I Wonder and I’m Intrigued — Has the World Stopped Producing Literary Icons?

by Mandira Pattnaik

Lucas Margoni

The Booker longlist was announced on July 30. About the 13 books (by 8 women and 5 men), the statement that accompanied the announcement said: “Works of fiction that inhabit ideas by making us care deeply about people and their predicaments” — which is exactly what is truly needed in today’s world of paradoxes and mounting inequalities. Expectedly, readers across the world eagerly wait to find out who will win. They scramble to read the longlisted works with increased zeal. Among the 13 titles, I found it interesting that six are one-word titles, five two-worded — I assume the trend of longish titles is truly over! Last year’s winner was Prophet Song — a two-word-titled gem by Irish author Paul Lynch depicting the struggles of the Stack family, in particular Eilish Stack, mother of four, trying to save her family from totalitarianism in her country. News reports added that six of the long-listees are from the US. The number is also six for writers who were “previously nominated for the prize.”

A repeat nomination must be special. These are names that must be on course to be among the literary greats, like Garcia or Munro or Atwood. Yet, strangely enough, do these novels or their writers ever attain that global acceptability that the said writers did and continue to do?

Many doubt it. For example, I’m not sure how many will name the writers on the Booker longlist as their favorites, although a cursory check will reveal that even the debuting authors on the list are fairly accomplished, having published collections previously, won other awards, and had their writing made into films.

This thought was so curious that I randomly asked on social media if my contemporaries would like to name their literary icons. The names that came up were Alice Hoffman, Virginia Woolf, Janice Galloway, Salman Rushdie, J B Priestley, David Mitchell, Amy Hempel, Flannery O’Connor, Kelly Link, Grace Paley, and Joyce Carole Oates.

An interesting mix! I think that’s a curious reality someone must research on — who are today’s literary icons? I am talking about literary icons as in a fairly-known name who has wide acceptability. Wide acceptability as in being read and enjoyed by a common reader say in India, or Tunisia, or any part of the world, and discussed and passed on from generation to generation. There might be a flaw there that we do not yet acknowledge. It may or may not boil down to ignorance, emanating either from the promotion efforts or the way readers are choosing other mediums over books. Or, perhaps how these books are written, or/and how today’s authors deal with their subject matter?

The question of transcending the borders for any work of fiction lies in being read across without being made to feel alienated by its premise or cultural markers. Tom Parks sieves it down to a “sense of whom they (the authors) are writing for.” In the 2010 essay The Dull New Global Novel, Parks writes: "Many may not even think they are directing their work at any audience in particular."

As an example of finding newer and wider readership, Parks points us to "the period that stretches from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century when writers all over Europe abandoned Latin for the vernacular…(and) they ‘descended’ to local and national languages to address themselves to an emerging middle class." This observation rings true, because earlier, books were for the elite and the newly educated middle-class were not ‘written for.’ There was a perceptible shift during that period in subject-matter and themes as well. That was when authors began focusing on working class issues and themes centering on the woman protagonist.

What audience are today’s writers consciously targeting? (btw, I hate the word ‘targeting’ as though readers are gullible ducks in a Duck Hunt game, sorry!) Anyway, to share a personal story, I am querying a literary novel primarily set in India, but it trots around the globe in several chapters and a few prominent characters are not Indian. One interested publisher turned it down because “your target readership is too narrow.” I did not, of course, agree, because they hadn’t even been sent a sample, just the synopsis, but it was indeed eye-opening and somewhat understandable. Therefore, to me, Tom Parks’ postulate about the ‘dull new global novel’ hits closer, and is even relatable. I feel the primary reason why we still favor greats like Virginia Woolf and Flannery O’Connor is because their writing is still relatable to readers of our generation born long after they died.

Another observation is about writers writing with a clear audience in mind. They write for a global readership, and it is interesting how they are able to accomplish their goal. Orhan Pamuk, Jhumpa Lahiri and Haruki Murakami are prime examples. I find their style as something maybe considered “neutral,” that is, they are skillfully incorporating resources from their native culture in their stories, while avoiding the intricacies and allowing for a semi-aware reader to still enjoy the references. I think the motifs and narrative grid-points do well to steer clear of biases either way and therefore appeal to a wider audience. However, all three writers I have named above have been sporadically criticized for “writing for export,” meaning that they have fashioned their narratives to suit the market-friendly western readership.

So here’s what’s on the table: global versus local, elite versus working class, western versus non-western, writing for export versus writing for everyone. There’s much to discuss and disagree on, but I guess writers, generally, are devoting lifetimes to create work that have timeless literary value, whether or not that goal is being achieved.