The State of American Literature

Status
Not open for further replies.

ccv707

He who asks, "Why?"
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
527
Reaction score
46
Location
SF Bay Area
Website
www.facebook.com
I'd like to get the opinions of the people here. I think the issue is an important and interesting one if one looks beyond the surface and considers the reality of the world we live in.

As I've made clear on this forum before, my opinion of what American culture, in particular popular culture, has done to the collective minds of the people; our society caters to the popcorn flick. I cite Stephanie Meyer, Clive Cussler, Dan Brown, and Danielle Steele as examples, a very "successful" group of authors who embody the style-over-substance nature that Americans have, for whatever reason, nurtured. We see it in other walks of life as well: television (American Idol, Survivor, the cancellation of shows worth watching because people are watching the previous two instead, such as Carnivale, Firefly, Rome, etc.), music (virtually everything to have been released in the last decade, Brittney Spears as an example), film (horrible American remakes of good foreign films, every movie insisting upon ending with a twist and negates 90% of what came before it), as well as literature, which tends toward melodrama rather than actual characterization.

While I realize that not every show, song, film, and book that comes out is going to be great art, I believe, and a little research will prove so, that we cater to those who seek something far less than art. We buy the Brittney Spears cds (or at least we used too LOL!!!); we watch American Idol; we spend $10 to watch Michael Bay's next explosion fest; we shelve out twice or three times that much to read a misogynistic book about a girl whose only goal in life is to follow her misguided idea of love and bow down to a boy.

However, I also believe that American literature has enough artists to be considered above this so-called pop culture. We have great--some all-time great--writers who represent what B&N likes to dub American "literature": Cormac McCarthy, Thomas Pynchon, Joyce Carol Oates, Philip Roth, Don Delillo, Neil Gaiman, Jonathan Franzen, David Foster Wallace (before his suicide), even Stephen King (young SK moreso than current SK), just to name a few working today. I think this shows we have enough people who write things that truly matter to allow us some leeway in the "American literature is no good" discussion.

This is why the statements of certain people in the Swedish Academy, the group of people responsible for the Nobel Prize in Literature, strike me as surprising, offensive, and hypocritical. I'm providing a few links here, hopefully to give different perspectives...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95537900

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/oct/01/us.literature.insular.nobel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Engdahl

So, let me get this right...American literature is naive, narrow-minded, and with little merit. I believe this is partially true, but as I said in relation to film, music, and television, this is true in every art form and storytelling medium. I reiterate, not everything can be great art, and it doesn't necessarily have to be, even if I firmly believe one should aspire or aim toward that. In Mr. Engdahl's opinion, is Europe then devoid of these same issues? Since Europe is the "center of the literary world", I assume Mr. Engdahl believes this to be at least partially true. Isn't that just as narrow-minded and insulated as he says American literature is? Is all literature in Europe great works of art? No, of course not. There's crap in Europe just as there's crap here in America, albeit different kinds of crap. I agree with the fact that America doesn't translate enough of foreign literature, namely most of the great Japanese writers, but we have Tolstoy, Chekov, Dostoevsky, Borges, Marquez, and so on. That doesn't mean American literature is so insulated that we "don't participate in the big dialogue of literature," as Mr. Engdahl so eloquently put it. His comments have made the rounds since he uttered them last year, leading those in the know to speculate that it will be a long time until an American author is given the Nobel again (the last one was Toni Morrison, in 1993).

Awards aren't, and shouldn't be, the driving force behind a writer's work, but it's interesting to note the views of the outside world on American literature, and in effect American culture. Again, I'm not a homer; I have little American pride, being what right-wing conservatives like to call a "bleeding heart liberal", as I find it hard to deny the fact that America hasn't been one of the goodguys since WWII. I'll admit to being opinionated, but I firmly believe in objectivity in all matters--one cannot truly understand the underlying truth of things without considering all perspectives equally.

That said, I'd like to hear the opinions of others on this matter, especially those who live outside the US. Let the discussion begin! Hopefully...
 

