#30 The Nobel Prize dust up [ Edited ]

[ande]

Book Explorers:

I was going to focus this week on the barbed words flying across the Atlantic about the quality of American Literature and its Novel Prize worthiness. And then I saw that Bibliocurious (merci!) got the ball rolling for us. I've moved that thread into this one so we can all be in one place.

Harold Augenbraum, executive director of the National Book Foundation (whence the prestigious National Books Awards plus other good things emanate), is one of the keenest observers of the book industry and an all-round smart guy (and a board member of the Literary Ventures Fund). He had this to say about the Nobel dust up:

***

Let me reply to the many people who have written asking for the list to which I referred when responded to Horace Engdahl, the misguided and misinformed secretary for the committee that selects the recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature.

The vitality of American literature comes not from a single genius who may appear once in a generation and be recognized by the committee in Stockholm. Instead it derives from a constant entry into the tradition of new voices, new experience, and new approaches to art. So, more than recommending individual titles I would suggest exploring books that you may feel are outside your comfort zone. At the risk of seeming self-interested, read the National Book Award Finalists. They are consistently interesting. Feel free to love them, hate them, not finish reading them, or be indifferent toward them.

Read The New Immigrant Fiction, works by Junot Diaz, Jhumpa Lahiri, Min Jin Lee, Monique Truong, and the wonderful young Slavs: Gary Shteyngart, Olga Grushin, Lara Kapnyar, Sana Krasikov, and Keith Gessen. They not only bring new perspectives, they are really good writers.

Read the hybrids: Michael Chabon’s The Yiddish Policemen’s Union, a cross between the Yiddish immigrant saga and hard-boiled detective fiction. David Markson’s The Last Novel, influenced by Bartlett’s Quotations, Google, and Samuel Beckett.

The Great American Short Story Writers (take that Mr. Engdahl!): the inimitable Deborah Eisenberg, George Saunders, Denis Johnson, Jim Shepard, and Lydia Davis, who writes unlike anyone else.

And since this is necessarily a short list, please don’t hesitate to send recommendations to me. I’m always looking for exciting new works of American literature to pass on.

***

Book Explorers: I think this is an enlightened view. Do you agree?

And what would you say to Mr. Engdahl?

Ande

Message Edited by ande on 10-14-2008 10:51 AM

Message Edited by ande on 10-14-2008 11:05 AM

[Bibliocurious]

Today, I was reading an article about how Horace Engdahl, the permanent secretary of the Nobel Prize committee, made some disparaging comments with respect to the quality of American literature in general. He talked about how "The U.S. is too isolated, too insular. They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature.... That ignorance is restraining."

Now, I don't know about you, but I find it insulting to those of us who enjoy the works of American writers that he would lump all of them, past and present, into one giant Pop Fiction section. Americans have won the second highest amount of Nobel Prizes for literature since the inception of the award, so why the hating?

Personally, I think that "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy and "A Month of Sundays" by John Updike counters Mr. Engdahl's charge that American writers are restrained by ignorance. Both of these books were absolutely fantastic - they were beautifully written, insightful, and compelling stories written by - gasp! - Americans.

So, opinions? Concerns? Burning desires to write him an angry letter? A letter of agreement? And what the heck is he referring to when he refers to "the big dialogue in literature"?

(For more of Mr. Engdahl's salient comments, the article is from Associated Press and can be found by googling "Horace Engdahl insular".)

[mwinasu]

I went to my book club the other day and they started talking about this.  I said that I agreed with him and they almost lynched me. Remember that we are talking about literature and not Patriotic Pride.

Nobel Prizes are awarded for the Author's entire body of work. Not a single work.  This work has to have a message or  change the way we use language.  Most of the ones that I have read have effected the way I have viewed the world.  They made me really think about what it means to be human.  Not many American writers do that for me.  As a matter of fact, I can't think of one at the moment.  Maybe later.

That dialogue he spoke of ....  well about fifteen years ago I realized that other countries are more literate in American and English classics than most Americans.  Moreover, it hit me  that except for a few Classic French and Russian novels I was pretty ignorant when it  came to world literature.  I would bet that most Americans are the same.  Because cultures explain to the world what is important  through the words of their authors, we can not know a country without knowing what they read and why. It is really hard to have a dialog about what the world is thinking  when the only thing you read or  hear or see is from an American viewpoint. 

