President's Conference, Day 2: Writers Discussing Tomorrow

[EDK note: Will be posting in sections--easier to write, and hopefully easier to read, too.]

A good moderator can make all the difference. Or would have, if we had had a good moderator. Still, the voices, including Jonathan Safran Foer, Nathan Englander (sporting the newer shorter hair, if any of you Englander fans are interested), and Nicole Krauss representing American writers; Erri DeLuca representing Italian Hebreophiles; and Araidi Naim and Yehudit Katzir on the Israeli side, were varied and worth hearing, even if the questions that they were answering weren't the most clearly phrased, and even if some of what the writers said smacked of literary elitism.

In answering the opening question, about the impact of an era in which everyone is internet writing, JSF noted that what bloggers do is not writing, comparing it to a painter who paints a wall rather than a piece of art. (Ouch.) "Literature is rareified and is meant to be," he said, noting that traditionally the most important art rises from the periphery. Krauss noted that there's no definition of the novel that any of us would agree on. The internet, she noted, is a superficial communication. "People don't expect it to be relevant for more than just a day." (Given the fact that I completely disagree with JSF and Krauss on the potential of the internet in terms of creating both worthwhile content and meaningful, sustainable connections--my presence in the room was proof that it can be done--I doubt I'll be invited to dinner at their place anytime soon.)

DeLuca and Naim spoke eloquently about their passion for the Hebrew language; DeLuca, an Italian, observed that "today's pogrom is against the shtetly of Israel," while Naim, an Israeli Arab talked about the worldwide trend that literature is rapidly becoming the work of editors, and not writers, as the business becomes more about what can make money. "The poet who wants to create poetry with depth. and meaning can't find an audience," he noted.

Katzir talked about the experience of writing and reading in the age of television, observing that children read books, and see them in their minds like movies.

Englander spoke of writing as a craft, and opined that if stories are well-crafted, they will resonate; "if literature is meant to die, it will die," he said, but noted that it's not likely. The pyramids stay relevant, he said, or they'd make them into malls. "The writer's obligation is only to story. If the goal is shaping other people, the writer's already corrupted." He later noted that fiction, done write, should resonate no matter where or when it's read--he cited his enjoyment of Voltaire as proof. "If fiction spoils, it's a problem. The soul of a story is not a conscious choice. It needs to be written in a primal way."

One moment of drama/dramatic irony: midway through the session, there was a power outage of both lights and microphones, plunging the panel into silent darkness, and causing an Israeli in my row to quip, "I guess not everything is illuminated."

   

Comments

[Chavi]

I'd give a pinky to meet Safran Foer. He's a brilliant writer. Did he mention if he has anything new in the works, though?