the second question I pose is this. What do y’all think about American literature? Washington Irving, Cooper, Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Whitman, Melville, Twain, Sinclair Lewis, Miller, Steinbeck, Hemingway, Kerouac, De Bois, Hughes, and thousands of others. I mean in terms of literature alone we stand head and shoulders above most nations.
So you’re saying we’re better because we produce more literature? Wouldn’t that be the wal-martization of literature? Or perhaps i have misunderstood you?
I suspect someone could write a damn fine term paper using that line as inspiration. 
Currently, I agree we stand above all others in quantity. Quality wise though??? Notice damn near everyone you mentioned is gone (is Miller still alive?)… My creative writing class is taught by a woman who has published 30+ works of fiction under her name and aliases, she has been doing it for a good number of years now. I have asked her if there is room for great literature in the modern publishing industry… her reply was no. Publishers want what will sell, as for great literature they are happy to label some white southern guy “the next Faulkner” every year without the first bit of desire for taking any real literary risks.
American Literature has become as vanilla as mass marketed music, film, art, you can buy them all at the nearest Baskin Robbins with sprinkles on top.
Well, I suppose there is still a little life left in photography and performance art… that is if they can survive the moral majority.
Supposedly, the backbone of American culture rests on our unique brand of individualism… with teeny boppers getting tattos to conform, most men slavishly worshipping the next 16 year old blond anorexic with implants, and most women lusting for the next chiseled hunk with inflatable abs and 50 grand in dental work (the rest of us just settle for those whitening strips) everything has become one thing, the same thing, and of value… nothing.
Somewhere out there in America… some sincere, caring, intelligent person is crying. Because all they want is something real, something true. Just something unique that their culture can give them or teach them. They won’t find it here, I don’t think.
Pablum is the new food of choice.
Sorry for the rant… the spirit did grab me.
I just don’t agree with you, GCT. Cormac McCarthy is still writing novels to blow the socks of Yahweh himself. Don Delillo, Phillip Roth, and Tom Wolfe are producing things that are fine and lovely. Neil Gaiman, although not strictly American, sure as hell writes fine like one. Chuck Palahniuk (although I’m not a fan) sure ain’t writing baby food for the masses. And these are but a few of 'em
I guess my thing is this - popular culture has always been this way. My dad said that he used to be sad about the burning of the Library of Alexandria until he realized that the library probably was filled with Hellenistic Danielle Steel novels.
Quality is always more scarce than some damn art commodity. Also why is quality supposed to be anathema to popularity? Remember Dickens and Shakespeare were wildly popular in their day. I think it’s just one more goddamned thing from Modernism’s will 1. "To be good you must be obscure and difficult and hate"d - bah fuck you, Elliot. 2 “To be creative you must be original”, bah!
By the way who’s your creative writing teacher?
My point wasn’t that what is good and what sells must be seperate… in the publishing industry what sells is what is pushed, for example did you know that publishers buy space on the shelves of bookstores to hock certain titles… which titles do you think they push?
From a NYT Bestseller list I found…
HARDCOVER FICTION
Top 5 at a Glance
- THE DA VINCI CODE, by Dan Brown
- THE FIVE PEOPLE YOU MEET IN HEAVEN, by Mitch Albom
- SKINNY DIP, by Carl Hiaasen
- VISIONS IN DEATH, by J. D. Robb
- LOST CITY, by Clive Cussler with Paul Kemprecos
PAPERBACK FICTION
Top 5 at a Glance
- THE NOTEBOOK, by Nicholas Sparks
- ANGELS & DEMONS, by Dan Brown
- THE TEETH OF THE TIGER, by Tom Clancy
- BLEACHERS, by John Grisham
- HELLO, DARKNESS, by Sandra Brown
Some of these authors I have read, some I have not. Of those that I have read , none of them I consider to consist of any appreciable literary merit. Tom Clancy puts his name on books written by a staff of ghost writers (not all of them, but still) In every facet of writing my twelve year old niece is superior to John Grisham. Some of the others might be good, but considering what little I know of how the publishing industry works, to have a book pushed by a publisher it must be written in a certain formula fitting that particular genre. If you aren’t at the stage of having a personal editor, they can supply aspiring writers with “guides” detailing what it is that they require in a work of fiction before they will even talk about publishing it.
Bestsellers nowadays are all formula. Formula is not art. Does that mean great books arent being written? No, and if I gave that impression in my previous argument I apologize and admit my mistake. What I mean to say is that what might qualify as great literature is rarely pushed by publishers, thus it will rarely sell at the level that these generic titles do, thus the large portion of the public (and therefore the culture) is not getting a fair chance at reading what is the best… merely what is predetermined to sell.
And I agree that “pop culture” is almost always a lower standard… there was probably a reason behind the term vulgar being applied to that which was enjoyed by the masses. It is just… now, thats really all you have to choose from. Which isn’t a choice at all I do not believe.
Carolyn Haines is my creative writing prof.
shs.starkville.k12.ms.us/msw … aines.html
I have never asked her, but she probably considers Touched to be her best work to date, if you want to read it and judge if she knows what she is talking about, I believe it is out in paperback.