[katknit]

Well, I've gotta say that I agree insofar as most books on the American market are not true literature, especially the stuff that winds up on the paperback bestsellers list.  I can't even count how many books I've closed in disgust after only a few chapters. That said, there certainly are some Americans writing good literature today, and I think the Nobel rep's analysis was overstated.

[mwinasu]

I think that Louise Erdrich should qualify as Nobel material.  Not because she is entertaining or prolific but she says  things about being a Native American that most people can't even imagine. The Nobel authors are supposed to change your world view.  It is not about writing an interesting story that everyone likes, or becoming a commercial success; it is about writing something that could get you thrown into prison or murdered in your sleep.  It is about taking a stand and holding a mirror up to evil for as long as you live.

Isn't it interesting that in a country so proud of its right to free speech so much of what we hear is trash?

Can you think of a specific author you think should be nominated?

[thewanderingjew]

why is it surprising that the nobel prize committee is anti american? think about some of the awards given out. some seemed an almost deliberate attempt to embarrass america. if we want respect here as americans and for america and its achievements, it has to start here and america bashing has to stop. let's start spreading the word that america is great and stop complaining about it all the time, as has become our habit, and others will follow suit.

twj 

[katknit]

Perhaps that will happen after American foreign policy no longer includes arrogant bullying. I've traveled a lot in Europe the past few years, and while I've found that most Italians, French, and English treat us personally with respect, they find the past 8 years of US global behavior appalling and threatening.

[thewanderingjew]

america provides aid to all nations in need and perhaps we should stop doing it since they bite the hand that feeds them and bad mouth us. keep politics out of this. soon bush bashing will no longer be fashionable or necessary to win an election. in the last 8 years our country has been subjected to terrorism, natural disasters etc. that are beyond the control of any sitting president although if possible, bush would be blamed for cloudy days, i am sure. perhaps no one could have done a better job, although in hindsight many think they could.

be proud of your country. perhaps whatever bullying is perceived by other nations was neccessary for our well being. i am really tired of people not appreciating that they live in the best place in the world and that is why people are clamoring to get here. no one is beating down the doors to live with putin or chavez or ahmadinejad, etc.

twj

---

katknit wrote:
Perhaps that will happen after American foreign policy no longer includes arrogant bullying. I've traveled a lot in Europe the past few years, and while I've found that most Italians, French, and English treat us personally with respect, they find the past 8 years of US global behavior appalling and threatening.

---

[katknit]

I did not say I don't like living here.  I said our foreign policy is a disaster, and I don't blame people for feeling threatened by it. This is a new world, like it or not.

[thewanderingjew]

what do you mean by new world? i would really like to know so i know if i will like it or not?maybe it will be better.

twj

[Everyman]

Even assuming it is true that people overseas feel threatened by our political policies, what difference should that make to how our literature, most of which is totally nonpolitical, should be viewed?   I would think that the people in charge of the Nobel Prize awards should be intelligent and sophisticated enough to separate their feelings about the political activities of a country from its literature. 

---

katknit wrote:
I did not say I don't like living here.  I said our foreign policy is a disaster, and I don't blame people for feeling threatened by it. This is a new world, like it or not.

---

[Redcatlady]

---

mwinasu wrote:

I think that Louise Erdrich should qualify as Nobel material.  Not because she is entertaining or prolific but she says  things about being a Native American that most people can't even imagine. The Nobel authors are supposed to change your world view.  It is not about writing an interesting story that everyone likes, or becoming a commercial success; it is about writing something that could get you thrown into prison or murdered in your sleep.  It is about taking a stand and holding a mirror up to evil for as long as you live.

Isn't it interesting that in a country so proud of its right to free speech so much of what we hear is trash?

Can you think of a specific author you think should be nominated?

---

No specific author, but several:  Lisa See, Geraldine Brooks (she did, after all, win the Pulitzer for March), Larry McMurtry, Debbie Macomber, even though I know she'll never make the list.

Redcatlady 

[mwinasu]

First off I do not believe that the Nobels are anti- American, but they are anti- war. And that means every war.   I think it has something to do with the fact that they were founded by the guy that invented TNT.  I had a real hard time understanding why they chose Elfride Jelinek ( I am not sure of the spelling) because her writing is ugly.  Then I found out that that she has written about Bush.  That is what I mean about saying things that make people mad.  It is not meant as a political stance, more of an ethical or moral statement.  Saying that war is wrong and that we should be able to solve our problems without killing each other is not an evil position. It does not make me less of a patriot than you. It is what free speech is all about.  Have we forgotten that as a nation? 

