BookFox

Tod Goldberg Interview on "Other Resort Cities"

Tod Goldberg writes short stories (Simplify) and novels (Living Dead Girl), in addition to just being a hilarious guy (see: blog). He's also the Director of the MFA program at UC Riverside Palm Desert. 

BookFox had the opportunity to interview him by email for the release of his latest collection, "Other Resort Cities."

BookFox: So many characters in "Other Resort Cities" are living in or haunted by the past in some way. Why is nostalgia such a powerful theme in these stories?

Tod Goldberg: I think we are all possessed by the past, whether we are aware of it or not. Every thing I do on daily basis -- be it ordering the same damn thing at Starbucks every day, even after spending several seconds examining the menu as if I might make a different choice, or something more profound, like, say, finding myself feeling regret for some stupid decision I made ten years ago -- is colored by my previous experiences, be they emotional or physical. And that troubles me just as a human being, that it's impossible for me to exist outside of my past, and so that's a bit of an obsession for me. 

But as it relates to this book specifically, I think the stories tend to be about the aftermath of cataclysm, so the characters are naturally bound to be scarred by that and trying to reckon with the results of their choices (or their pointed lack of choices -- which is to say their passivity -- which I think is a choice in itself). Where I found myself really struggling with this idea was in the story "Walls" which is told from the "we" perspective and which is about the past but also about the effect other people's bad choices -- in this case a parent's -- have on another group of people (namely, children). This can be a kind of inert way of telling a story, so I really wanted to find a way to tell a story where the drama really belongs to one person but trickles down into several people's lives. 

BF: There's a few stories that take place in deserts. What attracts you to desert locales?

TG: The smell of tanning lotion is very inspiring to me. As is the sight of octogenarians driving enormous American cars dangerously slow. Plus, I've lived in the desert for a long time: My family moved to Palm Springs when I was in 8th grade -- my mother was a society columnist in town for many years -- but prior to that I'd visited Palm Springs on a yearly basis since birth, as both sets of my grandparents had winter homes in the area. Later, I lived in Las Vegas as well, and have lived for the last ten years back in the Palm Springs area, so in a tangible way, I simply know these locales well and so it's easy for me to imagine my stories in places that are familiar to me. 

But I also find the deserts of the West to be odd and mysterious places. There's no good reason anyone should live in a place where the temperature is routinely above 110 for weeks at a time, and yet people have inhabited these parts for hundreds of years by choice and before the advent of central air conditioning. Why would anyone choose that way of life? And yet here I am and here so many other have been. And then there's the way people tend to disappear into these landscapes and how people in resort cities like Palm Springs and Las Vegas come to these searing places to recreate themselves. These can be anonymous places, places where you go to escape or to lose yourself and find that very compelling indeed. 

BF: Some of these stories are hilarious -- darkly so. But do you find that literary journals are prejudiced against humor?

TG: I think generally there is a prejudice against funny things -- when was the last time a comedy won the Academy Award? -- in terms of taking them...well...seriously. And so if a short story is funny, it also has to do other things well to be taken as literature with a capital L, which is typically what literary journals are aiming to publish. 

But I can't say that I've faced this personally. I've been publishing short stories in magazines and journals since 1996 and a great many of them have had elements of black comedy in them and I've managed to publish them. Though I don't think anything I've written is straight madcap comedy and maybe that's why as the stories are still fairly, you know, depressing. The stories in Other Resort Cities that I think are probably more humorous than the others -- "Mitzvah" and "Rainmaker" -- are still about people staring down a pretty uncertain future brought on by fairly awful, violent consequences of their own bad decisions.

BF: How did you decide to order the collection this way?

TG: I think a story collection has to be ordered in such a way that two things can be achieved: A reader can read the book straight through and, by the end, feel like they've experienced an actual arc, as if the book itself is a character. And, secondly, they need to be able to pick it up and read it out of order and still enjoy it. 

