Literature In The 21st Century — Can There Be A Truly Global Novel?

We are almost too accustomed to speak about the novel — and literature in general — in terms of the nation: We classify authors according to their birthplaces or the languages they write on, and their works become representative of local and regional identities. In his review of Adam Kirsch's book, The Global Novel: Writing the World in the 21st Century, essayist Sean Nam ponders whether there can actually be such a thing as a truly global novel — global, that is, both in its reach and its consciousness. 

The incipient global novel is often criticized, as it is seen as a race to the bottom. "The global novel is often nothing more than a commercial product", the argument goes, and "it is vulnerable to the worst dumbing-down effects of market capitalism". It risks becoming a "streamlined, mediocre work stripped of intricate language and local references to fit a standard". 

Kirsch picks 8 examples — all to counter this narrative and show that global literature can be a rich genre: Orhan Pamuk’s Snow, Haruki Murakami’s 1Q84, Roberto Bolano’s 2666, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Americanah, Mohsin Hamid’s The Reluctant Fundamentalist, Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake, Michel Houellebecq’s The Possibility of an Island, and Elena Ferrante’s Neapolitan novels. And while they are all bestsellers, the point is that the same industry responsible for churning out 50 Shades of Gray is also capable of producing the works of these authors.

At a time when provincialism is on the rise — alongside waves of xenophobia, populism, racism, and outright bigotry — the defense of global culture might indeed be essential to defend cosmopolitanism. But, Nam warns, while some memorable works can come from the genre, writers ought to be careful: paying too much attention to current events might turn literature into journalism, or something else altogether.