
Photo from the Guardian
I was a bit taken aback when I heard and read all the spluttering about how no Americans got within even shouting distance of the Nobel Prize for literature this year. The Los Angeles Times critic, David Ulin, took an extremely offended stance, and panned the winner, Jean-Marie Gustave le Clézio, as an “irregular” resident of Albuquerque, and “very much a writer of the moment.” It is hard to say who looks sillier, in all this mess. The gate-keepers of high literature, as characterized in the piece:
Last week, Engdahl, the Swedish Academy’s permanent secretary, called American literary culture “too isolated, too insular. They don’t translate enough and don’t really participate in the big dialogue of literature” — comments widely seen in the United States as evidence of the insularity of the Nobel itself and proof that American writers would be shut out again.
or the affronted shock troops on the literary pages themselves. I would also note that the LA Times actually deleted its own book review section (a decision which cannot have made many people there happy, especially when one of the sections that replaced it, the glossy “advertorial” LA Times Magazine, has proven to be as dull as dishwater), so it has little to stand on as a defender against philistinism. I nearly fell off my chair when I read this:
It’s hard to say where Le Clezio fits into all this; I’ve never read his books. In fact, until Thursday morning, I’d never heard of him — and I’m not alone.
Ulin casts le Clézio as trendy and kind of boffo, as apparently living overseas and learning several languages can only be seen as trendy fiddle-faddle. But he does not bother to pick up his mouse and click on a library catalog (I recommend Worldcat.org, personally). Nor does he pick up the phone and call any of the number of French readers around town who might be able to loan him a copy of one of the best-known and -regarded writers in France, a country where people, um, actually read books. Le Clézio is often taught in college-level French classes, as I was informed by a highly erudite and well-read scholar of French lit, to whom I often sit next on the bus. If he is on the radar of the LAPL, and any moderately alert nineteen-year-old in a foreign language class, he should be on the radar of a book critic of a flagship newspaper. If he is not, a simple run to the library can do the trick. Or Google can help, at the very least. A major newspaper should simply not have a headline announcing the selection of a Nobel prize winner titled “Le Clézio–Who’s He?” It’s indeed possible that the committee should re-think the kind of works it tends to pick. But complaining about the provinciality of the prize structure without actually reading the winning novelist’s work is untenable. It actually reinforces the impression of US provinciality.
I turned to my lazy-taxpayer’s weapon of choice, the LAPL catalog, and found–lo, fifty-two books! One for every single week in the year! In Korean, Japanese, Spanish, French, and even a few rogue volumes in English. Quick, if you move fast, you can still snap up the English translation of Oritsha, a semi-autobiographical novel about living in Nigeria as a child, while it is still on the shelf.
All of this is to say that literary critics seem to be helping with the nails in the coffin of literary journalism, these days, tapping the lid a little more firmly shut with their own closed minds. I can’t help but wonder about the reasons for such trivializing descriptions as the NY Times faint-praise description of le Clézio as “a French novelist, children’s author and essayist regarded by some French readers as one of the country’s greatest living writers” (italics mine).
The resentment seems to derive from the dreary out-dated Henry James complex about European-ness many US critics seem to maintain. The defensive attitude seems to be about defending the US candidates’ presumed social engagement from charges that it does not exist. To me, the difference is clear, given the historical tendencies of the Nobel committees to privilege the modernist engagé writer. Le Clézio’s books take place, in large part, in developing countries–Mexico ranks high, in terms of mise-en-scène, as well as Africa and parts of Latin America. Encounters with otherness are part and parcel of the stories, both colonial and geographic/linguistic others.
In contrast, neither Philip Roth nor John Updike seems high on the list of non-narcissistic engagé authors. I do love Roth, or late Roth anyway. And Updike provides a window into certain east coast psycho-pathologies of the suburban era, with doleful yet somehow self-congratulatory insights in highly stylized prose whose descriptions of quiet desperation I have learned a lot from. He can also be wickedly funny. But neither is especially social. I mean, The Terrorist was downright embarrassing. Rabbit, Really? I also really like Joyce Carol Oates, especially her non-fiction writing about boxing and the meanness of girl culture, which preceded the current buzz by, oh, twenty years. Her short story, “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” is on line here. It is breathtaking. It is not, however, gnarly modernism, of the sort favored by the prize committee.
All of the above is why I was thrilled today to learn something that killed two bad literary journalism birds with one stone. (Sorry about that sentence…) This announcement appeared on the 33 1/3 series blog a couple weeks ago:

Yes, it is the first Japanese translation of one of the 33 1/3 series, Jim Fusilli’s chapbook on the Beach Boys’ Pet Sounds. That might seem to be quite a mind-meld, but given the many varieties of electro that ambiate in Japanese pop, it makes a good deal of sense.
The kicker is that the translator is probably Japan’s next big hope for the Nobel, Murakami Haruki. Now that is a new paradigm. Not the inward gnarly modernism of a Nabakov or Roth. Not the tragic “weighing in” of many Nobel writers, who seem more valued as pundits than stylists or engaged intellectuals. And proof that you can write serious fiction–like about death camps and subway terrorism–and have a sense of experiment and fancy. I am not sure the Nobel, founded by a dynamite magnate, will ever be ready to swerve from the tenets of modernist writing it seems to prize so dearly, and embrace a postmodern oeuvre. But this is truly refreshing, to see a seriously engaged writer also be seriously at play.