I think the bulk of Philip Roth's novels make him a Nobel contender. It does seem plausible, when you look at the Coetzee / Gordimer / Rushdie type books that Europe and South Africa produce that our American output doesn't always rise to that level. Our publishing industry has abandoned literary fiction; it's its own little island. Perhaps if our culture didn't mock? Is that elitist of me to say?

From Emily Dickinson to Nathaniel Hawthorne to Ralph Ellison (who wrote the quintessential American novel) to Mark Danielewski to Octavia Butler to Joyce Carole Oates to Zora Neale Hurston to Leslie Marmon Silko back to John Steinbeck to Gore Vidal to Paul Auster ... jeez, I could go on, but I won't for which I'm sure many of you are thankful.

This argument is outdated. I mean, super duper outdated.

We've been a part of an active literature scene for several hundred years now. One could even argue we lead the way on the poetic scene and have carved out several very specific niches which Europe has only followed. Horace needs to move into the 21st century. Heck, a move into the 19th would be helpful as that's where things really took off!

Again, the argument is a bit ancient in its presumptions, positively creaking actually. The European and American literary works and worlds have distinguishing features, to be sure, but often their differences are only punctuated by which boy grows up where and which sled he owns. Okay, and there's the funky stuff inspired by deconstruction, but that's France's fault. ;)

Just kidding. Mostly.

In any case, he's full of poo over this one. He needs to bend over, brace himself and pull his head out of his butt. It's time to rejoin the contemporary world and the contemporary scene. He's right if he's referring to Charles Brockden Brown, but we're not in that century anymore.

odette, I thought the original argument is that the U.S. is not Nobel worthy because we are too Palin-like, insular and navel gazing and not much concerned with the world at large or with the social issues that affect the world stage. Since the Nobel is an award for a body of work, can you think of living writers whose lifetime output can match up? I agree that Steinbeck was important, but since he's out of the running, can you really say that Paul Auster is Nobel worthy? (Not trying to pick a fight, just a discusssion...I love reading Paul Auster too. Maybe Oates is a contender, but only time will tell.)

To me, the original argument is more than "who is Nobel-worthy" because it's an argument that has been going on outside the Nobel world for quite some time.

It's been Europe vs. US, which is also disturbingly euro-centric as well. Honestly, the best literary work right now to my mind is coming out of Asia and Africa. But why does it have to be a contest? These works and writers often influence each other in ways we can't even imagine. To say that the US isn't even on the scene in any way nor has any influence absolutely harkens back to these old, tired arguments. And it's kind of a stupid thing to say, actually.

Toni Morrison actually won in 1993. The influences of her work are certainly American in focus. Philip Roth is definitely a contender. Richard Wilbur is certainly a contender. And I can continue this after I take the Kid to daycare. Wait. And go to work! eek.

Seriously, there are a lot of writers out there who are American with the requisite body of work and the requisite requirements of talent, etc. His comment was just old-school and snotty.

Geez, I forgot Philip Roth! Thanks for that call out. Need to pick up his latest book actually; reviews have been interesting. Makes me cranky I overlooked him; I love his stuff...shouldn't try to write and think so blasted late.

Kirsten, I thought that Roth's trilogy of The Human Stain, I Married a Communist, and American Pastoral were three of the best books I've ever read. I haven't read the latest yet, but it's on my someday list.

Okay, now I realize this stupid comment has been hounding me all morning. argh. I think I should go back to thinking about sustainable gardens.

Auster ... yes, Auster drives me nuts a little, though I enjoy reading him. I do think he'll be a contender. Oates, absolutely, but not until she's really old.

W.S. Merwin should win one, damn it.

I agree with Mr. Engdahl's comment about US writers ("too insular") but disagree with Europe being the "center of the literary world". In ,fact, as Odetteroulette points out, much of the best literary fiction is coming out of Asia (or at least Asian writers), Africa and I'd add, Latin America. (In fact, I don't know where Engdahl's coming from: fully half the Nobelists over the last 10 years have been "non-European", including Pamuk and Lessing in this category.)

The key to his statement is "the big dialog of literature". Few American writers care to participate in this. So contemporary American literature lacks for the most part that grand historical, dialectical arc that characterizes the best of the Nobelists in my opinion.

Take a look at the recent Nobelists. The ones I've read (all in English) have transcendent and expansive concerns about culture, race, religion, gender, morality, democracy, war, peace. Along with Undertow, I believe only Philip Roth fits this bill among contemporary American writers. Among non-Americans are such figures as (those I've read) Milan Kundera, Vargas Llosa, Carlos Fuentes, Rushdie (of course, but the committee will probably wuss out) and I'm sure others can come up with many more names.

Good post.

After the last eight years, I think it's fair for Europe to take some pot-shots at us culturally speaking. It may not be true, but we've got it coming, I think.

