Limiting the books we read

[Lioness_Heart]

A while ago, one of my teachers asked what kind of books I like reading. He seemed shocked when I said that I like reading pretty much anything. In hindsight, this wasn't strictly true: there are lots of books that I probably wouldn't read, but was surprised by his reaction. He went on for a while about how our lives are so short in comparison to the amount of books out there, and we should be picky about what we read so that we only experience the best.

I'm not really sure what I feel about that. I mean, while I want to make the best of my limited time on Earth, every now and then, I want to read books that are just good fun, and while not completely empty, are not too heavy or meaningful. What does everyone else think? Should we limit ourselves to what has been deemed good literature? Of course, if everyone did that, no new books would ever be read. Are frivolous books harmful, or do we need to read some in order to both appreciate and rest from more serious literature?

[aabbcc]

I believe that one should be acquainted with the basics of classical literature, for the sake of general education, but that by no means one should limit oneself to any prescribed canon. I likewise see nothing wrong with reading pop-culture literature and, if dosed, I cannot see how could it be harmful. Read whatever the hell you please, as long as you are satisfied as a reader, you are doing it right. :)

Now, if one is professionally into literature, of course that my answer would differ a bit. In that case I would expect greater diversity in choice, including being rather well-versed in classical literature alongside one's personal and professional preferences. However, even some comparative literature majors rest their mind with frivolous literature (even though they say that with time you lose ability to enjoy it). :D

As you cannot, in your lifetime, read absolutely everything you wish, you will inevitably have to draw a line somewhere, but I do not think that anyone else but you should make a criteria for drawing that line - any critic, professor, anyone else. It is your choice, and the most important is that you are fine with it. Forcing yourself with tons of 'hard' literature you cannot stand is not very wholesome for you or your joy of reading, nor is forcing yourself to read 'frivolous' literature if you dislike it. Just read what you like and do not stress too much over it - make up for some basics if you missed them, if you feel like, and enjoy what you will.

[Dori]

Are frivolous books harmful, or do we need to read some in order to both appreciate and rest from more serious literature?

It's not necessary, I don't think. "Frivolous" literature only shows us what we already know and, again, where our appreciation is due. At least, that's what it does for me. :D

[Charles Darnay]

I don't agree with that at all (limiting yourself). Open mindedness is a great way to experience literature. You take the good, you take the bad - sometimes you don't know what's good and bad until you have already read it. Don't reject a book just because it is not on a "must-read" list.

[Dark Muse]

It seems a lot of people have that idea that one should be picky and highly selective and elitiest about what they read. And that is find for them if that is what they like.

But I personally disagree with that, that is, it does not work for me. Classics are great, but I have had some remarkable experinces with books that many others would not give a second look at. And I do enjoy to read things that others probably would look down upon.

Sure there are somethings I would not read, becasue they do not appeal to my interests, but I am very ecclectic. I read a wide varity of things, and I do not limit myself only to books that have thier high praises sung. Not to say some of these books are not deserving, but just becasue it is a classic, doesn't mean everyone has to love it either.

So sure I enjoy reading what could be considered more "serious" liteature. But I also like Anne Rice, Stephen King, Fantasy, and Historical Fiction, among other things.

And my plan is just to read as much as I possibly can, I know I will not be able to read everything, but I am not going to let that cenosor me from reading certain things I may enjoy just becasue they are not high-brow.

[Virgil]

A while ago, one of my teachers asked what kind of books I like reading. He seemed shocked when I said that I like reading pretty much anything. In hindsight, this wasn't strictly true: there are lots of books that I probably wouldn't read, but was surprised by his reaction. He went on for a while about how our lives are so short in comparison to the amount of books out there, and we should be picky about what we read so that we only experience the best.

I'm not really sure what I feel about that. I mean, while I want to make the best of my limited time on Earth, every now and then, I want to read books that are just good fun, and while not completely empty, are not too heavy or meaningful. What does everyone else think? Should we limit ourselves to what has been deemed good literature? Of course, if everyone did that, no new books would ever be read. Are frivolous books harmful, or do we need to read some in order to both appreciate and rest from more serious literature?

I assume you live in a free country Lioness. No one should tell you what you should read in your free time. No book is harmful, as far as I could see. If you enjoy a "frivilous" book by all means read one. And if any snobs give you a supercilious look, I say give them the finger. :D

[Dark Muse]

LOL, good one Virgil

[jgweed]

It is useful to maintain a balance between reading for fun and reading for profit, as long as one is capable of making the distinction between the two.

[Whifflingpin]

"To find your handsome prince you've got to kiss a lot of frogs"

[kiki1982]

I don't know, but I suppose there are many people who feel like that, though.
But we must also bear in mind, that not being open-minded could also result in a problem. Being too picky might result into having not read good stuff because it didn't fit into our list of requirements.
Besides, if you go on holiday you don't go to a museum every day, do you? You sometimes go and lie on the beach...
If you have to choose anyway because there is too much, then choose something that is interesting for you and is also fun, because being interesting and no fun is as empty as being merely fun.
But on the other hand in this society it is very difficult to get something that is interesting because the large majority only wants to have fun without using their brain. So the principle of only, in this case, reading what's interesting or 'great literature' is maybe a reaction against the general public who is not interested because 'too difficult'.
I went to a bookstore the other day for a book of Dumas. It was not in the rack and I asked whether they had it in stock. The shop attendant said: 'Dumas? That one you have to order.' Whereas the rack was full of the most popular books all in three copies, but Dumas was left out... This was in a frenchspeaking shop and I was looking for it in French. According to a student of mine 'Dumas is not read anymore unless required (in school) because his French is too difficult.' No idea where that comes from because I can read it and I am not a frenchspeaker.

I think one must find a healthy ballance between occupying the brain and being entertained, but sadly the largest part of society only wants to be entertained.

[Jozanny]

I am not sure where I really fit on this spectrum, but more towards serious literature, although I read more historical-commercial fiction when I was younger, and more science fiction. Mitchner, John Jakes, Sho-gun. And with SF I was all over the field...

butttt, and I know I am gonna catch heat for this-- I have come to dislike commercial American fiction, horror, thrillers, even better humorists like Weiner.

I want writers to make me work for it, serious, dense, intense stuff, and I freely admit I like too much in that vein--even European mystery writers treat the reader like an adult. American tripe is just too schematic, pooh!