[thewanderingjew]

what we have forgotten as a nation is how much more good there is here than bad. is free speech only negative? what about appreciating and speaking positively about your country and its great achievements for a change? it may not suit a particular political purpose to do that but it might change a few minds abroad if we stopped knocking our own great country and started praising it.

you don't have to agree with bush or his policies, clinton or his morals, but for heaven's sake, get over it.

i believe that the prize should be for achievement only, in whatever field it is given, and the winner's country of origin and/or politics should not influence the choice. further, the awarding of the prize should not be used in an attempt to influence or shame that country by its choice of the winner.

if we cheer a winner on because we agree with his politics rather than his accomplishments, we encourage the prize to be corrupt and unjust in its choice and help to perpetuate the unfair practice of rewarding, in some cases, mediocrity.

twj

[mwinasu]

TWJ,  Could you please define what you mean by the term "Politics". I am an Alaskan Independent which means that I can vote in any primary and no one hits me up for money.  It also means that I can belong to a book club full of raving liberals on Monday and then hang out with slavering conservatives on Thursday. So I get a chance to hear a lot of viewpoints. I have found that some people  see everything that happens as a political event and they need to be on the winning side no matter what the consequences.  They will do anything to be the boss.  But you know, most people do not get livid about their political beliefs; some would even say that Americans have grown fairly apathetic over the past twenty years. Yes, most of us have given up and become jaded by the hype.  It takes too much of my precious energy to maintain the anger you show in your posts.  So please excuse me if I laugh at you a little.

Instead of grandstanding , who would you have nominated, or are you having trouble coming  up with some names too?

[thewanderingjew]

thanks for taking the time to read my posts even if you don't like the tone you feel they have.

the policies and programs that the government in question supports would determine its politics. if you want a dictionary definition then it is the total complex of relations between people living in society and how they interact.

personally, i am a bit surprised that you would laugh at me/make fun of me for my opinions or how i express them. i suspect you didn't mean that literally. i might not agree with your opinions but i would give you the respect of listening to them and i would never laugh at you. i try not to laugh at anyone even when i disagree with them and so we actually remain friends even when we are polar opposites. i try to understand opposing points of view because that is actually how i learn.

i respect your right and mine to express opinions. perhaps because you disagree with my point of view, you think i am angry. i am not angry, i am frustrated that in a country as great as the usa, we have so many malcontents.

you asked me whom i would have nominated and in the final list of nominees, i would have supported hillary clinton. obama has no experience, mc cain is a bit old. i believed that hillary was the best suited and most qualified to be president. in a crisis, besides advisors, she would have also had the experience of bill clinton to depend on. i may not agree with some of his policies or his morals, but he was a brilliant politician.

on some days i am a "slavering conservative" and on others i am a "raving liberal", depending on the cause. i have spent much of my life helping others without compensation. forgive me if you think i am expending too much energy on "anger" when it is merely exercising my right to free expression and speech, hopefully to encourage the exchange of ideas. i am sorry you misinterpreted my intentions but i suppose we cannot really understand each other from our soundbites.

by the way, since you are from alaska, what is your opinion of sarah palin?

twj

---

mwinasu wrote:

TWJ, Could you please define what you mean by the term "Politics". I am an Alaskan Independent which means that I can vote in any primary and no one hits me up for money. It also means that I can belong to a book club full of raving liberals on Monday and then hang out with slavering conservatives on Thursday. So I get a chance to hear a lot of viewpoints. I have found that some people see everything that happens as a political event and they need to be on the winning side no matter what the consequences. They will do anything to be the boss. But you know, most people do not get livid about their political beliefs; some would even say that Americans have grown fairly apathetic over the past twenty years. Yes, most of us have given up and become jaded by the hype. It takes too much of my precious energy to maintain the anger you show in your posts. So please excuse me if I laugh at you a little.

Instead of grandstanding , who would you have nominated, or are you having trouble coming up with some names too?