Deleted member 42

This is a non-issue; Engdahl has also said that Melville and Twain are barely literate, and trash.

He also has expressed negative opinions in an interview I heard yesterday that Milton, Keats and Wordsworth were didactic and uninspired.

Yawn. He's a poltroon.

And yes, Stephen King will be taught, in the U.S., Cambridge, and Oxford as part of the novel canon, right along with his literary progenitors, Hawthorne, Melville, and Bronte.
 

bsolah

AW's Resident Commie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
5,379
Reaction score
569
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Website
www.benjaminsolah.com
Firstly, putting down people who are interesting in 'popular culture' is a tad elitist. Who are we to judge what lots of people like? I may not like those things like Meyer or Dan Brown but I'm certainly not about to judge people as stupid for liking them.

And I also find Americans getting all testy at these comments kind of amusing. Everyone is so obsessed with trying to defend American literature. Whilst I don't agree that there isn't any merit in American literature e.g. I love Steinbeck, I don't think it's something that needs to be defended.

This goes for me in Australia as well. I don't have any attachment to Australian literature for the sole reason it was written within the same arbitrary borders that I write in. I don't think it matters.
 

8thSamurai

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
380
Reaction score
26
Honestly, this is a plain stupid argument if one looks at popular books historically.

During the time that Dickinson was putting out Great Expectations, the most popular book in England was...

Varney the Vampire.

People haven't changed, elitists like that are not half as bright as they fervently wish others believed, and it's about time to get over it.
 

10er

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
273
Reaction score
48
This is a difficult topic. I'll have to brood over it some more and maybe post corrections on this but my tentative opinion is this:

First of all, it's not so much that American writers are crap, it's the fact crappy American writers are stealing so much of the spotlight that good stuff disappears in an eclipse of prosaic garbage. And I believe not only the slavering masses but also critics are to blame for this. You see, what I've noticed when reading chiefly American reviews is: they have elevated certain elements to the ultimate virtues of prose that simply have no place being in that category in my opinion. In at least 2 out of 3 positive reviews of major publications I read praise such as "nice, simple prose", "hits the ground running and doesn't stop", "characters are easy to relate to" and so on. Sounds like a Hollywood blockbuster to me. This kind of review is an approval, a celebration of mass appeal.
Now, I understand if commercial writers write like this. After all, in the age of Michael Bay explosionfests, it is easier to get an audience that way. But should critics, who often seem to see themselves as the guardians of culture, really judge in the same vein?

P.S.: Neil Gaiman is both overrated (yes, it is envy speaking) and English. :p
 

bsolah

AW's Resident Commie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
5,379
Reaction score
569
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Website
www.benjaminsolah.com
In at least 2 out of 3 positive reviews of major publications I read praise such as "nice, simple prose", "hits the ground running and doesn't stop", "characters are easy to relate to" and so on. Sounds like a Hollywood blockbuster to me. This kind of review is an approval, a celebration of mass appeal.
Now, I understand if commercial writers write like this. After all, in the age of Michael Bay explosionfests, it is easier to get an audience that way. But should critics, who often seem to see themselves as the guardians of culture, really judge in the same vein?

Well I happen to like novels that sometimes have less flowery prose and just tell a good story rather than masturbate over the words used. And I love novels that hit the ground running and never stop. And why shouldn't characters be easy to relate to? And I think it's good that novels like this have mass appeal!

It's this kind of attitude that I hate.
 

Sam Stephens

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
93
Reaction score
14
Location
Central Coast, Australia
Website
www.samstephens.com
I think reading is something that should be enjoyed (emphasis on the word ENJOYED).

Whether you enjoy intense literature, soppy romances, or big guns and even bigger explosions, books are meant to be enjoyed.

If we want our kids to be reading we need to not worry so much about "the great works", and simply get them hooked on the joy of picking up a book that is a style and story that they're going to love.

Sam
 

bsolah

AW's Resident Commie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
5,379
Reaction score
569
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Website
www.benjaminsolah.com
I really agree with you Sam. Twilight isn't my thing and I actually think some of the moral content in that book is quite disturbing but it's good if my sister reads that book ten times over because she likes the story.
 