And that is probably bad. I consume policy papers, get high on Foreign Affairs, love American Scholar, and wish I could get my hands on more serious critical books, but they cost more.

Is there a place for trashy entertainment? Yes, but the better educated the reader the better the survival of the West becomes, so I limit the trash.

[jgweed]

"I know I am gonna catch heat for this-- I have come to dislike commercial American fiction, horror, thrillers, even better humorists like Weiner."

Not from me.

"Yes, but the better educated the reader the better the survival of the West becomes, so I limit the trash."

And not just the survival of the West.

Regards,
John

[TheFifthElement]

I think: life is short, read what you like!

But I'm curious about this comment:

I believe that one should be acquainted with the basics of classical literature, for the sake of general education,

what is it about classical literature that is necessary for 'general education'? I'm not sure I understand.

[kelby_lake]

Me, I reckon you have to read a mixture of books to be able to distinguish between the good and the bad. There are some books that you might not want to waste your time with and some you just have to read, but the rest is up to you.

[aabbcc]

what is it about classical literature that is necessary for 'general education'? I'm not sure I understand.
Let me try to explain - I am not sure if there is a better syntagme to address this concept in English, though.

We have an expression cultura generale, which would roughly be applied to the basic set of "common knowledges" an educated individual is expected to have in a specific society (i.e. the exact definition of what are those "common knowledges" would depend upon one's time and place, though there certainly would be much overlapping), regardless of their personal and professional interests or what they do for living. Even though that set of knowledges is never 'officially' defined, each society is usually rather aware of what belongs to its cultura generale, and the set itself is usually an extended set of basic 'general education' one can receive in a better high school. Public demonstration of lack of that general knowledge is usually considered a shameful sign of bad education, in any society; and the more 'educated' and 'elitist' are the circles one finds oneself in, the more broader are the knowledges one is expected to have, and the greater shame if one demonstrates not having them.

Now, what I actually had in mind was that, for each society, there is a set of 'classic' books which had influenced it significantly, or which are for other reasons deemed to be of great cultural importance. A part of it one is most likely going to be forced to go through by one's formal education (as schools in each country usually teach - at least on high school level - precisely those pieces of literature), a part one can make up on one's own. What I wanted to say was that I think it is important to go through certain books, not because they are on Harold Bloom's or X Y's list, but because your society, your surrounding, sees them as elements of those "common knowledges" you are simply expected to have. Needless to mention, the exact 'list' differs from one society to another, but I believe one can pretty much guess what one is expected to have read, and those are the works I think one should read, in addition to whatever they please to read for their interests. :)

[Guinivere]

think if you like the classics read them, and if you enjoy reading thrillers, romance novels, fantasy, etc. then read those. Whatever makes you happy.:D But if you are aquainted with only one genre, you might want to try others, just to see what is out there. Anyway I hate it when people go for 'must have read in this lifetime', 'only common people don't understand Ovid's Metamorphoses', and so forth. (These are all quotes of my last lit teacher)

Book snobs are the worst kind of snobs. :D

[Erichtho]

Should we limit ourselves to what has been deemed good literature?

Essentially, I think your teacher is right. There simply isn't enough time for all the books you might be interested in, you have to be picky.
You should limit yourself to what you deem good literature. If you start to read a book and dislike it, then be so honest to yourself and stop reading it, even though it is a classic. Don't waste your time.

For the last few years I have been reading almost exclusively more serious literature, and I get all the entertainment out of it that I need - in fact, whenever I try to read some light fiction I have more and more problems with it - I am annoyed by the easily transparent stories, schematic characters and chlichéd language; the taste I have acquired through reading serious literature makes me unable to be entertained by works of lesser quality.

[NickAdams]

A while ago, one of my teachers asked what kind of books I like reading. He seemed shocked when I said that I like reading pretty much anything. In hindsight, this wasn't strictly true: there are lots of books that I probably wouldn't read, but was surprised by his reaction. He went on for a while about how our lives are so short in comparison to the amount of books out there, and we should be picky about what we read so that we only experience the best.

I'm not really sure what I feel about that. I mean, while I want to make the best of my limited time on Earth, every now and then, I want to read books that are just good fun, and while not completely empty, are not too heavy or meaningful. What does everyone else think? Should we limit ourselves to what has been deemed good literature? Of course, if everyone did that, no new books would ever be read. Are frivolous books harmful, or do we need to read some in order to both appreciate and rest from more serious literature?

If I limited myself to the books deemed good literature, I would still be faced with disappointment with books like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

I don't know what is worth reading until I have read it.;)

[TheFifthElement]

Let me try to explain - I am not sure if there is a better syntagme to address this concept in English, though.

We have an expression cultura generale, which would roughly be applied to the basic set of "common knowledges" an educated individual is expected to have in a specific society (i.e. the exact definition of what are those "common knowledges" would depend upon one's time and place, though there certainly would be much overlapping), regardless of their personal and professional interests or what they do for living. Even though that set of knowledges is never 'officially' defined, each society is usually rather aware of what belongs to its cultura generale, and the set itself is usually an extended set of basic 'general education' one can receive in a better high school. Public demonstration of lack of that general knowledge is usually considered a shameful sign of bad education, in any society; and the more 'educated' and 'elitist' are the circles one finds oneself in, the more broader are the knowledges one is expected to have, and the greater shame if one demonstrates not having them.

Now, what I actually had in mind was that, for each society, there is a set of 'classic' books which had influenced it significantly, or which are for other reasons deemed to be of great cultural importance. A part of it one is most likely going to be forced to go through by one's formal education (as schools in each country usually teach - at least on high school level - precisely those pieces of literature), a part one can make up on one's own. What I wanted to say was that I think it is important to go through certain books, not because they are on Harold Bloom's or X Y's list, but because your society, your surrounding, sees them as elements of those "common knowledges" you are simply expected to have. Needless to mention, the exact 'list' differs from one society to another, but I believe one can pretty much guess what one is expected to have read, and those are the works I think one should read, in addition to whatever they please to read for their interests. :)

Anastasija thanks for this very comprehensive explanation, I think I understand now. There are certain books that need to be read to demonstrate the level of education received. This makes sense, I think, though I'm not sure there is such a concept in UK (with the exception of Shakepeare of course, we're all supposed to love Shakespeare!). Thanks again :)

[Virgil]

Anastasija thanks for this very comprehensive explanation, I think I understand now. There are certain books that need to be read to demonstrate the level of education received. This makes sense, I think, though I'm not sure there is such a concept in UK (with the exception of Shakepeare of course, we're all supposed to love Shakespeare!). Thanks again :)

There must be such a concept in the UK. Do classes just willy nilly select books? Aren't there a set of books in lit undergrad programs that are a core group to be read?