Undertow makes a good point about American publishing. I've been out of the bookselling side of it for two years now, but from my experience there are precious fewer booksellers out there who are still deeply reading, and building a following for an author. And with all the consolidations, the bottom line has overtaken the major players making it less likely that an author's work will be nurtured over time to allow for the bearing of fruit. There are notable exceptions, but sadly they are increasingly that, exceptions. I know this profoundly disturbs many booksellers and publishers, but seems to be the problem endemic to the uneasy relationship between business and art. Unless they got a good start before the mass merchant phase overtook the book market, I think it will be hard for an American author to build up the work over the long term to make the Nobel's esteemed criteria.

I'm going to continue to disagree.

I think many American writers do participate in the "big dialog of literature" and have a body of work to back this claim up.

Not just Roth, but Delillo, Merwin, Barth, Oates, Wilbur, and Silko, just to name a few.

What the director also insinuates by making this statement is that American writers don't read works that are not American and that Americans, including American writers, don't respond to other writers' work that isn't American or to difficult issues within the rest of the world. That's absolutely not true, and it's an extremely nasty, short-sighted and snobbish thing for him to say.

As well, he's saying American writers don't deal with the 'big' subjects at all. I find that hard to believe, especially after reading something like White Noise or frankly, anything by Merwin. And I do think these writers carry a strong body of work with them. Merwin certainly is ready to win one and should. It's a shame that the director's prejudices and massive generalizations are getting in the way of that.

I understand we're being raked over the coals in part because of our political climate, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here. Let's not help someone else kick us while we're down. Especially when there's plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. There are smart, involved, talented people in our country. And great writers who are qualified to win the Prize.

Much as I like Auster, he's way to niche to ever receive a Nobel prize. Silko is a good writer, but I don't think she'll win, either. Maybe we'll be surprised. But it will take many years to get there. Odette, I think the original comment was snobby and snide, but I felt some kind of resonance with it, too.

I worked in small publishing for a few years, an amoeba in a big ocean. American publishing on a large scale is almost only about profit. There are hundreds of people working on the non-profit side, but with the trials of distribution and returns and low capitalization and the very exclusive review system, it's a constant struggle to ever have your small book seen by anyone.

I'll fight to the end! ;)

No, I still disagree. I do agree that the publishing business misses a lot of really good work. Small, independent booksellers suffer as well, in our country. That's a shame.

But, I still can think of quite a few people I think are Nobel worthy. Auster isn't that niche-worthy. He's just deconstructing at the same time he's writing. That occasionally annoys me, but I can accept it.

A few more that I've been thinking of ... Sherman Alexie, EL Doctorow, John Ashbery, John Updike, Cormac McCarthy (although I'm sure he's just fine with his Pulitzer), Yusef Komunyakaa (although he probably needs a few more years of publishing some great stuff) ...

See what I mean? I'm not even really trying here. These writers are great, with a superlative body of work, which is still growing.

I know we get discouraged by the strain of anti-intellectualism in this country, but it doesn't extend to everyone. There are some great writers out there. Horace, now known to me as Mr. Snobby Snobster the snob, is wrong. It does explain why American writers get few awards from them. There's prejudicial treatment occurring.

Odette, I like your fighting spirit! It'll be interesting to see what happens. For now, I'll give you McCarthy.

"Mr. Snobby Snobster the snob"

Oh, Odette...thanks for that laugh, I needed it :-)

absolutely disagree! my latest post is called 'Literature Saved My Soul' and there are so many American authors i grew up on and through, great authors. Updike, Roth, Oates, Mailer, Irving (even though he's not considered as important as others, his work is sometimes genius)
Cather, Eggers (who is young but will be considered important), Delillo, McCarthy, more!

I love this discussion. Bowing to odetterroulette's indubitable taste and discrimination(and spirited partisanship :) ), I'll give her Delillo. Solid body of work, great writing and story-telling, the dialog from the margins to the center of the culture, and historicity (if there's such a word) connecting his work to the epic events of the age, from Libra and Underworld to Falling Man.

But for the other side I'd like to add Michael Ondaatje and Haruki Murakami ;-).

hee hee! I feel like we're in a poker game now.

Or a game of crazy eights.

I'll take your McCarthy and raise you a Robert Bly. And throw in a Louise Erdrich in about fifteen years and three more books from now.

Ouch...Der Spiegel has a word or two for Horace:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,581986,00.html

Some nice comments from Spiegel. Makes Horace look like Mr. Bitter McVengeful as well as snobby.

I really hope they send along that reading list. grrrr.

All right, who had heard of or read (2 points for having read him in French) Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio before this?

An interesting article from the NYT examines the American publishing indistry perspective on books in transalation, reporting from the Frankfurt annual fair. Interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/books/18book.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th