The second goal can be achieved simply by selecting the right stories for the book -- I wrote 16 stories over the course of about 3 years to get to the 10 stories we (and by 'we" I mean me and my two excellent editors at OV Books, Gina Frangello and Stacy Bierlein) ended up selecting for the book. So it was a process of making sure we weren't putting stories into the book that were overly similar or which were weaker than others or even which were similar to the stories in my last collection, Simplify. And then when we did all that we eventually ended up putting in a story -- "Granite City" -- that I wrote more than 10 years ago because it fit in particularly well with the other stories. 

In terms of the idea of arc, however, it was important for me that the book ebbed and flowed and that it started in one emotional place and ended in another, so we really toyed with the order so that the surprises in the collection -- there are a few characters who reappear in the book and I think readers will be intrigued by the stories these people have to tell -- came at the right emotional moments of the read. So I try to imagine what the reader is experiencing from the stories, the emotions they are having, and, particularly, whether or not the reader is getting ready to kill themselves from depression since I tend to write about people who aren’t exactly living the glamorous life, as Sheila E. once so adroitly sang. And so we matched stories up so that the book builds to certain revelations, pauses, lets you laugh a little bit, and then starts climbing towards a new revelation. A lot of this is just about feel -- like when we were kids and made mix tapes. You just knew that you didn't put "Somebody" by Depeche Mode next to "Fuck Tha Police" by NWA. You had to keep one of those on side A and the other on side B. 

BF: What about the UC Riverside's Palm Desert MFA program gives you joy?

TG: Pretty much all of it. Directing an MFA program is certainly a lot of work and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most writers are writers because they aren't very good businessmen, so learning the business side of education has been a unique and ever expanding challenge, but I am surrounded by great people who know much more than me on these topics and they humor my general ignorance quite well and then let me make decisions based on what I feel are the artistic aims of the program combined with the business end and, fortunately, things have worked out very well. 

The opportunity to work with a great faculty -- writers I admire like Mary Yukari Waters and Mark Haskell Smith and David Ulin, to name three -- and to recruit excellent students is a real dream. Plus, the ability to direct the movements of two programs -- we have a low residency and a regular program -- allows me to really investigate new and innovative teaching methods and to give these students a tremendous opportunity to get published and produced. Writing is one of the few arts that truly isn't proprietary and the ability to give back what little I know is exceptionally gratifying. 

BF: How difficult is it to switch between writing novels and short stories? What different writerly faculties does each require?

TG: It's all writing, so it boils down to what kind of writing it is and for me a short story is a place where I can really stretch myself. If I fail miserably or get irrevocably stuck, I've lost a month of my life. If I do the same in a novel, I've lost a year. Maybe more. I have a novel in a drawer that, while I was writing it, I sort of knew wasn't quite working but I just kept going because I already had a year invested in it and I was going to see it through for better or worse. This was probably a mistake but I just felt like I could write my way out of the intrinsic problems in the novel, which were several. 

With a story, I'd be more inclined to just say, Oh, fuck it, and try something new. I think the best short stories have all the weight and depth of a great novel -- and when I think of my favorite stories I think of them in the same emotional way as my favorite novels, too -- and so I think the difference in actual writing is pretty negligible usually. Now, when I write Burn Notice books I tend to use a style that is completely different than what I use in my other novels or stories because the stories in those books are really plot driven whereas my other novels and my stories tend to be really character based, so in that regard, yeah, I do make a conscious choice to write in a more accessible and, really, commercial way which requires me to stop being so interior and really focus on what the reader wants from those novels, which is action, quips and maybe a bit of romance, but not ruminations on the human soul.

Joan Didion and the Avoidance of Cliche

The Morning News has a great memoir piece, a very new journalism/memoir style called "Joan Didion Crosses the Street." Out of a simple chance encounter with Joan Didion on a public street V.L. Hartmann reconstructs the significance of Joan Didion to her own childhood and her parents generation:

When I was a teenager my mother explained the ‘60s and ‘70s to me by giving me her worn copies of Joan Didion’s collected essays. Haight-Ashbury was Slouching Towards Bethlehem, Howard Hughes was “7000 Romaine, Los Angeles 38.” I knew “John Wayne: a Love Song” before I had any idea who John Wayne was. My mother read these titles off to me with a deep reverence and it sounded like a different language. This was before I knew writers to have distinct styles. I would not understand the full meaning of many of the cultural references in Didion’s work until later re-readings in college, but I learned to associate the eras of my parents’ youth with the severe rhythm of a Didion sentence. I did not see Didion’s style as belonging to Didion; I saw it simply as the way sentences were written before I was born. I thought it was as much an indication of time passing as the yellow of the pages. My mother was captivated by Didion’s California and it became the California of my imagination. I would read “Los Angeles Notebook” and get the words mixed up with my mother’s voice.

