Hi everyone! I'm a Swede, and I thought someone would have to come in and defend the Nobel-prize.

First off all, this whole article was based on a few comments by Horace Engdahl (who is semi-famous over here), and everyone who has every heard him speak on anything at all knows that he's something of a pompous git. Don't make it out like we are all like him, because we're not.

As for Swedes "not knowing anything about American literature", that's just ludicrous. All of our culture is completely saturated with American media, whether it be music, movies, television or, indeed, books. Philip Roth is a best-seller over here as well. We know American literature better than the average American reader.

To me, this article comes off as very whiney. "We're Americans, we deserve a prize! Why won't you give it to us?!?!" You know what, just because you're American, it doesn't mean you "deserve" a prize. There's fantastically talented writers all over the world, and America doesn't have any "right" to it.

The thing with the Nobel Prizes is that they at least today have a goal of being not very populist. Philip Roth has already gotten masses of accolades and prizes (and I'm personally pretty sure that he's going to get the Nobel one day too), why not give it to other writers that are just as talented (if not more), but that's undeservedly less famous. Writers like Orhan Pamuk, Imre Kertész or V. S. Naipul.

You can argue that there are people who've won that perhaps didn't deserve it (I happen to think that Jelinek is a fantastic writer, but whatever), but that doesn't imply that the Swedish Academy (of which there are eighteen members by the way, not just one) is anti-American, it just means that they perhaps value other things as important. And, perhaps, that they're not perfect. And lest we forget, August Strindberg didn't recieve a Nobel Prize either, even though he deserved one as much as Nabokov or Roth does.

And lets examine Engdahls point, about America being insular. Is he wrong? Look at the New York Review of Books, how many are there from different countries? How many books are seriously discussed in the literary elite that are not American? Not many. Americans read American books. That's the way it has always been. You guys are MUCH more insular than we are. And by the way, a small population makes us less insular than you, not more. We have to rely on and interact with the rest of the world for everything, you guys just sit there over on your own continent, trying to avoid the fact that there's a whole planet on the other side of the oceans.

Finally, to answer the central question: are Swedes (and the Swedish Academy in particular) anti-American? The answer is that we probably are a little bit, much more now than 10 years ago. Us in Europe have suffered through almost a decade of Americans calling us cowards and wimps and somehow "less tough" than the US. Look at any late-night talk show and try to find one mention of France that doesn't involved them being referred to as losers (and why? because they opposed the Iraq war. Huh, yeah, who was right on that question?). The fact is that America has squandered any good-will it had in Europe. In America, calling Barack Obama "European" is somehow an insult. We notice this, and you're not making any friends.

I don't know if this impacts the decision of the Swedish Academy. I don't think it does. But if you want a reason why the rest of the world doesn't like you, it's not because we're "jealous" or "spiteful" or anything like that. You guys have insulted and made fun of the rest of the world for almost eight solid years now. Why do you think you we don't like you?

This is my guy

/From a fellow Swede

Another Swede responds.

You're argument that the US are so ignorant that ignorance from the part of the Academy should be accepted is flawed to say the least. At any rate, notwithstanding any argument you may or may not have with the US, there is surely some truth to the argument that the price (with the exception of Faulkner and Hemingway) has been awarded to writers that either go well with our own prejudice or fit this or the other politically correct cause (now I'd like to see Rushdie get it - that would show some guts from the Academy - what a cry for freedom! Don't hold your breath....). And to argue that the average US reader reads mostly US books - well - read any French daily and you'll find the proportion French/foreign writers is similar...

As a consolation to the writer of the article, he should take heart that this years Nobel prize in litterature is just another prize from another Nordic country.

So... let me get this straight... no Americans write decent literature because George Bush is an asshole?

Or is it... no Americans write decent literature because American culture is too successful?

This article did not suggest that an American writer should be recognized simply because he or she is American. Instead, it argued that being an American should not disqualify one from consideration, which seems to be the case now. (Toni Morrison is a special case -- she writes books that confirm the worst notions Europeans have about the United States. Apparently the only "good" Americans are the ones who let Europeans feel better about disliking America.)

The last prize winner who was truly exceptional was Orhan Pamuk; before that, perhaps Günter Grass (although The Tin Drum came out in 1959, so Grass was recognized 40 years too late), otherwise Seamus Heany. Before Heany... Gabriel Garcia Márquez, in 1982. (Unlike Günter Grass, Garcia Márquez at least wrote more than one exceptional book). Doris Lessing is tedious and banal -- even assuming that Americans are excluded from consideration, Salman Rushdie (to name but one non-American writer) is far superior to Doris Lessing. Margaret Atwood would have been a better choice, too.

So that's three truly exceptional writers in the past 30 years or so. Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against Derek Walcott, or William Golding, or VS Naipaul. But to say that there has been nobody better than them, or Doris Lessing or Dario Fo or Imre Kertész, is just silly.

Lastly, if Philip Roth were to win it, I would be convinced that all eighteen members should have their heads examined. Of all the insanely overhyped American writers of the last 50 years, it is the adoration heaped upon Philip Roth that I find the most perplexing. Hasn't anyone noticed that he's essentially written the same book 25 times?

Excellent post!

Oskar, you have chosen to (conveniently) ignore the actual words spoken by that secretary, I believe they speak for themselves. its very true that president Bush has caused horrible deterioration of the USA standing in the world, but you would expect the honorable committee to stand just a bit above that, no?

I totally agree with the rocket's assessment of past prize winners; boring, rewarding undeserving writers if they match the "correct" political atitude, especially multi-culturalism.

The Swedish guy who wrote this post gives an honest assessment of the US-European relationship. I'm an American whose dad was born in Italy and I lived in Switzerland for several years. When I came back to the States, I was struck by how little I heard from the rest of the world. It was like a door slamming shut. Maybe just because we are so big and so diverse, and have enough to contend with right here, we are a fairly insular culture, and more's the pity. I love my country but I wish it would, or could, look out more.

PS Apropos of nothing, or maybe something, in my opinion the best novel of the past 50 years is Lolita, written by a Russian who went to Paris and wrote in French, then came to America and wrote this brilliant love song to the English language.

The Nobel Prize is to literature, what the Academy Awards are to cinema: everyone knows when they do pick "the best", it's more by accident than anything else. Their choices are unmistakably political correct; it's more about making a statement than judging a book/film on its own merits. But we all still pay attention, just the same. Whatever.

OskarS:

Finally, to answer the central question: are Swedes (and the Swedish Academy in particular) anti-American? The answer is that we probably are a little bit, much more now than 10 years ago. Us in Europe have suffered through almost a decade of Americans calling us cowards and wimps and somehow "less tough" than the US. Look at any late-night talk show and try to find one mention of France that doesn't involved them being referred to as losers (and why? because they opposed the Iraq war. Huh, yeah, who was right on that question?). The fact is that America has squandered any good-will it had in Europe. In America, calling Barack Obama "European" is somehow an insult. We notice this, and you're not making any friends.

Oskar,

First, excellent post. On the France part though, anti-French sentiment has been going on in America for a lot longer than the current late-night talk shows or the Iraq war, mostly because of French policy. Specifically BANKING policies where it seems that everywhere America instituted sanctions to try and get some sadistic regime to change its policies - there would be the French banks to give them everything they wanted, which I'm sure was great for France, but terrible for everyone else.

No, some anti-France sentiment existed a long time before President Bush came in to power.

BTW, there isn't really any anti-Swedish sentiment, unless, of course, you are talking to a Finnish or Norweigan- American - then, maybe a bit, depending.

christ----these swedes were nazis during the war. and they fancy thhat they have values to dispense on an "insular" world?!