Should American writers secede from the Nobel Prize for literature?
There was a brief moment, after World War II, when the Nobel Committee allowed that America might produce more sophisticated writers. No one on either side of the Atlantic would quarrel with the awards to William Faulkner in 1949 or Ernest Hemingway in 1954. But in the 32 years since Bellow won the Nobel, there has been exactly one American laureate, Toni Morrison, whose critical reputation in America is by no means secure. To judge by the Nobel roster, you would think that the last three decades have been a time of American cultural drought rather than the era when American culture and language conquered the globe.
But that, of course, is exactly the problem for the Swedes. As long as America could still be regarded as Europe's backwater--as long as a poet like T.S. Eliot had to leave America for England in order to become famous enough to win the Nobel--it was easy to give American literature the occasional pat on the head. But now that the situation is reversed, and it is Europe that looks culturally, economically, and politically dependent on the United States, European pride can be assuaged only by pretending that American literature doesn't exist. When Engdahl declares, "You can't get away from the fact that Europe still is the center of the literary world," there is a poignant echo of Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard insisting that she is still big, it's the pictures that got smaller.
Nothing gives the lie to Engdahl's claim of European superiority more effectively than a glance at the Nobel Prize winners of the last decade or so. Even Austrians and Italians didn't think Elfriede Jelinek and Dario Fo deserved their prizes; Harold Pinter won the prize about 40 years after his significant work was done. To suggest that these writers are more talented or accomplished than the best Americans of the last 30 years is preposterous.
Other than that I think Hemingway is vastly overrated, and ample fodder for parody, I agree. The Peace prizes have been a joke since Arafat and Rigoberto Menchu (not to mention Jimmy Carter), and I think that the literature prizes have gone the same way, decades ago.
On the other hand, maybe the US really isn't a good environment for producing literature. Anyone with the skills can turn a nice income doing a lot of things other than writing books or poetry.
Such as working in the medical line. Just ask Dr. Crichton.
Hmmmm.
I say we leave a lit bag of dog poo on their porch!
There's a Nobel Prize for literature? Why not one for pole-dancing or hog-calling?
Or Twittering. That'll bring it into the 21st century!
"Karl Hallowell wrote:
On the other hand, maybe the US really isn't a good environment for producing literature. Anyone with the skills can turn a nice income doing a lot of things other than writing books or poetry."
"Carl Pham wrote:
There's a Nobel Prize for literature? Why not one for pole-dancing or hog-calling?"
These are the typical expressions of philistinism that I have come to expect from libertarians, and it is one of the reasons that I, and - I would guess - most traditional conservatives, despise them - their belief that money is the only valid measure of anything, that culture is nothing but a product, and that art is no more worthwhile than, for example, pole-dancing.
A society ordered by and for the tastes of libertarians would be a wasteland of crap.
I think we could have some serious fun with Carl's idea -- "if Alfred Nobel had been a redneck," that sort of thing -- but the Ig Nobel prizes have pretty well cornered the humor market here.
The Nobel committees for the Literature and Peace prizes are all about creating a venue where the overwhelming American cultural, economic, and technical preponderance in human affairs can be excluded. Hey, whatever makes 'em feel better, but then, I'm a libertarian. ;^)
These are the typical expressions of philistinism that I have come to expect from libertarians, and it is one of the reasons that I, and - I would guess - most traditional conservatives, despise them - their belief that money is the only valid measure of anything, that culture is nothing but a product, and that art is no more worthwhile than, for example, pole-dancing.
Here's my take. I was making an accurate observation about modern US culture. Namely, writing material worthy of a Nobel prize in literature doesn't pay as well as other alternatives. Even if a budding writer manages to somehow avoid the bountiful distractions of the commercial arts (and other forms of employment), they still have to avoid the academia trap.
And let's face it, a lot of music and such created these days is a glorified (and crass) form of pole dancing. I'm sure there's at least one music video that has pole dancing in it. Are we to expect our next Nobel laureate from this?
These are the typical expressions of philistinism that I have come to expect from libertarians, and it is one of the reasons that I, and - I would guess - most traditional conservatives, despise them - their belief that money is the only valid measure of anything, that culture is nothing but a product,
Well, these are the typical expressions of Pharisaic intolerance that I have come to expect from traditional "culture" conservatives, and one reason I (and I would guess) most libertarians despise them.
Their belief that the voluntary donation to you of the precious hours of labor of others, i.e. money, is not one of the purest and best measures of your social utility, and that, instead, we should judge each other according to how closely we adhere to random arbitrary quasi-religious ritual forms. Do you "support" marriage, art, the holy war against "greed" and "injustice"? Well then, welcome brother! Doesn't matter if you actually cheat on your wife, deface the planet or yourself, or revel in your power to force others to conform to your prejudices.
that culture is nothing but a product,
Culture is a by-product of civilization, like a good mood is a by-product of health, proper diet and exercise, and a job you like. But if you enshrine the by-product as a major goal, you risk corruption. If you quit your job and stop spending time running and biking, and abandon your family so you can run off to an ashram and "find happiness," because happiness is the primary goal, then you've inverted the natural order of things. Let us have a productive and free society, moral and practical and humane in its practise, and culture will follow along all by itself.
art is no more worthwhile than, for example, pole-dancing
Damn right. It all depends on how well it's done. I'd rather see a poised, well-timed, creative, blazingly erotic pole dance than some leaden Sundance festival movie espousing the same old Marxist groupthink, or some narcissist attention-seeking headline-grabbing performance art that "challenges" our notions of what constitutes good taste.
It's a real sign of cultural snobbery, which we libertarians despise, that what people frankly enjoy should be considered secondary to what a soi disant elite thinks is good for them.
"Carl Pham wrote:
instead, we should judge each other according to how closely we adhere to random arbitrary quasi-religious ritual forms."
No, I judge things based on whether or not any damn good.
"Let us have a productive and free society, moral and practical and humane in its practise, and culture will follow along all by itself."
Worthwhile culture does not follow from praising pole-dancing. The libertarian philosophy has not been well represented in government, but it's pretty much in the drivers seat in popular culture, and the results are in - an overflowing cornucopia of crap.
"...and abandon your family so you can run off to an ashram and "find happiness,...."
What the f**k are you talking about? You think guys like me hang out at ashrams?
"Damn right. It all depends on how well it's done. I'd rather see a poised, well-timed, creative, blazingly erotic pole dance than some leaden Sundance festival movie espousing the same old Marxist groupthink, or some narcissist attention-seeking headline-grabbing performance art that "challenges" our notions of what constitutes good taste."
I'm not talking about the left-wing drivel that passes for high art nowadays, much of which would vanish without government subsidy (including that of granting professorships to race/gender/orientation hacks).
"It's a real sign of cultural snobbery, which we libertarians despise, that what people frankly enjoy should be considered secondary to what a soi disant elite thinks is good for them."
People frankly enjoy picking their nose, but it ain't art.
I welcome your enmity. Libertarians are no damn good as friends, nor any good as allies. Have fun in that fantasy world you live in, in which you are all little Dagney Taggarts.
> I'm not talking about the left-wing drivel that passes for high art nowadays, much of which would vanish without government subsidy (including that of granting professorships to race/gender/orientation hacks).
Are you talking about art that pays for itself? Art that is purchased by private companies and individuals who said "this is good, I want it" and paid their own money, money that they could have spent on pole dancing?
If so, you're talking about honest art. The pole-dancing folk have no beef with honest art. However, it's quite reasonable for them to point out that the dishonest stuff isn't good and are correct to prefer pole-dancing to dishonest bad art.