One minor note of correction that seems pedantic. At the end, Harmann quotes her mother quoting Didion, the famous repeated line of "The Year of Magical Thinking," which says, "Life changes in an instant." Hartmann then says that this is a cliche line, but it becomes uncliche since it's Joan Didion who's writing it -- Didion, who built sentences stronger than any architectural edifice, whose cadences served as a model for a generation's writing.

But despite Didion's pedigree, it would still be cliche if that was actually Didion's line. The line is actually: "Life changes in the instant."

I would have overlooked the altered article of speech if I hadn't been astonished by its use before. When I read the book, shortly before hearing Didion speak at the LA Times Festival of Books, that line arrested me. I actually thought: why not write the conventional line? "Life changes in an instant." But then I knew: because it would be a cliche.

And just by tweaking an article she avoids the cliche -- what George Orwell calls the "dying metaphor." It's not insignificant, either, and not meaningless. "The" instant makes this particular moment a seismic moment in life. "A" moment reduces the moment into the herd of other moments.

It's the tiny twist of a master stylist, and one that shouldn't be overlooked.

Cormac McCarthy Interview

Cormac McCarthy gives one of his once-in-a-blue-moon interviews to WSJ (to promote the new movie "The Road."). So I guess there is someone other than Oprah that can coax him out of hiding. His caustic humor is sure in full form, though:

WSJ: When you first went to the film set, how did it compare with how you saw "The Road" in your head? 

Cormac McCarthy: I guess my notion of what was going on in "The Road" did not include 60 to 80 people and a bunch of cameras. [Director] Dick Pearce and I made a film in North Carolina about 30 years ago and I thought, "This is just hell. Who would do this?" Instead, I get up and have a cup of coffee and wander around and read a little bit, sit down and type a few words and look out the window.

WSJ: But is there something compelling about the collaborative process compared to the solitary job of writing? 

 CM: Yes, it would compel you to avoid it at all costs.

Herta Muller: Reviewing the Nobel Prize Winner

The Wall Street Journal takes a lukewarm tone regarding Herta Muller (via The Literary Saloon):

"I am happy to have made Ms. Müller's acquaintance without being eager to revisit her."

The final sentence of the WSJ article, written by Richard Woodward, indicates that Muller's books are likely to stay on the shelves -- not exactly a glowing review.

I have to admit that I agree. I've slogged through "The Passport" and attempt some of "Nadirs" and it was painful reading. Her sentences are so short, bare, and stark that it takes the greatest of effort to propel oneself through the text. The narrative -- if you could call it narrative -- is cyclical and doesn't progress as much as repeat key images and scenes with slight variations (reminds me a bit of Alain Robbe-Grillet's early work). Dialogue is functional without any kind of adornment -- almost surreal in its emotional deadpan. Woodward describes it using painting terminology:

"Moreover, the pointilist impressionism she favors in her novels often blurs character definition and kills any chance for dramatic conclusions."

The upshot? I'm glad to say that I've read her, but I wouldn't go back for pleasure.

I disagree with Richard Woodward's fear that the Nobel prize committee will think him a dullard. One, Americans shouldn't be worrying about what the Nobel Prize committee thinks of our tastes. The push for a less-insular reading selection here in the U.S. doesn't mean that we have to fawn over every foreign author, or every author crowned by the Swedes. Yes, I do have eclectic and international tastes, and I happen not to prefer Muller. It's not an indictment, it's not a trend, it's just a statement of preference.

The Drawbacks of Diversity in Book Lists

 A lot of people have been complaining about the lack of women on the Publishers Weekly top ten list. For commentary, check out the NY Times, The Rumpus, and The Arts Blog.