Anyway, the origins of a literary western canon does seem to have originated in the United States, at least according to Wikipedia:

Origins
The process of listmaking—defining the boundaries of the canon—is endless. One of the notable attempts in the English-speaking world was the Great Books of the Western World program. This program, developed in the middle third of the 20th century, grew out of the curriculum at the University of Chicago. University president Robert Hutchins and his collaborator Mortimer Adler developed a program that offered reading lists, books, and organizational strategies for reading clubs to the general public.

An earlier attempt, the Harvard Classics (1909) was promulgated by Harvard University president Charles W. Eliot, whose thesis was the same as Carlyle's:

... The greatest university of all is a collection of books. - Thomas Carlyle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_canon

However I know the medeval world had a core set of books and then expanded in the Renaisance. There may not have been an official set of canon in the past but everyone read Homer and Virgil and Cicero and others. I think unofficially there has always been a set of required reading for an educated person.

[Victoria2133]

I've run into this debate with professors in the past. Should we encourage high-brow literature or should we just be please that, in a world full of television, video games and ADD, people still enjoy reading? My mom, for instance, loves her airplane fiction - and I don't see anything wrong with that. I've never read a book that I'd consider chick-lit and I don't see anything wrong with that, either. I actually just wrote a conference paper that questions whether John Banville's (acclaimed Irish novelist) shift to crime fiction under the name Benjamin Black was an anti-intellectual move and whether that is necessarily a bad thing. I don't think that it is. I've read his Benjamin Black books and while they don't speak to me like his John Banville novels do I still think the language is great and the questions the books raise are important.

In short, if it speaks to you and if it makes you want to support the author then go for it. I won't say that I don't enjoy the occasional science fiction book.

[Drkshadow03]

Now, what I actually had in mind was that, for each society, there is a set of 'classic' books which had influenced it significantly, or which are for other reasons deemed to be of great cultural importance. A part of it one is most likely going to be forced to go through by one's formal education (as schools in each country usually teach - at least on high school level - precisely those pieces of literature), a part one can make up on one's own. What I wanted to say was that I think it is important to go through certain books, not because they are on Harold Bloom's or X Y's list, but because your society, your surrounding, sees them as elements of those "common knowledges" you are simply expected to have. Needless to mention, the exact 'list' differs from one society to another, but I believe one can pretty much guess what one is expected to have read, and those are the works I think one should read, in addition to whatever they please to read for their interests. :)

But ought we read certain books simply because society dictates these are the "good" books.

I think what underlies your original post and the question you responded to is ultimately this basic question: Why do we read? What is the purpose of reading fiction? Classical or otherwise?

But all of that can really be summed in: Why do we read?

[mortalterror]

One of the best reasons to read the classics is because they improve your ability to read a text. They challenge your analytical skills and give you a frame of reference for judging other works of literature. There are degrees of literacy, and each person must make their own decision about how much is best for them.

There are many different types of readers who read for many different reasons. If you are reading purely for entertainment purposes, then you do not need more than an eighth grade reading level, and you should read whatever comes to hand and interests you. If you want to be a professional writer, then you must read the classics or forever be a hack.

Personally, I think that if you haven't read The Divine Comedy and the Complete Plays of Shakespeare you are just wasting your time with lesser works. They can be read entire within a month and until you do, you haven't really read anything. That's like living on the planet Earth and never seeing the sun. I pity people who live their whole lives without ever knowing the full limits of what literature is capable of.

[John Goodman]

I don't think harlequin romance should exist as a genre but there are plenty of women (mostly at least) who are lonely enough to buy countless poorly written and sappy love stories to dwell on without making any effort to do something for themselves.

My father has never read a book that wasn't in the fantasy genre in his life outside of school and he probably won't. His bookshelf is filled with hundreds of generic fantasy books and I would almost feel sorry for him if he didn't enjoy them.


To the point, read what makes you happy, but read from both ends of the literature spectrum. Limiting yourself to the same genre will make you ignorant to the greatest writings ever conceived but reading only classics will make you oblivious to the changes in time and writing styles. Challenge yourself but never to the point that there is no satisfaction or enjoyment in what you're reading.

[Erichtho]

One of the best reasons to read the classics is because they improve your ability to read a text. They challenge your analytical skills and give you a frame of reference for judging other works of literature. There are degrees of literacy, and each person must make their own decision about how much is best for them.

You are promoting the idea of reading for the sake of reading, which I very strongly oppose. I don't read book A in order to be able to analyse book B better and to have the "degree of literacy" needed to read book C. Whenever literature (and everything else) is reduced to a self-reference system it is useless and not worthy of attention. I read because books have to tell me something about my life, about my being as a human, a social person, a product of the time and culture I was born into.


There are many different types of readers who read for many different reasons. If you are reading purely for entertainment purposes, then you do not need more than an eighth grade reading level, and you should read whatever comes to hand and interests you. If you want to be a professional writer, then you must read the classics or forever be a hack.

Before one develops the wish to write one likes already to read, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. If you don't like to read but want to be a writer you don't want to write but you want to have the attention/status supposedly connected with it. Such a person wouldn't come far.

And I don't think a writer needs to read the classics; if someone only reads fantasy novels and starts writing he certainly will start to write fantasy novels, a person who is only interested in prose doesn't have the wish to write a drama etc., thus a person who isn't interested in serious literature has no desire to write it anyway.


Personally, I think that if you haven't read The Divine Comedy and the Complete Plays of Shakespeare you are just wasting your time with lesser works. They can be read entire within a month and until you do, you haven't really read anything. That's like living on the planet Earth and never seeing the sun. I pity people who live their whole lives without ever knowing the full limits of what literature is capable of.

Nonsense, no work is of such importance that it couldn't be replaced by something else.
If you asked me which book one has to have read I'd tell you: you don't need to read anything. You can live a perfectly happy life without literature, there is no book we couldn't do without. You say Dante and Shakespeare are most important, but where do you draw the line? If I haven't read any Dante or Shakespeare, but have read Homer, Ovid, Calderón and Rabelais, I'm "wasting my time with lesser works"?

