Friday, October 07, 2011

Hmm ...

... Do American Novelists Even Deserve the Nobel Prize? � Commentary Magazine. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)

What the historical moment in literature is calling for is anybody’s guess. There is no such thing as prospective criticism. Nazaryan, however, knows just what it is. He believes the Swedish Academy has been trying to tell American novelists what they lack and what they need. In a word (Nazaryan’s word), they need to be universal. (The italics are his too.) Hence his dig at Roth’s Newark. It is “solipsistic,” you see, to know one place inside out. Far better to be able to congratulate oneself on knowing a little something about all the capitals of Europe. Such knowledge will obviously have “relevance . . . to a reader in Bombay.” I do wonder, though, if Nazaryan believes that a novelist of Bombay like, say, Amit Chaudhuri has relevance for readers in Newark.

Also, if you leave out novelists who know one place inside out, does that mean Joyce can be dismissed? William Kennedy, whom and a good many others saw give a splendid reading from his latest novel last night, knows Albany inside and out, and what he read didn't sound solipsistic to me.

No comments:

Post a Comment