Originally posted by epiphinehas [b]A question for epiph + rb... would you consider yourselves, culture-wise, representatives of the majority of Americans?
Why do you insist on generalizations?[/b]
Because you two seem to be educated people who like to read other than airport bestselling pamphlets. A minority, like in many other countries.
I am trying to make a simple point: The Swedish guy didn't insult the U.S. He simply said that U.S. literature is not what it used to be and it is because its circling around its own bellybutton.
Can we concentrate on this instead of the soap opera elements of the news?
Originally posted by Seitse Because you two seem to be educated people who like to read other than airport bestselling pamphlets. A minority, like in many other countries.
I am trying to make a simple point: The Swedish guy didn't insult the U.S. He simply said that U.S. literature is not what it used to be and it is because its circling around its own bellybutton.
Can we concentrate on this instead of the soap opera elements of the news?
Potential Nobel prize winners are a minority within any country. Actually, many cultural movements arise from ideological clashes against the "establishment" (and the majority who condone/tolerate it).
Originally posted by Palynka Potential Nobel prize winners are a minority within any country. Actually, many cultural movements arise from ideological clashes against the "establishment" (and the majority who condone/tolerate it).
Agreed.
Now let's go back: Do you think the U.S. is too insular to produce Nobel level literature?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Well, no. Another candidate would be Kim Stanley Robinson -- the antithesis of insular.
Is he shortlisted?
Sorry, I don't know the guy. Is it sci-fi? I delcare myself ignorant about all that smells like sci-fi. I ran from it as if it was an AIDS infested prostitute.
Now let's go back: Do you think the U.S. is too insular to produce Nobel level literature?
No. I think that mainstream commercial stuff and good innovating, quality things have existed in the US for quite some time.
Also, it's not the education rankings that tell you how likely it is for a Nobel winner to come from that country. A quick look on the winners of the last 20 or so years should make it apparent.
Sorry, I don't know the guy. Is it sci-fi? I delcare myself ignorant about all that smells like sci-fi. I ran from it as if it was an AIDS infested prostitute.
I doubt it.
Yes, it's sci-fi, insofar as that marketing term has any meaning anymore. Any work of fiction that incorporates science, technology or theory of some kind is science fiction, so in a sense anything worth reading about today is science fiction.
Originally posted by Palynka No. I think that mainstream commercial and good innovating, quality things have existed in the US for quite some time.
Also, it's not the education rankings that tell you how likely it is for a Nobel winner to come from that country. A quick look on the winners of the last 20 or so years should make it apparent.
Agreed. But... then I didn't explain myself well: I provided education rankings not to show the likelihood of a Nobel, but to show some misconceptions of the American mainstream ("we have the best schools in the world", as if this would be a guarantee of great, nobel level writers), which quite demonstrates they're too concentrated in their bellybutton and don't turn and realize there is a world from where they can nurture themselves.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Any work of fiction that incorporates science, technology or theory of some kind is science fiction, so in a sense anything worth reading about today is science fiction.
Sorry, I don't know the guy. Is it sci-fi? I delcare myself ignorant about all that smells like sci-fi. I ran from it as if it was an AIDS infested prostitute.
All that means is that you're as insular as mainstream USA literature.
Originally posted by Seitse This is a daring statement.
Please elaborate.
Any writer attempting to get to grips with modern (ir)reality has to deal with the technologies, hard and soft, that define the possibilities of human existence today -- science fiction by default.
(A novel about a tennis player would be science fiction).
The only other operative genre currently is fantasy -- John Grisham being a prime example.
Originally posted by Seitse Agreed. But... then I didn't explain myself well: I provided education rankings not to show the likelihood of a Nobel, but to show some misconceptions of the American mainstream ("we have the best schools in the world", as if this would be a guarantee of great, nobel level writers), which quite demonstrates they're too concentrated in their bellybutton and don't turn and realize there is a world from where they can nurture themselves.
But this only goes to show that the mainstream is insular. What about the rest?
U.S. writers too insular, ignorant
07 Oct '08 07:401 edit
Back to Top