I have a problem not with this particular attempt to encourage diversification (and it is pretty strange that not a single woman appeared on the top ten), but with the overall attempt to make sure every list is diversified (Remember the complaints about The Millions Best of the Millennium?).

When people use the notion of diversity to bludgeon a selection of literature, what they are really encouraging is not diversity per se, but their unique cocktail of diversity. For instance, they complain there aren’t enough women. Or enough international authors. Or enough writers of color. (Or, as this blog might even argue, not enough short story collections!).

In other words, they’re encouraging prejudice/special favor toward a specific group of people under the guise of “diversity.” But this diversity can never be achieved. As soon as you add more women, or more authors in translation, this skews some other—still significant—portion of the list’s demographic.

What about diversity of age? What about diversity of religion? What about diversity of fame? What about diversity of education? Diversity of class? Diversity of Genre (no poetry?) Diversity of single/married/polygamous? These diversities are no less important, yet they are often ignored by people invoking diversity as a moral good.

Remember, diversity is not the only value in town. Remember unity? Also a good thing, whether you’re talking about employees or Best of Literature lists.  I actually want “Best Of” lists to have a flavor—not that diversity doesn’t have a flavor, but that lists lacking a perfectly balanced demographic often portray a certain perspective or a unique point of view that is enjoyable. 

The problem would be if every list actively ignored a group of people. Then that would be an absolute lack of diversity. But in the age of the internet, where we’ll see hundreds—no, thousands—of Best Books of 2009 lists, I’m confident that across this spectrum we’ll have plenty of diversity. For instance, check out the wiki that lists the best female-authored books of 2009. If one list of one publication lacks perceived diversity in one category, stop complaining. Just find another list.

The truth is that we wouldn’t want absolute diversity. If every list tried to choose evenly across a diverse spectrum, we’d get politically correct lists, but not accurate portrayals of the passionate opinions of editors/authors/readers. I’ll choose a passionate list every time over a sanitized, carefully diversified list.

Responses to Amazon/Walmart Price Wars over Books

Emily Pullen at Skylight Books blog:

What kind of soulless person would think that cheaper isn't better? According to Merriam Webster, the verb to cheapen also means "to lower in general esteem; to make tawdry, vulgar, or inferior in some moral sense." And frankly, that's something that I'd rather not do to our concept of reading and its influence in our lives. I'm amazed that publishers don't seem more outraged about this. As luxuries go (and reading is usually a luxury), you can't get much more economical than a book. Let's say you read one page per minute for 30 minutes every day. At that rate, it would take you 10 days to read a 300 page book, or 5 total hours. Where can you get 5 hours of entertainment or education for less than $15, let alone 10 DAYS of entertainment or education for about $25?

In the Huffington Post, Praveen Madan and Christin Evans write about what important things independent bookstores offer that Amazon and Walmart can't provide:

It seems to us that independent booksellers are not in the same business as Amazon.com and the chain stores. They are in a much broader business – it’s the business of building community. Successful independent bookstores use their love and knowledge of books to build community just like a contractor uses bricks and wood to build a house.  You can buy a book anywhere but you can’t buy community. Community doesn’t enjoy every day low prices at WalMart nor does it show up in a box delivered by UPS.

Atlantic Monthly offers a roundup:

Publishers should then use this turn of events to start putting their money where it matters: the emerging writers.

The Wall Street Journal points out the latest in this book pricing war is that the behemoths have begun to ration the number of books customers can buy:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has limited its online customers to two copies each of certain bargain books. Amazon.com Inc. has a three-copy maximum on certain discounted titles and Target Corp. has a five-copy limit online.

The Literary Saloon has some excerpts from a subscriber online WSJ article about how price wars are banned in Europe (sounds like a wise position):

In much of Europe, the discount-pricing battle that has erupted among Wal-Mart Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and Target Corp. could never happen because most major publishing markets, with the exception of the U.K., are bolstered by laws requiring all bookstores, online retailers included, to sell books at prices set in stone by their publishers.

