jury has asserted that American literature is "too insular" to compete with Europeans for the Big Game, and a number of Americans take the bait:
Speaking generally about American literature, however, he said U.S. writers are "too sensitive to trends in their own mass culture," dragging down the quality of their work.
"The U.S. is too isolated, too insular. They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature," Engdahl said. "That ignorance is restraining."
His comments were met with fierce reactions from literary officials across the Atlantic.
"You would think that the permanent secretary of an academy that pretends to wisdom but has historically overlooked Proust, Joyce, and Nabokov, to name just a few non-Nobelists, would spare us the categorical lectures," said David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker.
We'll probably get in trouble for saying he is right about some things - we don't translate enough, we are a bit too insular. But we'd ask for a bit more clarity about this so-called "big dialogue of literature" that appears to be seizing Europe. 'Cause we were just there and saw plenty of, y'know, cookbooks and celebrity tell-alls. Unless they are talking about this one. Just saying.
This so-called dialogue's a fraud in our atomized "global" world. No one anywhere cares that much about literature. I've lived all over and people are more worried about other things, period. I agree with the Academy's choices for Naipaul and Pinter, obvious greats, but some of the others lately, PC?--our own personal shame of an ideology. Europeans and Latin Americans look to Americans like DeLillo and Oates and for cues and guidance, over their shoulders. You see the influence of Pynchon and Chabon, for example, everywhere. And writers like Hemon and Alarcon and Adichie wouldn't be quite possible without the New Yorker, not to mention our prizes (MacArthur, anyone?). A lot of so-called international writers are actually based here, and collect generous royalties from our publishers and gift givers. We're not the final word, but we're in the "dialogue," whatever that is. At least until our economy totally tanks.
Posted by: miguel | October 01, 2008 at 11:39 AM
It's interesting -- people who like foreign literature seem to be a little more sensitive to his criticisms. His first sentence that you quote seems to most resonate with me. I do think writers and publishers here tend to be very trend-driven, as that results in higher sales. Not that they don't produce their share of crap over there, but I feel that it's more of a miracle here when a literary work, particularly by an unknown, actually sees the light of day.
Posted by: tonya | October 01, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Oh, and you know what the great Scandinavian contribution to world letters in the last few years is? Police procedurals and mysteries. Whoopty-doo. We have Junot Diaz and they have Helga Melga Burgamurgalander. Big deal. We can be cosmopolitan, too, or we can be parochial. Why are we always being looked at as the great would-be trendsetters? When we are that, we're not trying to be--we just are.
Posted by: miguel | October 01, 2008 at 01:36 PM