Are American authors too "closed" and "self-involved" for the prize?
Talk Nobel Laureates in Literature
This group has been archived. Find out more.
Join LibraryThing to post.
1Honya451
http://byliner.com/alexander-nazaryan/stories/why-american-novelists-dont-deserv...
Came across this article a few days ago. I know in the end it's a panel decision and subjective, but was curious for some other opinions on the matter. Thoughts?
Came across this article a few days ago. I know in the end it's a panel decision and subjective, but was curious for some other opinions on the matter. Thoughts?
2lriley
The Nobel literature prize is not an American prize. It is a global prize. It's wider in range--meant to account for other cultures and languages. Are there current American writers who are deserving? Sure--but there are a lot more non-American writers who are deserving as well. If there is an English speaking country that has a real gripe--it's probably Canada who has churned out a number of excellent writers in the last century or so and has never had a Nobel laureate in literature. Americans have won the prize quite often considering.
As for how Americans tend to see it--Americans don't have a very strong tendency to read literature in translation. Not like in other countries anyway. In that respect the average American opinion on the subject of who is deserving or not is flawed.
As for how Americans tend to see it--Americans don't have a very strong tendency to read literature in translation. Not like in other countries anyway. In that respect the average American opinion on the subject of who is deserving or not is flawed.
3Davidattheshelf
Thank you, Honya451, for posting this link.
I think Mr. Nazaryan has a point about the smallness of a great deal of current American literature. He suggests that aspiring writers are encouraged to "go small", "stay interior", and to "avoid inhabiting the lives of those unlike you." He quotes an essay by the late David Foster Wallace who takes down John Updike's novel TOWARD THE END OF TIME, linking it to the output of a generation of "Great Male Narcissists" Wallace writes: “The very world around them, as beautifully as they see and describe it, seems to exist for them only insofar as it evokes impressions and associations and emotions inside the self.” I have read this essay by Wallace, whom I deeply admire (it can be found in his collection, CONSIDER THE LOBSTER). It is a brilliant assessment, quietly, even respectfully, devastating. But I think he may possibly overstate his case. And I am quite certain Nazaryan does.
The highly supportable opinion that American fiction is currently impoverished does not obviate the fact that America is home to a few of the world's greatest living writers. Nobel laureate Nadine Gordimer has herself pronounced Philip Roth, together with Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Milan Kundera, as one of the greatest novelists at work today. Nobel laureate J. M. Coetzee has described Roth's output, especially SABBATH'S THEATER, as "Shakespearean". Which is another way of saying "universal", a word Nazarayan refuses, catagorically, all American novelists. Is Roth a "Great Male Narcissist"? Most definitely. But this does not prevent him from from being incisive in his take down of America's culture of narcissism. And, if he is a narcissist, he is no more so than is Doris Lessing, and, while I would not begrudge her her Nobel laurels, Roth is, in my opinion, much the better writer.
I have not yet read Cormac McCarthy or Don Delillo, and, while I admire and respect Thomas Pynchon, I am not especially enamored of him. But I know enough about each of these writers to know that they share with Roth the ability (apparently lacking in most of the younger generations of American writers), to take something essential about America and create encompassing, "universal" myths about America.
Nazaryan writes, "But if we don’t win yet again, we are at fault. America needs an Obama des letters, a writer for the 21st century, not the 20th — or even the 19th. One who is not stuck in the Cold War or the gun-slinging West (by which he must mean Pynchon and McCarthy) or the bygone Jewish precincts of Newark (referring to Philip Roth) — or mired in the claustrophobia of familial dramas (Joyce Carol Oates). What relevance does our solipsism have to a reader in Bombay? For that matter, what relevance does it have in Brooklyn, N.Y.?"
I would respond to this little tantrum of his by asking him what relevance have Herta Müller's small fictions about oppressed Rumanian women, or Pamuk's hemetic mystery stories and parables of obsession acted out by educated Istanbulites? Are these writers smaller, less "universal", for the apparent narrowness of their focus?
I would like to note here that he doesn't even bother with American poets and playwrights. I myself despair of a great deal of contemporary American poetry. But Richard Wilbur is still alive, as is W. S. Merwin. I am not fond of John Ashbery, but many consider him great. We also have David Mamet, who follows only Tom Stoppard for linguistic and philosophical invention in English-language theater. And, in my opinion, there has been no greater, or larger minded, or farther reaching play in recent decades than Tony Kushner's ANGELS IN AMERICA. These are all significant, serious artists who give the lie to the claim that American letters are insular and discountable.
Irley is right. The Nobel Prize has no obligation to the fragile, often whiny American ego. And, considering the 1130 page cinder block published in English translation this past month by Hungarian novelist Peter Nádàs, and considering the winds of change sweeping Africa and the Middle East, and the pressure Stockholm is under, quite rightly, to open the Nobel to non-European or European language literatures, America will likely have to wait awhile longer. But it won't be for a dearth of worthy writers.