[aabbcc]

But ought we read certain books simply because society dictates these are the "good" books.
No, perhaps I failed to express myself clearly enough or you misunderstood me: I do not believe that certain books must be read because society deems them "good", but rather because that canon belongs to the set of expected general knowledge. There is no component of an a priori "value" involved - you do not read it because it is "good", you read it because you are expected to be acquainted with it, and regarding the component of "value", it is up to you.

It more or less summed up my professor in first year of high school - you do not read Homer because Homer per se is good and a value that is not to be questioned, because that is the question of "value". You read Homer because Homer is important, regardless of his "value", in cultural sense for your cultural circle, the nature of your education (classical school), the tradition of that education and, finally, your general knowledge; and whether Homer is good or not, that is up to debate, and in that debate you can say whatever you wish as long as you can back it. Which you cannot do prior to reading him.

That is what I had in mind - it is not the question of promoting absolute value of certain set of books, but, rather, their cultural importance - which is why I stressed that the set of books is different for each society, for each society had different set of cultural influences and a 'level' something influenced it. Dostoevsky, despite being "legendary" and one of those you are pretty much everywhere expected to have read, did not have nearly the same influence on the cultures and peoples of England, Serbia and Russia, which will result in significantly lesser expectations of familiarity with his life, themes, works and common places in England than in Serbia than in Russia as a part of general knowledge of an educated individual. If you get what I mean - I hope that I make more sense now. :)


I think what underlies your original post and the question you responded to is ultimately this basic question: Why do we read? What is the purpose of reading fiction? Classical or otherwise? But all of that can really be summed in: Why do we read?
Right.

So first we draw a line between people who do it as amateurs and who do it as professionals - in the case of which by "amateur" I do not mean anything bad, simply a person whose profession or goal in reading is not of a kind that expects certain greater set of more in-depth knowledge on - general and specific - literature. So we leave those aside and look only the "amateur" reader. For the most part, that reader reads for personal joy and is usually not burdened by any must-do canon, except for the already mentioned "expected set" of his cultural circle and society. That is why my answer was that is pretty pointless to bother whether certain book is deemed as "good" or not, since your principal goal of reading is personal joy and getting personal importance out of those works - which is why you and only you can be the judge of a "value" of certain books for you. Of course, experimenting is always encouraged, so that you know what suits you, but essentially, it is of no great significance if you read pop-schund rather than reading big names of classical literature, because your principal goal of reading is not of academic nature, but of personal nature.

Erichtho, who seems to have a talent I sometimes wish I had - saying much in few words :D - put it perfectly: "I read because books have to tell me something about my life, about my being as a human, a social person, a product of the time and culture I was born into."
It includes in itself both aspects of what I was telling: reading as personal activity for personal joy, and reading for general cultural knowledge.

[TheFifthElement]

There must be such a concept in the UK. Do classes just willy nilly select books? Aren't there a set of books in lit undergrad programs that are a core group to be read?

I'm sure the schools have a list of books which are deemed good for study but in terms of the concept, well, where would you start. There's too vast a catalogue of 'classics' to have a set down 'core' of those which must be read.

I'm not so sure about undergraduate programmes. Perhaps in US this is the differentiator, but the UK education system isn't made up the same way. So in UK you finish 'school' at 16, opt for higher education at 'college' from 16-18 and then maybe go to university after that, maybe not. It's not really such a big deal, or maybe I'm just too removed from the process that it doesn't seem so important. But as an employer quite often we see people who are well 'educated' but have no common sense and no ability to translate their education into practical use in the workplace. Which is where my question originated from: what is it that literature teaches us that is necessary for education? So, for example, if you leave university/college, whatever with a Bachelors degree (with honours, of course!) in Literature, what skills does this give you? Does formal study truly satisfy the needs of 'education'? Is this a completely separate subject?

[Jozanny]

So, for example, if you leave university/college, whatever with a Bachelors degree (with honours, of course!) in Literature, what skills does this give you? Does formal study truly satisfy the needs of 'education'? Is this a completely separate subject?

I'd say it gives you the ability to think creatively outside of the box, and offers at least some defense against being sucked in by dogma or dangerous propagada. In the US, law schools like students who have BA's in literature, and I think you are on topic because what makes a good reader is a difficult question. Better yet, why are educated readers of high value, or should they be?

[kelby_lake]

Better yet, why are educated readers of high value, or should they be?

For one thing, they have a better vocabulary and are generally more eloquent.

[Idril]

This is actually something I have a hard time with because I tend to be a bit of a book snob. I do feel quite limited sometimes when I'm shopping for books because there seems to be so much I deem "unworthy" but I do view that as a problem. If it's not Russian, or older or European, my first reaction is to avoid it. I've gotten better about reading more modern books but I still struggle with the anti-American bias I have. :p ;)

[kasie]

I suspect the key to Lioness Heart's original post is the word 'teacher' - it sounds to me as if here was a man frustrated by the amount he felt he had to impart to his students and the short time in which he had to do it! May I make a suggestion? Use this man while you can! He sounds like a man who loves his subject and has a great desire to share that passion with his students. Let him pass on his knowledge to you - you may not agree with him at the moment but you can learn from him and he could well set you up with a frame of reference that will stand you in good stead for the rest of your reading life. Then you can go away and use the critical tools he has given you to measure all those books that are waiting to be read, especially the ones that haven't been written yet and do not have the 'classic' seal of approval on them and about which you have to make up your own mind.

While you are a student you possibly do not have time to read frivolously - not that I am suggesting you should not read for recreation now and again - the time you spend in the company of teachers is short (though it doesn't feel like it at the time!) so make the most of it because afterwards you are out there on your own and it becomes more difficult to discuss books with like-minded fellow-readers - except on Forums, of course. :D But as for time being short - well, it always has been and always will be and how you choose to spend it is entirely up to you. Of course you'll never read everything - the last time it was possible to read everything that had ever been written was some time around the burning of the library of Pergamon, I think - but a book a week is 50+ books a year, two a week is 100+, over a period of forty years that's 2000 - 4000 titles - room for a little frivolity there, I think?

[aabbcc]

But as an employer quite often we see people who are well 'educated' but have no common sense and no ability to translate their education into practical use in the workplace. Which is where my question originated from: what is it that literature teaches us that is necessary for education? So, for example, if you leave university/college, whatever with a Bachelors degree (with honours, of course!) in Literature, what skills does this give you?
Personally, I do not view education from the utilitarian point of view - point of view which believes that school should principally teach skills and things of practical use (the more "immediate" the better). I view school as principally academic institution, rather than a sort of preparatory for workplace and practical life; and some forms of high education also fit into this group - humanities, for example, which are of academic nature rather than practical.

