Incredible reactions to the observation by Swedish permanent secreatyr of the Swedish Academy on the insularity of the US. Just consider the fact that

international tv programs are never screened on the big networks and rarely on the cable that international news channels face enormous difficulties to be allowed transmission on the cable net. In fact this is impossible outside New York and Washington DC. Does not that prove the Swedish remark is very much to the point. Nothing coming from dirty foreigners must touch the virginal American mind.

I simply cannot understand how anyone can live in the US.

And you do not think Sweden is insular? As a Swede I can tell you Sweden is very insulated. And in many cases,the Nobel has become a joke, even to Swedes. A Nobel for Al Gore was the biggest joke of all and now this silly statement.

How can someone live in America? Let us reverse that and ask how someone can live in Sweden?

Each country has it's own level of insulation, as it were, but there is no denying that the US makes a point of being insular.

When, for example, it's necessary to go online to find news of any relevance pertaining to the rest of the world because our msm barely mentions that which doesn't directly affect the US, that's insular. When all things "foreign" are judged in relation to how they best fit in to our ideas of what we like/need instead of accepting them on their own terms, that's insular. Thinking in terms of "us" and "them" ("them" being the rest of the world), that's insular.

How this would affect writers who grew up in such an environment is certainly debatable, but it does support the idea that American Literature might lack a broader world view simply because its creators were never forced to accept one.

What a ludicrous comparison! Is the best defense you can muster to the Swedish Academy's decision to honor Europeans almost exclusively with the Nobel Prize for Literature that American's don't watch enough international television? Just another example of our insularity, eh? But do you really propose to conflate the medium of television with that of literature? I think we can credit the great American authors of the last half-century - and certainly the ones Kirsch lists in the introductory paragraph of his article - with greater influences than what was on TV when they were writing. That said, if American television is so insular, why does it cannibalize so many television programs from around the world? Do I really have to watch "Big Brother" in the original Dutch to know trash TV when I see it?

Insularity is not a geat trait but WHAT in the world does that have to do with creating a great book?!!!

Many cultures/socities have been cut off of society, yet produce great works of art???

Loafsta: "...Swedish Academy's decision to honor Europeans almost exclusively with the Nobel Prize for Literature "

Loafsta, the list of nobel prize winners of literature is readily available on line, why don't you take a look? You seem to distort the article, and the author of the article seems to distort what one member of the Nobel committee said etc etc. (perhaps a translation problem?) Oh Reality! Where are thou!

Spacepac, great post!

What if the Nobel seeks to reward human universality in literary expression? After all, Americans are only 300 million. The rest of the world is 5.7 billion people.

Doroteo:

What if the Nobel seeks to reward human universality in literary expression? After all, Americans are only 300 million. The rest of the world is 5.7 billion people.

Exactly! Just because you're American, you don't "deserve" the Nobel Prize, any more than any other country in the world. So stop whining.

If we're playing the numbers game, America is the third largest country in the world, and as far as I can tell there's only one nobel laureate from the first two largest. So shouldn't we be saying "After all, Europeans are only 700 million. The rest of the world is 5.7 billion people"?

Your point? I think Kirsch's is that Europeans dominate the prize, occasionally deigning to hand it out to a lowly folk writer from a lesser culture (read: Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Derek Walcott). Oe and Mahfouz may be exceptions to the rule, but neither come from a culture that poses such a distinct threat to European cultural dominance - and both are so heavily influenced by European authors that bestowing the Nobel on them, while well-deserved, seems almost self-congratulatory coming from a European panel.

As for this representing the opinion of a single member of the Academy, that is true. But this single member has been selected by the Academy as its public face. Engdahl is its permanent secretary and announces the results of Nobel selections. If his opinion is not indicative of the Academy's, either he should distinguish it as such or other members of the Academy should. An excellent way to do so would be to finally recognize Philip Roth or Joyce Carol Oates, both of whom have been on the short list for years.

Haha, Kerstin you small, ignorant plebe. Try coming to the far-flung "insular" midwestern city of Chicago, about a thousand kilometers from the ocean. Once you're there, if you're not going into shock from a missed encounter with the Moldovan Nightly News, check into the cheapest motel you can find. You will most assuredly not need cable television for this experiment. Turn on the TV. In addition to the various sundry American networks, you will find over-the-air broadcasts in, amongst other languages, Spanish, Polish, Chinese and Korean. 24/7/365. Far beyond your all-encompassing measure of stupid television as providing the benchmark for cultural vibrancy, you'll also find bars, clubs, cathedrals, trade union halls and several whole neighborhoods in which English is a second language (at best). CTA (transit authority) signs are posted in Spanish and Polish in addition to English. The City itself offers on-site translation services at City Hall, the Daley Center, and numerous other installations.

And, oh yeah, even in Bumfuck, North Dakota or Podunk, Arkansas, anyone with DirecTV or Dish Network access (which is pretty much anyone with at least a spare $30/month to their name) has ready access to, amongst other channels, BBC America, which carries, ta-da, dozens of British shows. Further, anyone who wants to is free to subscribe to foreign papers or magazines, the Big, Bad American Gov't will not in fact come roaring into your bedroom in the dead of night and slap you in cuffs. Having subscribed to 'The Economist' for years on end, this is at least my subjective belief, anyway. Finally, you dim-witted troll, we invented this magical thing called TCP/IP. I much doubt you're aware of this fact, but you actually employed this amazing protocol in posting your idiotic note. This bit of technical wizardry allows us buffoons over here to read (and, gasp, even watch) foreign news on our home computers, to whatever extent we each desire.

You're a stupid, oafish prig and no one here gives a fuck what your opinion is, or whether you come to visit. You can sit in your tower and rot. At the end of the day, most of your intelligent countrymen, just like most intelligent people everywhere, realize that, despite its various faults and shortcomings, the American nation has proved a more benevolent hyperpower than any in history, and has furthered the lot of humanity almost beyond measure. Indeed, without America, not only can most of the world's most pressing problems NOT be solved, but most cannot even be seriously contemplated.

Hear hear, Dreamweapon! Once again we read another opinion about America from someone who knows nothing about it. Wherever this "kerstin" buffoon is from, it's clear he or she has never been to the United States. No foreign content on television? Huh? I get foreign programming just from broadcast television, including BBC America, Chinese, Korean, and Russian stations. It's bizarre, but for some reason it seems to me that many Europeans have constructed for their own benefit a completely fictitious rendering of America.