KTC

Stand in the Place Where You Live
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
29,138
Reaction score
8,563
Location
Toronto
Website
ktcraig.com
non-issue.

lock thread.
 

Sam Stephens

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
93
Reaction score
14
Location
Central Coast, Australia
Website
www.samstephens.com
Bsolah, you just reminded me: when I was in year 11 at school, my English teacher scoffed at me because I read Stephen King almost exclusively.

Was this a concious choice? No. He just happened to be the author I got hooked on, back when I first picked up "It" at the age of 13. New Stephen King books kept popping up in the library, so I kept reading them.

We did a reading test in class, and pretty much all of my classmates were scoring a reading age of 12 to 15 years old, mostly to the lower end of the scale. I scored a reading age of 33.

That wasn't because I was smart - it was simply because I loved to read. Just because it was popular fiction didn't make it less worthwhile to me. In fact, it even benefited me.

I have a 1 year old son, and I hope he grows up to be a big reader. To encourage him, I plan to help him explore different books until he finds a style he likes.

Again, I believe reading is about enjoyment, no matter which style (or styles) it is we enjoy.

Sam
 

Rushie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
385
Reaction score
66
If I won a Nobel prize these days I'd be embarrassed. I don't have any respect for them anymore.
 

bsolah

AW's Resident Commie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
5,379
Reaction score
569
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Website
www.benjaminsolah.com
Yeah, I got mocked for reading Stephen King too. I went for an interview for a creative writing degree upon finishing High School and when the interviewers asked what I read and I said King. They scoffed.
 

CheshireCat

Mostly purring. Mostly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 27, 2007
Messages
1,842
Reaction score
661
Location
Mostly inside my own head.
I think reading is something that should be enjoyed (emphasis on the word ENJOYED).

Whether you enjoy intense literature, soppy romances, or big guns and even bigger explosions, books are meant to be enjoyed.

If we want our kids to be reading we need to not worry so much about "the great works", and simply get them hooked on the joy of picking up a book that is a style and story that they're going to love.

Sam

QFT.
 

Shurikane

Mobius Lasagna
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
108
Reaction score
10
Location
Montreal, Canada
Website
www.shurikane.com
Sounds like a phenomenon of numbers.

Let's put it this way. Before the Internet - you live in your good ol' town, you go to the library, which houses, say, 100 books (to make things easy.) Out of these books, 90 don't interest you, but you like the 10 that remain. You're happy that you found so many good books.

In comes the Internet. Amazon.com, book review sites, book exchanges, books books books everywhere. All of a sudden, the count jumps to - gasp! - 10,000,000 books. Ten million! You could buy one from anywhere in the world, snap, just like that! Out of those 10,000,000, you realize that 9,000,000 of them don't interest you.

Here's where the trap springs: the proportions remain essentially the same, but the sheer amount of "bad" books makes it look like literature as a whole has turned into a giant slush pile, when in reality, nothing really special has happened.

The only difference is that the popularity factor has increased manyfold. Before, you were a popular author in your local area. Today, if you are popular enough, you launchpad all the way to the world. It's a momentum effect. The more people talk about you, the more people are likely to talk about you. Instead of the ceiling being the population of your local area, it's become the population of the Earth - six billion people!
 

BenPanced

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
17,864
Reaction score
4,639
Location
dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
In the world Before Intarwebz, word got around about books through the libraries. King, Steele, Cussler, Oates, et. al. had worldwide audiences in the good ol' days before GEnie and Prodigy because publishing isn't a stagnant business; many houses have international subsidiaries and while news didn't travel quite as fast as it does today, lots of libraries carried/carry overseas periodicals with current news about who's publishing what in London/Tokyo/New York (Publishers Weekly, anybody?)

If community libraries were so insular and never communicated with the outside world, how did people in New York know about James Joyce's Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake when they were first being published in 1922 and 1939, respectively, all the way over in Ireland?
 