So, no concrete skills perhaps, but tons and tons of theoretical background in literature, comparative studies, which is needed for dealing with literature as a discipline as well as with concrete literary works from a perspective of somebody to whom it is not hobby but profession.

[aabbcc]

[...] but I still struggle with the anti-American bias I have. :p ;)
Me too! :lol: I try not to be biased, but I seem to constantly have to keep reminding myself that not all of American literature is modern schund. I think it's that what way because I haven't still "found myself" in American literature as I have in most national literatures I have delved into. So I guess I'll just have to keep "searching myself" there too. :D

[Pensive]

"Read everything, trash, classics, good and bad, and see how they do it." - William Faulkner

:D

[Sweets America]

But as an employer quite often we see people who are well 'educated' but have no common sense and no ability to translate their education into practical use in the workplace. Which is where my question originated from: what is it that literature teaches us that is necessary for education? So, for example, if you leave university/college, whatever with a Bachelors degree (with honours, of course!) in Literature, what skills does this give you? Does formal study truly satisfy the needs of 'education'? Is this a completely separate subject?

As a student in literature, I have found that my classes of course teach me about theoretical things, as Anastasija says, but also that it taught me to think critically, to take some bases and see what it can tell me, what I personally think, to try to see beyond appearances, and to see how some different things can be paralleled, for instance.
I think this critical thinking can be useful in the workplace and in life in general. I have sensed a big difference between my psychology studies and my literature ones. It was as if in psychology we had to accept theories without questioning them, I really felt that my teachers were reluctant to anyone criticizing the theories, whereas in literature there is more thinking taking place, a lot more involvement from the student. Maybe that's just me and my personal issues, but I feel a lot freeer in my new studies.

But anyway, critical thinking is one answer I could give you here. :)

However, about this: people who are well 'educated' but have no common sense and no ability to translate their education into practical use in the workplace, I see what you mean as I personally sometimes have trouble doing this, that's what I noticed, I work better with abstract things than with concrete ones, and I hope I can improve this point. ;)

[Virgil]

But as an employer quite often we see people who are well 'educated' but have no common sense and no ability to translate their education into practical use in the workplace. Which is where my question originated from: what is it that literature teaches us that is necessary for education? So, for example, if you leave university/college, whatever with a Bachelors degree (with honours, of course!) in Literature, what skills does this give you? Does formal study truly satisfy the needs of 'education'? Is this a completely separate subject?
That is an excellent question to discuss. I do think it's a separate sbject, but what the heck. I'm an engineer, who in college (Uni for the europeans) double majored in mechanical engineering and english lit. I loved english lit, but other than being a teacher or college professor (which would have meant poverty until I worked my way to a PhD) there is no natural job for an english major. I liked engineering, not loved, but it was going to lead to a job. And given that I ultimately graduated with an engineering degree. At my own expense and time I went to graduate school at night for a masters in english lit, only because I love literature. I know I made the right decison. I've been pretty successful as an engineer, even exelled. I have always credited my doing better than most other engineers, who frankly have better math and anylitcal skills than me, is my are my literature skills. I have always felt I do two things better than most engineers, think creatively and have common sense. I certainly feel that the creative part is due to the literature. Not so much literature, but the creative writing part of literature.

On the other hand, of the many engineers I truely respect and admire, none have I know are lit aficiandos. I think it doesn't have to be literature than rounds a person out, but it should be something creative.

Funny I just recalled that about a year ago we had someone come in for an interview who had a similar background, engineering and literature. His engineering grades were pretty poor, but I liked the way he interviewed and showed a willing to work. If it were soley up to me I would have hired him. Unfortunately my boss, who is very anayltic engineering type, and in my opinion doesn't always have common sense, didn't like him and so didn't hire him. It was not his type of engineer. I wonder if he would have hired me. ;)


I'd say it gives you the ability to think creatively outside of the box, and offers at least some defense against being sucked in by dogma or dangerous propagada. In the US, law schools like students who have BA's in literature, and I think you are on topic because what makes a good reader is a difficult question. Better yet, why are educated readers of high value, or should they be?

I do attribute part of my success to my english lit background.

[ex ponto]

Back to the topic.
I don't know if anyone's interested in this, but Thomas Mann said that trivial books, widely considered as interesting and taut, were dull to him.

And I think reading can make you a better person. In my view, that's the most important part.

[Drkshadow03]

Back to the topic.
I don't know if anyone's interested in this, but Thomas Mann said that trivial books, widely considered as interesting and taut, are dull to him.

And I think reading can make you a better person. In my view, that's the most important part.

How can reading make you a better person?

[ocuervo]

:idea: I think that with the time people tends to enjoy other genres, and even we can learn to apreciate the few good things which are in a bad book. In the other side, can happend that became more intolerant with literature and our black list grows bigger than our list of good books.

Also, what a poor life would have someone who eliminate all the non-good books from its readings. :idea:

[ex ponto]

How can reading make you a better person?

I think some author, Dickens maybe, have said that it's his goal to make at least one person become a better one. It's my opinion that certain books can appeal to you, and change you. Even a little bit.

[Jozanny]

Me too! :lol: I try not to be biased, but I seem to constantly have to keep reminding myself that not all of American literature is modern schund. I think it's that what way because I haven't still "found myself" in American literature as I have in most national literatures I have delved into. So I guess I'll just have to keep "searching myself" there too. :D

I am not entirely current on the movement in American literature, but I can say part of the problem is a near total schism between the MFA mill, which churns out students of writing milk fed on minimalism and Harold Bloom as the father of American Deconstruction, which leads to a plethora of graduate students running off and publishing in literary journals which no one reads--and sorry to say I do not either--after 20 years of milk-feeding myself on them I am sick of them--and what is commercially published. A few bridge the gap. Cormac McCarthy is one. I am not sure he's equal to Faulkner but he does code American violence in ways that attract critics. Annie Proulx is another. I am not her biggest fan but again, she is not Danielle Steele and for what is is worth her social commentary harkens back to the nostalgia for American self-reliance. Alice Hoffman is another; her novel Blue Diary uses the standard suspense story to challenge modern notions of entitlement, victimization, and the cracks beneath the surface. But then you have commercial genres, of which Stephen King is a good example, though I think his day has come and gone by now. We no longer have authors like Faulkner who captures the American ethos with a transcendent voice, unless you have to say that King has essentially supplanted that, and if that is the case, then the American vision is now a series of cartoon psychoses.

