Here's an interesting article. While I appreciate Mr. Engdahl's point, I tend to disagree. Personally, I blame Oprah. Your thoughts are welcome.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/weekinreview/05mcgrath.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
fiction, hip-hop, hoops, learnin'
6 comments:
While I love the Swedes, I think it just comes down to the Nobel folks being anti-American. And, you know, for the most part I don't blame them.
American literature is insular and fractured. But I do think Mailer was Nobel worthy. He was just too arrogant, too quintessentially American. I think Roth will be awarded before too long. That is, unless Oprah picks one of his novels. Then he's screwed.
Thanks for the viewpoint Jen!
Mad Googler wrote:
I don't read enough literature to comment thoughtfully on a Nobel committee member's gripes about today's literature. The piece seems to be inside baseball.
I will say that the committee member needs to do some self-reflection. Leveling an insular charge against American writers? Aren't most writers insular? Many create inaccessible works and are quite taken with the membership they have in various metropolitan salons. They don't let many newcomers join the party.
Thanks Beth.I mostly agree with you. But then a guy like Junot Diaz wins a Pulitzer and I'm then okay with awards. Hey, don't we all need to justify our existence.
Speaking of which: Oprah. I'll spare those of you who know me another rant. But, I think the whole: "she got people to read" thing is flimsy. I mean, really? There were people before who weren't reading novels AT ALL, who suddenly started because of an egomaniacal book club. Really?
Post a Comment