There are essentially two kinds of writers. Those who write for a ‘deep’ audience and those who write for a ‘broad’ audience. Either you write for the ages or you write for the masses, rarely both. I believe William Blake was right, to an extent. Money destroys art. Depth is not popular and superficial popularity drives book sales.
gentleman, very few times in life have i seen a de facto example of what a Harvard scholar cited in a colliquium. that is why i do so ever love this little thread. according to this american studies professor, the typical response to the layman when asked to describe american culture is either: a) that there is no culture or (b) that is incredibly low brow. the response generally depended on the soci-economic position of the person; the upper class picked the latter, the lower classes the former.
while a sound arguement can be constructed for the post-colonial aspect of american culture, as america is a post-colonial nation, no sound arguement can be constructed for a culture having no culture. it’s redundant and stupid and illogical. honestly peeps, let’s remember first year logic class. further, there is a study of americn exceptionalism that is a hot topic among scholars. if america has no culture, then that would be american culture, wouldn’t it?
while american culture is changing, in a world increasingly facing globalization what fucking culture isn’t having to adapt to this new world order?? further, perhaps the old definitions of culture itself is changing – this article suggests that classical music is changing: denverpost.com/Stories/0,141 … 26,00.html. maybe we should include music videos, or the personalization of the local wal-mart/mcdonalds (b/c each one in every town is different) to elements of culture.
I agree, and would point out this discussion is asking if (and if so, what) culture exists in America, as a nation.
Consider it a questioning of the presupposition. For example, I submit that America, as a nation, has a culture that is, by and large, Euro-Centric. What we think of as American culture is really European culture with some differences. Do these differences qualify the consideration of the American version as being its own entity? And if it does, does the mass consumerism reflected in politics, media, entertainment, religion, etc mean that the culture in America (as a nation, to avoid your confusion on the topic) is dying?
Look at it like this, someone argues:
American culture is unique enough to stand on its own when compared against its European counterparts. It is the differences that make it unique.
Globalization is removing those unique qualities in not only America, but around the world as it removes the differences for one universal standard… that being that which is fast, cheap, and soulless. Thus American culture is dying.
Or someone could maybe argue that Globalization is simply the spread of American culture to the world, and not vice versa. It should be asked what was it, culturally, that made America unique as a nation… and has that spread so that America , as a nation, no longer has a culture that is unique?
culture is difference. Globalization is in-difference.
I know some people who would say indifference is an American trait.
heh.
Lol!! the Wal-Mart generation.
Yes folks, prices on books are dropping everywhere here at walmart! Get your cheap dime store romances here!
Hello GateControlTheory.
I also mean’t non-difference which leads to indifference, which is why the ‘in’ is italicized… In Revolt of the masses by Ortega Gasset he says that in order to have culture there must be that which commands and that which obeys. in a totally globalized-democratized society where is the difference which will drive culture? unless you do not think difference drives culture in which case i would ask that you state what culture means to you.
I see the merit in that argument, in fact I anticipated it when I mentioned
I also think one could argue, based on the sheer number of folks in the prison population, that America’s brand of Exceptionalism does hint at a mighty strand of indifference. Be that either to the commission of crime or the causes thereof.
What do you expect from a nation who owes it’s inception to the criminals of Europe 
I don’t know, American know-how, self reliance, capitalism [i.e. pragmatism]? But you’re right, it is a question that should be asked. I don’t think that other nations are ‘Americanized’ to the extent where comparisons are no longer valid. I’m not sure, however, that we owe our exceptionalism to the commission of crime, we rather owe our commission of crime to our exceptionalism. Ortega makes the point that America has not yet suffered and thus is not worthy to lead the World. Let’s face it, we have come through two World wars virtually unscathed. A lot of people here feel that we are favored by God, but might never makes right and our arrogance and ignorance will one day destroy our freedom and power and we’ll find ourselves eclipsed by yet the next super power, perhaps China. When that happens, and the pressure increases, maybe this lump of coal will become a diamond.
On the subject of prison populations, i’m not sure if that is due to our many arcane laws like the war on drugs or other factors like gun ownership. Who was it who said that when a country has many laws it is headed for a fall?
American culture is a blending of uncountable cultures from around the world. The issue with American culture is that it is always changing. I mean look, since the 90’s alone we have had the countries obsession with grunge, the urbanization of music and culture, the so called ‘Latin Invasion’ and now the countries interest in religious matters appearing in everything from books. movies, music, plays… (And im sure im missing many others).
Its the shift in beliefs and ethnic influences and the people’s reaction to them which create American culture. I mean yesterday I picked up a newspaper and it read that where I live, Texas, white is now the minority and hispanics are now the majority. Im sure that will eventually have an impact on Texan culture and perhaps on the country as a whole.
Although I have to say that Amerian culture is very…uncultured.
Trix, Lovely observations. how would you characterize American culture?
Will globalization continue to erode, not just American culture, but all national cultures into a new planetary culture?
Part of what make a culture remain distinct from other culture is the impact of solid borders. Ideas and mass media have fewer and fewer limits. The only limitation is how far you can transmit your info. Think of how we take the idea of global box-office profits for granted. America’s motion picture fantasies now display across the entire globe. Not in every country, but in the most influential ones.