I forgot Don De Lillo, but understandably, since I only read the opening chapter of Underworld, but he is another exception to the rule. De Lillo has something to say, and he really writes, unlike McCarthy. The opening of Underworld is one of the greatest openings to a novel in modern literature, and has something to offer non-natives about the American scene.

http://perival.com/delillo/ddnovels.html

One last writer I'd say bridges the gap between American pap-formula and closed-circuit academic writing is Patricia Highsmith.

She was a closet lesbian, and a stark bitterness about that seems to have allowed her to push the boundary between suspense for its own sake and suspense with something to offer. Hitchcock made her famous with Strangers on a Train, but her work doesn't just create serial killers for the sake of giving the readers monsters. She is an odd fish, and not easily placed as a genre or literary writer, and I believe she is rising in critical acclaim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Highsmith

I am sure there are others, but this is my rather thin list of American writers who have pushed beyond mere commercialism but aren't gathering dust in ivory towers, and worth exploring.

[Virgil]

Let me throw in my two cents on American Literature.

First of the Modern Library top 100 novels (apparently of the 20th century) I count 41 American novels in there. http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html. That's pretty good if you ask me.

The problem I see is that Europeans don't understand Americans, so how then can they understand American literature. We understand Europeans, since (a) we mostly have our heritage from Europe and (b) we are raised with reading European lit (Shakespeare, Dickens, Cervantes, Wordsworth, etc.), while I think American lit is mostly thrust onto Europeans later in life. Plus I don't think Europeans understand the rudiments of our experience: wild open forests and land, all the nuances and reflections on the nature and pemutations of freedom, the impulse and striving to be self reliant, the conflicts and adjustments of a highly multi ethnic society, our regional distinguishments, the nature of civil disobedience and rebellion, and the striving to understand morality, either from a religious impulse or a secular one. Frankly I don't think Europeans understand Americans.

That said, I tend to disagree withe the Modern Library list. I do not find the American novel to be as complex as the European novel. Nor in general does it reach the same level of greatness. However I do believe that the finest novelist of the 20th century was William Faukner, so that makes up for it. ;)

Also, while I do not think the American novel reaches the same level as the European, I without a single doubt in my mind believe that American poetry of the 20th century far exceeds the poetry of anywhere I have read. Sure there may be a poet or so from some country that rises to a high level, but frankly our second and third tier poets are as good as most European first tier poets. I hope that doesn't offend anyone. Feel free to disagree, but both my assessment of American novelists (lesser) and American poets (outstanding) is my honest opinion.

[Idril]

You make some good points there, Virgil. Of course not understanding American culture is not my problem, being an American myself, I just don't find American history or culture all that interesting. I suppose it's an issue of familiarity breeding contempt...well...not contempt really but extreme disinterest. European literature has such a sense of history that American literature simply can not have, there is a weight and consciousness of the outside world that American lit rarely has. Our literature is so singular, it is concerned mostly with...us and our own experiences with no thought to how that fits in to the general picture. I find European literature much more broad and of course that is going to be the case when you have borders that are constantly changing, thousands of years history compared to our couple hundred but I do find American lit to be more self centered. And I also find that Americans tend to write with more vulgarity, with their language, their scenes of sexuality and violence, Europeans tend to be a little more subtle and then there's just the presence of pop culture that pervades everything in American culture. Of course there are exceptions to all of my points but for me, those are my issues with American literature and why I find it so hard to bring myself to read any of it.

[Virgil]

You make some good points there, Virgil. Of course not understanding American culture is not my problem, being an American myself, I just don't find American history or culture all that interesting.
:lol: You're right. I wasn't thinking of you when I answered.


I suppose it's an issue of familiarity breeding contempt...well...not contempt really but extreme disinterest. European literature has such a sense of history that American literature simply can not have, there is a weight and consciousness of the outside world that American lit rarely has.
That is true, I understand. Actually I have very little interest in modern (the last five hundred years) history. When history is concerned, I'm way more interested in ancient and medival history. There is something about the familiarity of recent history that doesn't inspire me. But then I also know history buffs that gobble modern history.


Our literature is so singular, it is concerned mostly with...us and our own experiences with no thought to how that fits in to the general picture. I find European literature much more broad and of course that is going to be the case when you have borders that are constantly changing, thousands of years history compared to our couple hundred but I do find American lit to be more self centered.
This is true. I had meant to make a similar point and forgot. We are more self absorbed. But because of our multi ethnicities and large variation of regionalities, we are more complex, and that drives us to more self reflection and self creation. We are forever recreating ourselves. I frankly find that fascinating.


And I also find that Americans tend to write with more vulgarity, with their language, their scenes of sexuality and violence, Europeans tend to be a little more subtle and then there's just the presence of pop culture that pervades everything in American culture. Of course there are exceptions to all of my points but for me, those are my issues with American literature and why I find it so hard to bring myself to read any of it.
Hmm, that seems true also, and I'm not sure why. It does seem an outgrowth of middle class values which Americans derive their culture. Remids me of a Walt Whitman quote:

The genius of the United States is not best or most in its executives or legislatures, nor in its ambassadors or authors or colleges, or churches, or parlors, nor even in its newspapers or inventors, but always most in the common people.
-Walt Whitman
The common people ultimately are more vulgar than an elitist ideal.

[Jozanny]

That said, I tend to disagree withe the Modern Library list. I do not find the American novel to be as complex as the European novel. Nor in general does it reach the same level of greatness. However I do believe that the finest novelist of the 20th century was William Faukner, so that makes up for it. ;)

I know you are generalizing Virgil, but when DeLillo is *on* he is just as complex as David Mitchell, the Booker nominee. I had to stop reading Underworld because it was overdue, but I have never read anything like that opening, before or since, and his voice is a distinctly American voice, fin de siecle and beyond--and he ain't McCarthy either, as I posted above; his narrative has a vibrant linguistic energy. I've read enough about him from other reviewers to know that he may loom large on the horizon, at the end of the day, even if his post-9/11 book didn't quite hit the watermark. I am going off-canon, of course.