UPDATE: The New Yorker wades into the fray:

"The best way to win a price war, then, is not to play in the first place. Instead, you can compete in other areas: customer service or quality. Or you can collude with your putative competitors: that’s why cartels like OPEC exist. Or—since overt collusion is usually illegal—you can employ subtler tactics (which economists call “signalling”), like making public statements about the importance of “stable pricing.” The idea is to let your competitors know that you’re not eager to slash prices—but that, if a price war does start, you’ll fight to the bitter end. One way to establish that peace-preserving threat of mutual assured destruction is to commit yourself beforehand, which helps explain why so many retailers promise to match any competitor’s advertised price. Consumers view these guarantees as conducive to lower prices. But in fact offering a price-matching guarantee should make it less likely that competitors will slash prices, since they know that any cuts they make will immediately be matched. It’s the retail version of the doomsday machine."

Poets and Writers' MFA Program Rankings by Seth Abramson

Poets and Writers offers the Top 50 MFA Programs in the nation, as compiled by Seth Abramson. Most of the article explains what criteria were excluded from the rankings. I don't think it's a bad idea that he completely avoids such subjective criteria as professor status -- after all, as he notes, excellent writers are sometimes poor teachers.

It's also probably wise that he avoids quantifying long-term alumni success, and that he avoids considering MA programs, low-residency programs, and Ph.D. programs. Also, I applaud his attempt to make MFA programs more transparent about funding. Some are certainly notoriously tight-lipped about dispensing information.

But Stacey Harwood, at the Best American Poetry blog, complains that Abramson's methods are faulty:

"Unlike a valid poll, which would survey a randomly selected representative sample of the total pool of current and potential MFA applicants, Abramson's poll reflects only the responses of self-selected readers of his blog, and there is nothing to prevent individuals from responding more than once from multiple locations."

It's true that the pool was self-selected. But I have to disagree with Stacey: I think this makes the stats more accurate -- all the students visiting the MFA blog are likely to know much much more than a random sampling of MFA applicants. After all, we don't want to find out the majority's opinion -- we want the opinion of people who are in the know and have a good idea of program's strengths and weaknesses. Plus, the poll is only one piece of information -- Abramson offers 12 other categories of info.

But the bigger problem isn't whether the pool was a representative sample or self-selected; it's that the pool size was limited to prospective students. Really? Ask any MFA graduate and they'll be much wiser about the state of the industry and programs a couple years out of their MFA. The poll should not have repeated the errors of the 1997 Newsweek rankings (which Abramson rightly points out was flawed because they only polled directors and professors) by only polling another group of people -- prospective students. Wouldn't the best poll take into account all the various constituencies -- directors, professors, prospective students, post-MFAers, literary journal editors, and publishers?

It's also necessary to point out that a poll such as this can't fulfill what Stacey wants it to do. We don't want to know about the popular perception of programs. We actually want an authoritative ranking of programs. In that aspect, even if the polling was done to the approval of a statistician, all we are left with is perception, which isn't enough.

Which is why Abramson's data is the best stuff. Annual funding ranks. Acceptance percentages. Postgraduate placement records. These things are helpful, and whoever wants to focus on funding or selectivity rank can prioritize accordingly. But what potential MFA students think about programs? I'll take it with a grain of salt.

It's truly unfortunate that the Best American Poetry blog has silenced further debate by deleting Abramson's comments -- I would really have liked to hear more from both of them.

Nook: B&N E-Reader

So Barnes and Noble released its e-reader today, which will compete with Sony's e-reader and Amazon's Kindle. Over at Business Center, they're calling the Nook a Kindle-killer. Ironically, wasn't this the term for not-yet-unveiled-but-hoped-for Apple Tablet? I guess they've waited so long to bring it out that it will have to be a Sony/Nook/Kindle killer.

Anyways, the Nook has lending capabilities. I find this notion of lending fascinating:

"One of the differentiating factors of the Nook is that customers can “lend” books to friends. But customers may lend out any given title only one time for a total of 14 days and they cannot read it on their own Nook while it is lent."

