Audiences aren't interested in global issues. At least, that's the excuse many news sources have used when they drastically cut funding for international reporting or only show brief two-minute clips about the war in Chechnya while running in-depth specials about celebrity sex scandals.
Although this may be true in terms of international politics, however, it certainly isn't true in the literary world. Books like ""A Thousand Splendid Suns"" or ""God of Small Things"" are set in faraway places that Americans are supposed to care little about, yet they make best-seller lists and win awards. Beyond this, there has been an especially strong movement of second-generation writers in this country, with authors like Jhumpa Lahiri and Jeffrey Eugenides exploring the experiences of foreigners within America.
What has made these books so popular, and why now? Has globalization not only sent our American pop music abroad but brought literary representations of different cultures here? Is it simply coincidence?
It seems that the very fact that they represent a different cultural perspective must draw certain people to such works, especially when looking at the varying amount of talent these authors have. Take Lahiri for example. There is nothing particularly impressive about her writing style, and although some critics may label her characters as ""complex"" or ""imperfect,"" those are just roundabout ways of saying they're miserable. The characters' lives may be ""complex,"" all right, but not in a way that contains joy or humor. Indians and Indian-Americans might not like being described in such terms, and as such, many are critical of her.
Contrast that with Junot Díaz or Arundhati Roy. Their works may not always be flattering to their respective cultures, but they are always interesting and represent the kind of energy that can be milked from such influences.
It's always struck me as strange how Jeffrey Eugenides, who wrote the beautiful and unique ""The Virgin Suicides,"" won a Pulitzer not for that book but for the much less coherent ""Middlesex."" Were critics only looking at length? Or did they find its depiction of immigrant culture or sexual ambiguity appealing?
As a political science major with a focus on international relations, I have always been particularly interested in global cultures. And if there's anything that such literature inspires in me, it is the feeling of gratitude that the literary world has finally given due respect to cultures in India, Iran, Afghanistan (and so on), beyond the more ""traditional"" powerhouses of Western literature like France and Russia.
Readers should maintain a steady critical eye on literature, though, no matter who writes it. Lahiri and Eugenides are both American and write in English. They can't blame boring writing or convoluted plot development on translation.
Writing about different cultures, though incredibly important in terms of personally relating to people of different backgrounds, isn't automatically absorbing. In order to keep the discussion around second-generation literature as valuable as possible, critics need to feel as open about pointing out flaws in the works of new authors as they do about praising it. Perhaps some fear that it would appear to be culturally insensitive to criticize pieces that market themselves as representing marginalized perspectives. It's far more insulting, however, when Lahiri's dull depictions of a spiteful, dead-end marriage are praised as an insight on Indian-American culture.
Convince Frances you care about international politics at provine@wisc.edu.