Also, Ralph Ellison is complex because of the terrain he navigates between being the voice of the Angry Black Man so thoroughly steeped in a Eurocentric education, which also applies to some of Toni Morrison's stronger works (Beloved is not one of them).


Also, while I do not think the American novel reaches the same level as the European, I without a single doubt in my mind believe that American poetry of the 20th century far exceeds the poetry of anywhere I have read. Sure there may be a poet or so from some country that rises to a high level, but frankly our second and third tier poets are as good as most European first tier poets. I hope that doesn't offend anyone. Feel free to disagree, but both my assessment of American novelists (lesser) and American poets (outstanding) is my honest opinion.

Not so much to agree or disagree but to say I believe poetry is a distinct genre here which is read differently than fiction or non-fiction.

[Virgil]

I've never read DeLillo or Pynchon Jozy, so I can't comment. As to Ellison's Invisible Man, that is a novel that must completely baffle Europeans. Without any background in America, I can't imagine a European getting through it. I've always listed that as among the top two or three of American great novels of the 20th century.

[Jozanny]

I've never read DeLillo or Pynchon Jozy, so I can't comment. As to Ellison's Invisible Man, that is a novel that must completely baffle Europeans. Without any background in America, I can't imagine a European getting through it. I've always listed that as among the top two or three of American great novels of the 20th century.

Invisible Man baffles me, let alone Europeans who do not understand our deadly family quarrel, as Richard Rodriguez once innocuously called the American black and white divide. Ellison baffled his own set as well, at least as I understand it from limited biographical detail. In a way his alienation problem reminds me of mine, but I'll save that for another thread.

I will cause a mild uproar, however, in suggesting that mature readers like you and I are the proof in the pudding. We may not make our living as teachers, but I daresay we can keep up and debate those professionals,(although, I indirectly eat the crumbs from that table when I get paid) and parse someone like Faulkner as they can, if we really felt like it.

Does it make us better people? That might be debatable (Hitler, after all, was a failed painter with an enthusiasm for certain aesthetics) but it may make us cultured, and able to ask better questions.

[Sweets America]

I loved english lit, but other than being a teacher or college professor (which would have meant poverty until I worked my way to a PhD) there is no natural job for an english major.

This couldn't be more false. There are lots of jobs for English majors, apart from teaching. You can work in publishing companies as an editor, you can be a writer (yes, that is a job ;) ), you can work in libraries and my teacher told me about one guy who finally ended up working for TV as a journalist. So really, there are opportunities, you just have to have a broader view of things. :)

[TheFifthElement]

As a student in literature, I have found that my classes of course teach me about theoretical things, as Anastasija says, but also that it taught me to think critically, to take some bases and see what it can tell me, what I personally think, to try to see beyond appearances, and to see how some different things can be paralleled, for instance.

Sweets, this is a good point and Jozanny made a similar point too. Anastasija don't get me wrong, I'm getting old, I'm cranky and cynical ;). Still, I feel very much that the point where I started learning was the point when I left formal education, and now I value reading, and formal learning more because it either enriches me, or I can use it. I'm not sure that was necessarily true when I first left college.

Virgil woah! Post 42, what's going on there!!!!! There's a post with a whole plethora of sweeping statements, but I'd like to pick you up on 2 in particular:


The problem I see is that Europeans don't understand Americans, so how then can they understand American literature. We understand Europeans, since (a) we mostly have our heritage from Europe and (b) we are raised with reading European lit (Shakespeare, Dickens, Cervantes, Wordsworth, etc.), while I think American lit is mostly thrust onto Europeans later in life. Plus I don't think Europeans understand the rudiments of our experience: wild open forests and land, all the nuances and reflections on the nature and pemutations of freedom, the impulse and striving to be self reliant, the conflicts and adjustments of a highly multi ethnic society, our regional distinguishments, the nature of civil disobedience and rebellion, and the striving to understand morality, either from a religious impulse or a secular one. Frankly I don't think Europeans understand Americans.

I think, well, my first thought was that this seems a rather arrogant statement, and I'm resisting the urge to raise my eyebrows and declare 'typical American' ;) though I'd temper that with saying I don't think you intended it as such, so I hope you understand, no offence intended. Everything you've said about whether Europeans understand Americans, and about the American experience goes the same in reverse. America may have a European heritage but to imply that gives an implicit understanding of Europe implies that Europe has not changed in the last 200 years, in fact referring to it as 'Europe' is a sign of that lack of understanding. Great Britain doesn't 'understand' France, France doesn't understand Romania, and so on. I don't understand the man that sits next to me on the train. We all have difficulty understanding each other, period. Literature is a tool that helps to bridge that gap. With all literature, British, American, Spanish, Japanese, whatever, you have to approach it with an open mind.


Also, while I do not think the American novel reaches the same level as the European, I without a single doubt in my mind believe that American poetry of the 20th century far exceeds the poetry of anywhere I have read. Sure there may be a poet or so from some country that rises to a high level, but frankly our second and third tier poets are as good as most European first tier poets. I hope that doesn't offend anyone. Feel free to disagree, but both my assessment of American novelists (lesser) and American poets (outstanding) is my honest opinion.

Throw some names into the hat and this could be an interesting topic of discussion. Who do you class as top, second and third tier American, and similar 'European'? What about the Antipodes? And Asia?

Oh, and same question but with the novel too ;)

[waryan]

I think you shouldn't consult teachers after such an incident, or that one anywho in concerns to books, but I'm to going to tell you what to do, when I posted here strictly to say one shouldn't tell you what to read. Read what you want, end of story-- no pun intended ; )

[aabbcc]

The problem I see is that Europeans don't understand Americans, so how then can they understand American literature. We understand Europeans, since (a) we mostly have our heritage from Europe and (b) we are raised with reading European lit (Shakespeare, Dickens, Cervantes, Wordsworth, etc.), while I think American lit is mostly thrust onto Europeans later in life.
I disagree that America as a culture has an automatic understanding of "Europe" and "Europeans" simply because of its roots.
Italy is rooted in classical antiquity, yet ipso facto nobody has understanding of classical antiquity unless they have undergone years and years of classical education. But, even classical education itself would not be enough to understand Italy, because classical antiquity, despite being one of its fundaments, is not the only fundament, and without understanding multiple other things that had shaped Italy - from Christianity to the present day, modern culture and relations with other countries and peoples of EU - one does not have an "understanding" of Italy, period. The same is true for any other European country, and you cannot generalise them to the concept of "Europe" as you can do with "America", because other than the fact that they are on the same continent, Italy and, for example, (European, of course) Russia do not have nearly as much in common culturally as do American states. "Europe" as a concept does not exist in a way "America" as a concept exists. That is thing number one.