Does anyone else think that 14 days is a very, very long time? I read some books in a day, most others in a few days, sometimes in a week. 14 days seems less like a promotional time period and more like the way lending physical books works -- take your time to consume, but you can't keep the physical object and display it on your shelves once you're done.

The deletion after 14 days reminds me of 007 (this message will self-destruct in 3 seconds) and a weird electronic "Fahrenheit 451" -- there's going to be electronic book burning going on at an astonishing rate, with files shared and destroyed.

The trouble with such convoluted software is that someone will disable the 14 day countdown and break the code disabling you to read it on your own Nook. Ask the music industry.

John Grisham's Ford County

On November 3rd, John Grisham is dipping into the short story realm with his first collection, "Ford County," which has a manly ring to it (it's where his first novel, A Time to Kill, takes place). Nice to have the commercial boys dip into a realm normally owned by the literary folk. I predict sales that haven't been seen since Steven King published his last short story collection.

There's a video interview with him, in which he describes his motivation for writing this collection: "Well, I tried everything else but poetry." Oh, if only all short story writers could have such noble aspirations.

Grisham says that they're long short stories -- there are only seven -- but no matter the length, it's excellent publicity for the form.

"The Writer's Notebook"

Over at The Reading Experience, Dan Green isn't happy with Tin House's "The Writer's Notebook":

If we take The Writer's Notebook: Craft Essays from Tin House (Tin House Books) to be a representative gathering of critical wisdom from current American writers, what does it ultimately tell us about these writers' understanding of the purpose of fiction, their widely-shared assumptions?

Unfortunately, in my view it tells us that their understanding of fiction's purposes is very limited indeed, their assumptions about its possibilities, its potential to surprise and to creatively challenge established conventions, very narrow and constricted.

Green goes on to specify why the advice in "The Writer's Notebook" fails to measure up to his expectations -- it encourages conventional notions of time, scenes, and dialogue, rather than encouraging more risk-taking experimental fiction.

First, I doubt that such a book of advice could be written for experimental literature -- how do you instruct someone in how to break all the rules? How do you teach them to do what hasn't yet been done? I would argue that the best way to lead a student towards experimentation is by laying a solid foundation of the rules themselves -- for example, only by learning the "clock" of fiction in all of its configurations can a writer learn to subvert a reader's notions of time.

Also, if someone is sophisticated enough of a writer to conceive and successfully implement a revolutionary structure in fiction, then they don't need to be reading any how-to-write books. They might want to consider writing them.

In my former review of "The Writer's Notebook," I highlighted a few passages that seemed to be quite sophisticated evaluations of the role in fiction. And looking again at the book in light of Green's criticisms, I've categorized the book more accurately.

Considering the entire spectrum of books that teach writing, I would place "The Writer's Notebook" in the top fifth percentile, when based on a sliding scale of degree of difficulty. Here's why.

Nearly all of the books that teach writing focus on the basics. This is because beginning writers are more likely to read how-to-write books. I would say that 95% of these books repeat the exact same rules, with minor variances: show, don't tell, create memorable characters, offer detail, story rises to a climax.

"The Writer's Notebook" does none of that. Instead, when it does take on a cliched topic, it tends to invert it: instead of choosing the "right" word, choose the wrong one; instead of valuing content over form, find shapes to find content; instead of showing, please tell. I would never recommend this book to someone early in their writing career -- it's clearly meant for post-MFAs.

Now, admittedly, I will concede that these lectures don't go into some level of educational experience that would impart to writers how to pen experimental literature, but I would still argue that these instructions offer a high-level architecture off which writers may, if they so choose, launch off into the stratosphere. Also, some chapters in this book could apply equally well to many forms of writing. Reading well -- as the advice in "Material" by Lucy Corin teaches -- is a precursor to being able to write an intricately structured piece of conventional or innovative fiction. (which Green admits -- saying Corin's and D.A. Powell's essays are exceptions to his critique)

But the last defense I would give of this book is that it's simply not meant to teach experimental literature. You can't critique a book for what it's not trying to be. And might I add that from a publisher's perspective, a book of that nature might not sell so well?