What nation could close all of its borders and be effectively self-sufficient?
Culture used to depend upon an interaction between people and their environment. The new planetary culture would have none of those traditional features.
America, once one of the active forces pushing towards globalization is now caught up in the momentum towards globalization. No nation will be able to fully retain is distinctive qualities. There will be something lost and something gained in the new culture. The ingroup will no longer be any particular geographical area but the entire planet.
I made this point earlier, that culture derives its power from difference and that globalization leads to uniformity. Perhaps cultures will begin to be defined more in economic terms. I know this sounds Marxist, but i really can’t see any more powerful influence than that for our cultural future.
Gate control theory:
if that is what this discussion is asking, is has been poorly worded. not only does the first post state:
but to assume that a culture is dying means that it is becoming extint. i maintatin that so long as a people exist, that group must have a defining culture. even a cosmopolitan culture (like the multi-ethnic canada, for instance) has a culture. this is an arguement about what constitutes a culture, however, but a simple dictionary definition will do to illuminate my point:
The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=culture
let’s not be silly as to ask if america will soon loose its culture, because we might as well be asking if america will stop being a nation or have a people.
and i’ve already argued, as have marshall mcdaniel pointed out, that america is POST-COLONIAL. do you know what post-colonial means? this is redundant.
yes, its a post-colonial culture. for fuck’s sake.
hmmm…profound. ah, does this also mean that the price of tea of china have something to contribute to it, you think?
i cannot cannot cannot stand people who ask inane questions as if they were the first people ever to do so, come up with half-assed answers that really just restate the question, and then attempt to defend the position as if no one else has answered the question. buddy, millions of people prior to you have answered the question. all have answered it only about a million times better than you have.
here are some names for you look into: kingdon, huttington, de touqueville, etc.
hermes 3 the great, key elements of american culture include freedom, individulaism, religion and belief in small government.
and no my peons, these elements do not look like they will be threatened by globalization anytime soon. the current conduct of america in foriegn affaris should indicate this, one would think.
Been up for over 24 hours, so pardon the typos.
So, lets say every culture has a beginning, and therefore, should have some kind of markable end. I admit cultures evolve (as it were), so did mammals… you can look through the fossil record and see the steps. I dunno why you are having such a hard time with this, I think it pretty obvious where the line of thought was going, but okay. Tell me, is the culture the Same in Canada as it was 100 years ago?
I am sure some is and some isn’t.
Now tell me, if tomorrow everyone in Canada woke up and spoke japanese, ate rice and fish, strated building shinto shrines, gave up hockey for video games, etc… would your culture still be “Canadian”?
Fine, now tell me:
At what point does a Nation’s culture become unique from others to the degree that it can be called a/an “X culture” ? And if these points evolve into something else, or something resembling something else… wouldn’t that mean that the other culture has “died”?
So are quite a few nations in Africe, South America, etc… yet all are not alike. Being Post Colonial doesn’t make something innate. And all of this is a matter of ‘was’. Past tense. I am asking if whatever it is today will be changed so significantly as to be something else, and would that constitute as having died?
Well, if it is Post Colonial is it its own seperate entity from other post colonials? I think so… so do please explain in detail how you can generalize something and pretend that makes it seperate from other things that go in the same category.
I cannot stand people who pretend to have some understanding they do not possess, and seek to derail discussion by posting meanding, ignorant bullshit which accomplished nothing. That’s right, kiddo… you have yet to add a single thing to this thread, except my beautiful replies i suppose.
Added anything? No
Clarified any questions? No, in fact I believe you are still confused as to where we were headed with this. Not that I think I am being brilliant, but if there is such a thing as a Global culture, and if America is fastly joining it… wouldn’t that mean that America (the nation) will no longer have a unique American culture?
Argumentation by enumeration is still a fallacy I think. Billions have answered whether or not God exists… their answers are still open to debate.
oh we went from millions to three in the span of one paragraph. ahh I forgot the dreaded “etc” Rats! foiled again.
Can’t argue that, though i would point out that America is more Egalitarian now then when it first won it’s independence (women and minorities get to vote, run for office, go to the same schools if they want.) American exceptionalism is on the decline, oddly enough, with the increase of individualism. It is almost as if the spread of equality increases mediocrity… well thats Plato’s argument anyway.
I want to thank you for this. If nothing else, you have proven my point. America used to be a country that rarely interefered in foreign affairs. Consider it a part of the American culture of the past to not want to get involved militarily with the outside world. I suppose being the lone super power, those days are over.
And my point to all of this was… the world itself is becoming more Americanized. Not just Westernized, but Americanized. (To make it easier for you… the entire world is becoming “post colonial”).
Still I ask, as one culture slowly seeps across borders and injects itself into the arteries of other nations… at what point is there anything distinctive or unique about America to qualify it as having an American culture when other nations have much of the same?
Think of it as Vampirism wherein the Vampire is changed by his victims. That, my dense Canadian friend, is what i want to know… is it possible, if so, is it happening, and if so, what do we have to look forward to?