Topic 4: The Apocalypse is Upon Us

Michael: The uninformed bashing of the 2004 Nobel laureate Elfriede Jelinek in the American press (specifically: New Republic, New Criterion, Weekly Standard) disappointed me, especially since there wasn't much coverage elsewhere to counter those spewings. I still like literary judgments to be based on informed reading (or at least actual reading) of an author's texts, but here several prominent publications felt free to damn without considering very much of the evidence.

Troubling also: the new administration at The NY Times Book Review. Sam Tanenhaus offers prominent and in-depth coverage of some (generally very big name) fiction, but on the whole he's shown very little interest or respect for literature, focusing instead an extraordinary amount of attention on non-fiction. In addition, the lack of coverage of books in translation (even non-fiction) has taken on catastrophic proportions: they are almost entirely ignored. For Tanenhaus, literary culture is strictly an English-language affair, foreign points of view tolerated only if they are expressed originally in English (exceptions made only for Nobel laureates and a few token others).

Alex: Has American unilateralism on the political stage turned into cultural isolationism? Or was it the other way around?

My pick would be the whole "sex and books" thing. There was that stupid "Good Booking" campaign in Britain, the science of which was nonsense. Then there were the sexed-up covers for the new "Vintage Blue" books (but the covers weren't very sexy). And then we had porn-queen Jenna Jameson out-stripping Pamela Anderson on the bestseller lists with her How to Make Love Like a Pornstar. 

I have nothing against porn. I think it's an important and vibrant part of our culture. But books aren't porn and I don't think they need this. Our culture is sliding from art to entertainment to mere stimulation (i.e., sex and violence, our two biological triggers). I find this unsettling.

Maud: First thing that comes to mind: Paris Hilton is playing Fitzgerald's Daisy in The Great Gatsby. 

Jessa: Just like everyone else, I was surprised to see the list of fiction finalists for the National Book Award. I had heard of only two, but I had not read any on the list. The fact that the nominees were all female, the fact that Philip Roth's book was neglected, and yes, even the terrorism report threw everyone for a loop. But the response by the press was just idiotic. "They're all women! That can't be right!" "They're all from New York! That's not very diverse!" "None of them can tell a story! Surely this says something about the future of the novel!" And then the press had the nerve to be surprised that the nominations did not help sales, not even for the winner. Well, of course it won't, when all the press has had to say about the books was that they were so undeserving. The same thing with the Booker. All anyone in the press talked about was that the book was "Gay," as if that was all it was, and then they wrote baffled articles about usually the Booker prize helps sales, but not this year. Hm, why could that be?

Robert: Contrary to popular wisdom, being of the Chosen People relieves me of declinist/apocalyptic attitudes and views. But as always I did view a number of things, that if there were a few more such cultural anomalies and social dysfunctions, a perfect storm of dumbness would wash over the land. And we would be forever watching Donald Trump's so-called reality, doing whatever he does that so attracts the masses. Here are a few such: Slate.com discovering and discussing books, Leon Weisalter's humorless, inelegant rancid notion of book reviewing, anything to do with Ann Coulter, shopping magazines like Lucky and Cargo, book awards' "controversies" and the inevitable trashing of any Nobel literature laureates who are not English-speaking.