American literature too parochial ?

[Michael]

Thread originally created by Sucre on Oct, 4th 2008

When I read this, the interview and ensuing comments and debate, I wonder what "powerful" literature is, how we know and who knows that a author is "great" while this other one is not ... We seem to be surrounded by pundits who know exactly what they are speaking about and all hold the Absolute Truth.

[url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gn-_m0gOLDlyXymX2CJHcV5HexsgD93HD1500[/url]

Besides these general questions, my question is also whether you agree with Horace Engdahl qualification of American literature. (I can't imagine someone does, but still would appreciate to read why ...)

[Michael]

Here is a single recovered reply to this thread...

I tend to see this kind of issue not in terms of the old "Euro-snob-socialist-cultural-elitist" vs "American-mass-market-capitalist-vulgar-plebian" lens that these kind of critiques easily fall into. One can find this same critique made on this side of the pond too (though obviously not a majority opinion). I find this type of analogy to be weak.

Rather, I tend to view this issue in terms of the 'reactionary rear-guard' and 'activist-progressives' always in conflict. As time progresses, things change, different ideas come into and out of fashion, and the old establishment will always perceive itself as 'under seige' and seek to defend themselves with elitist like attitudes. The 'new' is always seen as an attack on their 'perogatives' (and prestige!).

And most importantly, the 'old guard' will always and constantly try to prove (to you, me and themselves) that their side isn't losing the game - even though the reactionary rear guard will always end up losing the game in the final analysis.

So, no, I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with Horace Engdahl's comments/critique of American literature. I'm only pointing out that it is obvious to me that Mr Engdahl considers American literature to be his professional enemy. He is just a reactionary 'elitist-snob' of the old school type (regardless of which side of the pond).

As the article notes, North American literature is increasingly dominated by the children of new immigrants - not American migrants to Europe as in the old days. Perhaps Mr. Engdahl is decrying the fact that American writers no longer feel the need to move to Paris or London to prove they can write?

Full disclosure: I don't read much modern fiction at all, so I have little first hand experience of post-WW2 literature (except mass-market stuff or my high school days). The stuff just doesn't attract me - I really only ever read non-fiction for serious intent now. Though I have read Borroughs and Kerouac amongst some classic Canadians like Timothy Findlay and Robertson Davies.

[Michael]

Further to this earlier discussion (mostly lost), here is an interesting article that addresses the same issue, with some rather substantial replies to Mr. Engdahl's comments.

Horace Engdahl, the permanent secretary of the Swedish Academy, recently told the Associated Press that the literary culture of the United States is too mass-media oriented and cut off from the rest of the world. “The U.S. is too isolated,” he said, “too insular. They don’t translate enough and don’t really participate in the big dialogue of literature. That ignorance is restraining.” The last Nobel Prize for Literature awarded to a U.S. writer was given to Toni Morrison 15 years ago. An obvious implication of Engdahl’s remarks is that things will remain that way for a while yet.

How valid are Engdahl’s criticisms? Are there tendencies in U.S. culture that negate his perspective, or particularly grievous ones that confirm it? What American author seems an obvious candidate for the Nobel?

Those were the questions I posed by e-mail to a range of writers, critics, translators, and scholars. Most if not all of them are citizens of the United States, though it didn’t actually cross my mind to ask for anyone’s papers.

Here are the responses, presented in the order that they arrived.

Article (http://insidehighered.com/views/2008/10/08/mclemee)