---

[debbook]

---

mwinasu wrote:

I think that Louise Erdrich should qualify as Nobel material.  Not because she is entertaining or prolific but she says  things about being a Native American that most people can't even imagine. The Nobel authors are supposed to change your world view.  It is not about writing an interesting story that everyone likes, or becoming a commercial success; it is about writing something that could get you thrown into prison or murdered in your sleep.  It is about taking a stand and holding a mirror up to evil for as long as you live.

Isn't it interesting that in a country so proud of its right to free speech so much of what we hear is trash?

Can you think of a specific author you think should be nominated?

---

Joyce Carol Oates is an incredibly prolific writer and should be nominated. What about Kurt Vonnegut or Norman Mailor? Do the nominees still have to be living? Isabelle Allende, maybe. But offhand I can't think of any American writers that have written something that could get them thrown in prison or murdered. Salman Rushdie would qualify for that but he's British.

[ande]

Book Explorers:

I heard this on NPR's Day to Day and thought it was worthy of inclusion in this discussion.  Here is a transcript and also a list of recommended books by foreign writers. It also sheds some light on how hard it is for international writers to break into the US publishing world and/or come to the attention of US readers (though we did our best for Rhyll Mcmaster, didn't we!).

 * * *

French writer Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clezio won the Nobel Prize for literature Thursday. If most Americans have never heard of this accomplished author of more than 30 novels, essays and story collections, perhaps it's because there is so little emphasis on international books in the U.S. publishing world.

Only about 3 percent of all books published in the United States are works that have been translated, laments David Kipen, director of Literature and National Reading Initiatives at the National Endowment for the Arts. In terms of literary fiction, the number falls below 1 percent, according to the blog, The Three Percent.

Now that Le Clezio has a Nobel, surely major U.S. publishers will embrace him, right? Not necessarily, Kipen tells Madeleine Brand. One needs only to look at the case of Imre Kertesz, Nobel Prize-winning author of Fateless, to see that in the publishing world, no foreign author is safe.

Even after winning the esteemed award — and adapting his novel into an acclaimed movie — Kertesz couldn't keep his book contract with a major American publisher.

"Obviously he didn't earn out what they expected for him," Kipen explains.

For his latest novella, The Pathseeker, Kertesz was forced to turn to the "plucky" small publisher Melville House.

"It's to our discredit, I suppose, that he couldn't justify his place along the heavy domestic hitters of major publishing houses," Kipen says.

Indeed, just this sort of incident has left a sour taste in the mouth of Horace Engdahl, permanent secretary of the Nobel Committee for Literature. Americans are "too isolated, too insular," he charged last month, along with complaints that the American publishing world is excessively closed off to translations.

In an effort to reverse the trend, Kipen offers a list of his favorite foreign authors — whom most Americans have never heard of.

You may have to brow-beat your local bookstore to find them. You could also try a little searching online.

The List

Britain

• Jonathan Coe, The Rotters' Club and The House of Sleep

Russia

• Victor Pelevin, The Sacred Book of Werewolf and Buddha's Little Finger

• Boris Akunin, The Winter Queen

• Ludmila Ulitskaya, The Funeral Party

Albania

• Ismail Kadare, The Three-Arched Bridge and Spring Flowers, Spring Frost (Read Excerpt)

Hungary

• Imre Kertesz, Fateless, The Pathseeker (Read Excerpt)

Portugal

• Antonio Lobo Antunes, What Can I Do When Everything's on Fire?

Norway

• Per Petterson, Out Stealing Horses

Egypt

• Naguib Mahfouz, The Thief and the Dogs

• Muhammad Yusuf Quayd, War in the Land of Egypt

• Alaa Al Aswany, The Yacoubian Building

Japan

• Haruki Murakami, The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle

Mexico

• Carlos Fuentes, The Death of Artemio Cruz

* * *

Feel free to add your own thoughts to this list

Ande

[Everyman]

How many of these authors are have translations of their works coming out with or shortly after their publication in their native languages?  That could be one of the problems -- not that many Americans read foreign languages well enough to read modern literature in the original.  And they can't read the reviews of the newspapers and literary journals of those countries, so hve to rely on American reviewers to bring these works to the public's attention.

[mwinasu]

TWJ

  Your earlier posts sounded like you were stuck in a mental loop and I was trying to get your attention.  I was not trying to hurt you , please forgive me if I did.  I was not asking who you voted for I was asking who you would nominate for the Nobels.