I think Mr. Nazaryan has a point about the smallness of a great deal of current American literature. He suggests that aspiring writers are encouraged to "go small", "stay interior", and to "avoid inhabiting the lives of those unlike you." He quotes an essay by the late David Foster Wallace who takes down John Updike's novel TOWARD THE END OF TIME, linking it to the output of a generation of "Great Male Narcissists" Wallace writes: “The very world around them, as beautifully as they see and describe it, seems to exist for them only insofar as it evokes impressions and associations and emotions inside the self.” I have read this essay by Wallace, whom I deeply admire (it can be found in his collection, CONSIDER THE LOBSTER). It is a brilliant assessment, quietly, even respectfully, devastating. But I think he may possibly overstate his case. And I am quite certain Nazaryan does.
The highly supportable opinion that American fiction is currently impoverished does not obviate the fact that America is home to a few of the world's greatest living writers. Nobel laureate Nadine Gordimer has herself pronounced Philip Roth, together with Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Milan Kundera, as one of the greatest novelists at work today. Nobel laureate J. M. Coetzee has described Roth's output, especially SABBATH'S THEATER, as "Shakespearean". Which is another way of saying "universal", a word Nazarayan refuses, catagorically, all American novelists. Is Roth a "Great Male Narcissist"? Most definitely. But this does not prevent him from from being incisive in his take down of America's culture of narcissism. And, if he is a narcissist, he is no more so than is Doris Lessing, and, while I would not begrudge her her Nobel laurels, Roth is, in my opinion, much the better writer.
I have not yet read Cormac McCarthy or Don Delillo, and, while I admire and respect Thomas Pynchon, I am not especially enamored of him. But I know enough about each of these writers to know that they share with Roth the ability (apparently lacking in most of the younger generations of American writers), to take something essential about America and create encompassing, "universal" myths about America.
Nazaryan writes, "But if we don’t win yet again, we are at fault. America needs an Obama des letters, a writer for the 21st century, not the 20th — or even the 19th. One who is not stuck in the Cold War or the gun-slinging West (by which he must mean Pynchon and McCarthy) or the bygone Jewish precincts of Newark (referring to Philip Roth) — or mired in the claustrophobia of familial dramas (Joyce Carol Oates). What relevance does our solipsism have to a reader in Bombay? For that matter, what relevance does it have in Brooklyn, N.Y.?"
I would respond to this little tantrum of his by asking him what relevance have Herta Müller's small fictions about oppressed Rumanian women, or Pamuk's hemetic mystery stories and parables of obsession acted out by educated Istanbulites? Are these writers smaller, less "universal", for the apparent narrowness of their focus?
I would like to note here that he doesn't even bother with American poets and playwrights. I myself despair of a great deal of contemporary American poetry. But Richard Wilbur is still alive, as is W. S. Merwin. I am not fond of John Ashbery, but many consider him great. We also have David Mamet, who follows only Tom Stoppard for linguistic and philosophical invention in English-language theater. And, in my opinion, there has been no greater, or larger minded, or farther reaching play in recent decades than Tony Kushner's ANGELS IN AMERICA. These are all significant, serious artists who give the lie to the claim that American letters are insular and discountable.
Irley is right. The Nobel Prize has no obligation to the fragile, often whiny American ego. And, considering the 1130 page cinder block published in English translation this past month by Hungarian novelist Peter Nádàs, and considering the winds of change sweeping Africa and the Middle East, and the pressure Stockholm is under, quite rightly, to open the Nobel to non-European or European language literatures, America will likely have to wait awhile longer. But it won't be for a dearth of worthy writers.
4lriley
Roth and McCarthy are two of the United States best hopes. I can't really say much about Joyce Carol Oates as I've never read her. I've read Pynchon twice. He leaves me cold. Delillo would be an interesting pick. Denis Johnson may be waiting in the weeds.
It's funny but David Foster Wallace was as talented and as innovative as any American writer of the past half century--but he's now out of the picture. Too bad.
It's funny but David Foster Wallace was as talented and as innovative as any American writer of the past half century--but he's now out of the picture. Too bad.
5Davidattheshelf
Joyce Carol Oates is a writer I've never been able to warm too. I did read a collection of her short stories years ago. I think she's very good, just not my thing. I hope to do a read-through of McCarthy, based in part on your recommendations. Probably not until next year.
I've not read much of D. F. Wallace, but enough to get some sense of his very great gift. I try not to let books intimidate me, but I must say Infinite Jest intimidates me. I will certainly take the plunge at some point. Have you read his wonderful short book This Is Water? It is his 2005 commencement address to Kenyon Collage. Very beautiful. Very moving. Very wise. A spotlight on the tragedy of his death.
I've not read much of D. F. Wallace, but enough to get some sense of his very great gift. I try not to let books intimidate me, but I must say Infinite Jest intimidates me. I will certainly take the plunge at some point. Have you read his wonderful short book This Is Water? It is his 2005 commencement address to Kenyon Collage. Very beautiful. Very moving. Very wise. A spotlight on the tragedy of his death.
6lriley
Infinite Jest is a great book though. But it does take a long time to get through. Comparative in scope and IMO quality to Joyce's Ulysses. I haven't read This is water though I have read at least 2 other works of his--The girl with curious hair is one of them. Broom of the system is probably next on my list--just don't know when that will be.