Lessons from the Nobel Prize Winner Herta Muller

What can we learn from this year's announcement that Herta Muller has won the Nobel Prize for Literature? Here's Seven Tips for Future Predictions.

The Nobel Prize Committee has a leak. When Herta Muller rockets from 50/1 odds to 3/1 odds in the last few days of voting, that’s not a hunch. That’s a good old-fashioned black-market leak. Someone squeaked. And the same thing happened last year with JMG Le Clezio. Even though the chair of the Nobel Committee said they’d prevent a recurrence from last year’s leak, it happened again. All the secrecy isn’t working, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps someone’s fake book cover slipped?

The Nobel Prize Committee Misdirects. Two days before the prize is given to a European (German) author, the leader of the Nobel Prize jury, Peter Englund, says the award has been too Eurocentric, and that U.S. authors and the Americas have as fair of a shot as anyone. Lesson learned? Never pay attention to public statements before the award’s announced. It’s more political than perspicuous. Also, recognize that the statements aren't meant for this year, as much as for years to come. Perhaps a non-European winner in 2010?

Politics, Politics Politics. Herta Muller is the daughter of an SS officer. Herta Muller's first book, a collection of short stories called "Lowlands," was censored by Romanian authorities. Muller's two novels, “The Land of Green Plums” and “The Appointment,” deal with totalitarian regimes. This is why recluses like Pynchon and McCarthy don't stand a chance. Engagement with the world is key.

Europhilia Persists. Out of the last 11 Nobel Prize Winners, 10 have been European. And they think America's insular? (Note: Gao Xingjian has lived in France for decades). Also, three of the last ten winners come from the German Language (Elfriede Jelinek, Gunter Grass, and now Herta Muller). Let's spread the love.

Never Count Out the Poets. Okay, so a poet hasn't won since 1996, true. (That was the polish poet Wislawa Szymborska). But Herta Muller does write essays and novels, as well, so this isn't a straight poetry prize. However, the Swedes did highlight both her poetry and prose in awarding the prize: "the concentration of poetry and the frankness of prose."

Highly Popular Authors Get Passed Over. Haruki Murakami? Everyone dreams about it, but no way. Philip Roth? But people read him already! The Nobel Prize jury prefers the lightly known. Although to be fair, at least some of Herta Muller's books have been translated and reviewed here -- JMG Le Clezio was a complete unknown in the U.S.

Amos Oz Feels Disappointed. For the second year in a row, Amos Oz has been the frontrunner and then been supplanted by an upstart at the last minute. For what it's worth, BookFox sends its sincerest literary apologies. Now suck it up and write a book about peace between Israel and Palestine. Maybe that'll get the Swedes' attention.

Nobel Prize for Literature Speculation

Okay, last minute speculation here before the big announcement tomorrow.

The Guardian notes that the Swedes have given a tip-off by critiquing their European focus in the last decade:

Peter Englund [the new frontman of the Nobel literature prize jury] has said that he believes the prize has been too "Eurocentric" in recent years (nine of the 10 previous winners have been European) and that there are plenty of worthy American writers for the award.

Or maybe this just evens the score after Horace Engdahl's rant against American literature?

There's also a pitch for EL Doctorow, which I think is misguided. If you want to pick an outside American shot, give it to Cormac McCarthy (100/1 odds).

As Newsweek notes, no Latin American author has won since Octavio Paz in 1990, and that might give an edge to Mario Vargas Llosa or Carlos Fuente.

The Associated Press says that Joyce Carol Oates jumped in the rankings from 7/1 to 5/1, which I think is wrong, wrong, wrong. If she wins before Philip Roth or Alice Munro I will tear my hair out.

The Literary Saloon and a number of other sites have been picking Herta Müller as a solid option. She's risen from 50/1 odds to 3/1 odds in less than a week.

If you want the true experience of competing conversations, try the World Literature Forum. Everybody's got a guess and a theory.

Of course, there's a 31% percent chance that it won't be anyone on the list, or even someone we've even heard of before. In that case, kiss your bets goodbye, and start reading.

[This is Part II of Nobel Prize Speculation. See Part I.)