The term globalization essentially means the formation of an expanding global economy, characterized by trade liberalization, capital exchange, and the use of cheap foreign labor. It was an economic process that first developed in urban cities around the world, predominantly in the West, and over time spread to the suburbs. These metropolitan centers inevitably became the centers of the literary world due to accelerated globalization. The formation of this “center” for global literature has influenced writers around the world. Through this essay I will examine the disadvantages of the impact that the “center” has produced, highlighting the influence of the trend. To provide evidence and reasoning for my claim, I will analyze “Going Global” by David Damrosch, “Testimony of My Grandfather's Bookshop” by Amitav Ghosh, and “My Father's Suitcase” by Orhan Pamuk. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe "center" had a slightly different meaning and interpretation for the three authors. David Damrosch believes that Paris, London and New York remain key centers of publishing, and that writers from peripheral regions typically need to be accepted by agents and publishers in these centers to achieve global reach. According to Amitav Ghosh, the center was marked by authors who had received the Nobel Prize for Literature. This collection included a variety of writers from Russia, America, France, and Germany; writers such as Grazia Deledda, Gorky, Hamsun, Sholokhov and Sienkiewicz, have all been recognized globally. Likewise, Orhan Pamuk recognizes that the center is Paris and America. He felt that outside Turkey there was a richer and more exciting life, and that the reason his father went to Paris was to find this inspiration, to be at the “center” to write better. Among the opinions of three authors, we see that the center of global literature had slightly different meanings, but it was predominantly the West, and this center largely influenced writers and readers around the world. One of the main consequences of the formation of a center was the development of a trend. Some works gained popularity because they followed a similar trend or theme to a previously popular work. David Damrosch claims that Milorad Pavic's “Dictionary of the Khazars” would not have been successful if it were not for the popularity of “magical realism,” adopted earlier by writers such as Gabriel Garcla Márquez and Salman Rushdie. Such successes influenced every aspect of literary production, from what readers preferred to read, to the selectivity of publishing agents and the options accessible to readers. This set in motion the prevalence of trend books. However, this posed a threat to writers everywhere. Writers, in an effort to adapt to this global trend and be recognized by downtown publishers, often had to adopt watered-down versions of their works. As mentioned by Tariq Ali, this led to the formation of “market realism” instead of “socialist realism”. As a result, literary works often lacked cultural foundation and authenticity. Furthermore, Orhan Pamuk, identifies that one of his fears as a writer is to lose his authenticity and give in to aping the West and following its trend. He says that: A writer is someone who spends years patiently trying to discover the second being within him and the world that makes him who he is. But he's afraid to open his father's suitcase,which contains his works, because he feels that, due to the influence of the “center”, the West, his father may have lost originality. This is evident as the collection of books in his library mainly includes works from Paris and the West. Pamuk felt that he was far from the center, a sense of provinciality, even moresobecause the city of Istanbul showed little interest in writers. A writer writes with the hope that people around the world will understand and identify with the thoughts expressed in their works. But perhaps it is precisely this desire to be at the center of everything, in an exciting place, that writers have created their own worlds with their words. Furthermore, Amitav Ghosh says that owning a globally recognized book collection was a status symbol. In West Bengal, educated and literate families owned works by Nobel Prize winners. Even if the books were not read, the library was still dusted from time to time, to showcase a cultural capital. He highlights the effect of this center on readers, as they developed a culture of writing, which was quite pretentious. This in turn limits and forces writers to write their works in that vein of work that the public prefers. However, there are many methods that writers have adopted to achieve global reach. Ghosh states that writers have adopted the method of relocation, an idea also mentioned by David Damrosch. Setting a story in a place without any specific cultural background, often in mystical and emblematic places. Glocalization, the idea of ​​“think locally, act globally” was a different strategy adopted by writers to maintain the culture of their locality while reaching the global level. “One Thousand and One Nights,” a novel, although set in the city of Baghdad, is described more as an enchantment, an enchanted city that any imaginative mind can imagine. Furthermore, books like “Panchatantra” and “Jatakas”, though set in cultural India have been easily adapted in different parts of the world. This was due to their transportability and the superfluous nature of their location. The universality of the novels helped their spread throughout the world. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Furthermore, Pamuk believes that a writer's internal battle truly ends when he or she realizes that their work holds the true essence when it is rooted and represented in the heart of its origin. Giving force to this realization, Amitav Ghosh states that location is intrinsic to a novel. It is the setting, the atmosphere that a writer constructs, that gives readers an image of their narratives. With this in mind, to reach a wider readership, writers can adopt glocalism, working outward from their position, without losing the essence of this locality but portraying it as a microcosm of global exchange. In conclusion, the formation of a “center” has had a detrimental impact on writers around the world, causing them to lose authenticity and become culturally distant. To address this problem of cultural barriers, writers of universality and transability have adopted various methods to broaden their scope such as delocalization and glocalization. However, in a world where global literature has gained momentum, writers strive to find their center, only to realize that it lies at the core of their origin. References Cabrera, T. (2018). Untranslatability becomes global. By Suzanne Jill Levine and Katie, (5871), 22-23.)