Last edited:

C.bronco

I have plans...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
8,015
Reaction score
3,137
Location
Junior Nation
Website
cynthia-bronco.blogspot.com
I believe the primary drawback to popular American literature is the lack of my work within it.

I believe firmly that, were my works included within the small circle of those who get multiple reprints and seven figure film option deals, the country as a whole would rejoice, the economy would improve, and I would be able to buy my boy a pony.

Alas! I must wait for this to transpire, but weep for the millions who could find joy and solace in my work and all of it's marketing tie-ins. Happy Meals, verily, are not happy unless they include molded plastic or furry toys.

SIGH!
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
I don't think genre competes directly with literature. People who read, typically read both. People who don't read, obviously read neither.

America produces great literary writing, but on a per capita basis it probably produced a little less quantity and quality than say Canada, or Ireland. I cannot prove my impression is true, and even if it is there might be some very simple reasons, like some Commonwealth countries investing more money per capita in this area (tax breaks etc).
 

jodiodi

Reflections of Reality
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Messages
3,870
Reaction score
611
Location
Step into my nightmare
I believe the primary drawback to popular American literature is the lack of my work within it.

I believe firmly that, were my works included within the small circle of those who get multiple reprints and seven figure film option deals, the country as a whole would rejoice, the economy would improve, and I would be able to buy my boy a pony.

Alas! I must wait for this to transpire, but weep for the millions who could find joy and solace in my work and all of it's marketing tie-ins. Happy Meals, verily, are not happy unless they include molded plastic or furry toys.

SIGH!

I must agree that if MY work was widely available, American Literature would reach new levels of worldwide domination.

(Not saying what those levels would be ...)
 

ccv707

He who asks, "Why?"
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
527
Reaction score
46
Location
SF Bay Area
Website
www.facebook.com
First of all, it's not so much that American writers are crap, it's the fact crappy American writers are stealing so much of the spotlight that good stuff disappears in an eclipse of prosaic garbage. And I believe not only the slavering masses but also critics are to blame for this.

P.S.: Neil Gaiman is both overrated (yes, it is envy speaking) and English. :p

I agree with your first point. As for Gaiman, yes, he is indeed English, though since he's lived in Minnesota for quite some time, I'm going to group him with North American literature (much of his work takes place in America as well).

I also hate the idea of segregating genre fiction from literary fiction. It smacks of elitism, much the same way Mr. Engdahl has tarnished my opinion of the Swedish Academy.
 

SPMiller

Prodigiously Hanged
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
11,525
Reaction score
1,988
Age
41
Location
Dallas
Website
seanpatrickmiller.com
This is a difficult topic. I'll have to brood over it some more and maybe post corrections on this but my tentative opinion is this:

First of all, it's not so much that American writers are crap, it's the fact crappy American writers are stealing so much of the spotlight that good stuff disappears in an eclipse of prosaic garbage. And I believe not only the slavering masses but also critics are to blame for this. You see, what I've noticed when reading chiefly American reviews is: they have elevated certain elements to the ultimate virtues of prose that simply have no place being in that category in my opinion. In at least 2 out of 3 positive reviews of major publications I read praise such as "nice, simple prose", "hits the ground running and doesn't stop", "characters are easy to relate to" and so on. Sounds like a Hollywood blockbuster to me. This kind of review is an approval, a celebration of mass appeal.
Now, I understand if commercial writers write like this. After all, in the age of Michael Bay explosionfests, it is easier to get an audience that way. But should critics, who often seem to see themselves as the guardians of culture, really judge in the same vein?

P.S.: Neil Gaiman is both overrated (yes, it is envy speaking) and English. :p
The NYT Book Review, for example, is literary-slanted and colors its bestseller-list methods (via their choices of specific bookstore locations) with a bias toward literary fiction. They have been openly hostile toward genre (and children's) fiction in the past, and as far as I know, nothing has changed. You're just reading the book reviews targeted at the so-called unwashed masses.

Of course, I'm a genre writer myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.