Thing number two is that you are simply wrong regarding the presence American literature in our culture. We do not encounter American literature, history or other things related to America later in our life - we go through them as a part of our education, though in significantly lesser amount as opposed to Americans (which is understandable). Likewise, for some reason I did not get an impression, from numerous American friends and our family friends, that America is that much into "Europe" - from what I have heard, your education seems to be even more self-centered than ours.
In elementary school, even though our program was largely centered around national and "European" literature, we have also read Mark Twain (not one, but three works - The Adventures of Tom Sawyer / Huckleberry Finn and The Prince and the Pauper), Ernest Hemingway (The Old Man and the Sea) and Richard Bach (Jonathan Livingston Seagull) as a part of our obligatory readings; not to mention that things such as Jack London's works, or The Wizard of OZ and similar American classics of children literature were read by pretty much any child I knew; so, as you see, from the very beginnings we did have certain exposure to American literature. Not to mention that America was studied in History, Geography and other lessons when possible - it was by no means ignored. And all of that is while we are still on pre-high school level.

In high school, if anything, we had even more exposure to American literature, we studied even more American history, spoke of America quite often in Politics/Economy lessons, not to mention Sociology, when America was, at least in my class, studied pretty extensively. So, as we were growing up, the amount of exposure to typically "American" things was increasing.
In high school we read, as obligatory readings, Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye (out of one and only reason - because it was American classic of teenage literature, and it was totally a "black sheep" in our curriculum that year, yet they thought it was important for us to be acquainted with it), Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls or Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury; and there were also works and authors we went through in excerpts and mentioned often, though were not required to read them in entirety (which many students still did) - Virginia Woolf, the representatives of "beat generation", Saul Bellow, etc.
Also, a lot of out-of-school readings of my friends and me included pieces of American literature - most of teenagers in my high school have read Ray Bradbury, William S. Borroughs, Kurt Vonnegut, Truman Capote, and others.

You must also keep in mind that English was for us foreign language, which meant that we studied it at school, which furthermore meant that we also had some required readings for those classes... So, things such as The Great Gatsby, The Turn of the Screw, E.A.Poe's short stories and poems, The Crucible or similar, even included some modern literature works of our choice, were read in those classes, and the periodization of American literature was done, tests were written from it, just alongside other anglophone literatures (even though we officially studied British English and had the greatest focus on the culture of UK).

So the average high school graduate has had certain exposure to that - not as much as Americans have had, but that is understandable - as well as to the exposure to a lot of, mainly American, pop-culture via movies, books, music. I think you underestimate the presence of American culture in "Europe" - if anything, I would dare to claim it is greater than the presence of modern "European" zeitgeist in America, and I honestly do not really think you have significantly more exposure to things typically "European", in average, than we have here to things typically "American". It is still up to individuals who wish to read more, but on average, we are probably somewhere about the same regarding cultural experience with America/Europe.

That is why, profoundly, we cannot understand each other without having lived in the opposite culture, but can have pretty much good grasp of each other - on both sides. Unlike, for example, Asian civilisations - they are complete strangers to us, practically ignored in school system, only roughly mentioned somewhere, little or no exposure to their literatures and pop-culture... But America, no, in no way it is a totally strange culture for us which we first encounter as adults and cannot grasp. You are so wrong if you view it that way. ;)

@Jozanny: Thank you for the suggestions, I will certainly look them up when - if :D - I come back from vacation I am off to in a couple of days. :)

[Erichtho]

Let me throw in my two cents on American Literature.

First of the Modern Library top 100 novels (apparently of the 20th century) I count 41 American novels in there. http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html. That's pretty good if you ask me.

The Modern Library consists only of anglophone literature. Wikipedia says there are around 309-400 million English native speakers, and around 215 million of them are living in the USA, more than 50%, plus more than 17 million in Canada. If all of that is true American literature is actually underrepresented in the Modern Library.



The problem I see is that Europeans don't understand Americans, so how then can they understand American literature. We understand Europeans, since (a) we mostly have our heritage from Europe and (b) we are raised with reading European lit (Shakespeare, Dickens, Cervantes, Wordsworth, etc.), while I think American lit is mostly thrust onto Europeans later in life.

Firstly, as other responders have mentioned before, one cannot talk of Europe in the same way as one can talk of America. The cultural differences within Europe are much greater than those within the US and Canada (except for the Quebecois).
Secondly, I think you are right in saying that "Europeans" do not understand America, but Americans also don't understand European cultures. As I see it, this is the main cause for misunderstandings and frustration in trans-atlantic dialogue - we think we are much closer culturally than we really are, and both sides are so arrogant to assume that they understand the other side when they actually don't.
Thirdly, I think the only literature besides their own Americans are more or less acquainted with is English literature, which is only natural since English is the language American literature is written in and from which it is influenced the most.

Oh, and concerning poetry I would like to see some names as well. About which poets are you talking?

[Idril]

America may have a European heritage but to imply that gives an implicit understanding of Europe implies that Europe has not changed in the last 200 years

That is a really good point and to illustrate this point I will tell a story that has absolutely nothing to do with literature but is relevant on a different level...I'm a "Scandinavian American" and a huge part of that culture is tied up in lutefisk which is a disgusting dish that I'm convinced no one can actually like but looms very large in Norwegian American communities. Imagine my surprise when I went to college and met "real" Norwegians and they informed me that no one there eats that stuff and hasn't since refrigeration was invented. :p That's when I realized that I can in no way claim brotherhood with "real" Norwegians simply because I grew up on lefse, sandbakles, krumkake, lutefisk and coffee. The customs and identities we Americans hold on to are, as you say, 200 years old, they are no longer relevant. When I read Scandinavian literature from early 19th century, I do feel a certain kinship, there are words and habits and personality traits that I recognize and are very familiar with but when I read contemporary Scandinavian lit, it's as foreign to me as my beloved Russian lit.

And that brings up another interesting point. Nothing could have been more foreign to me than Russian culture when I first started reading Russian lit but I found it utterly fascinating and had an almost overwhelming desire to dig deeper and to capture an understanding and that drive is still there, several years later. I don't think it's that Europeans can't understand American culture, I think for a lot of them, they just have no interest in doing so. And American culture just isn't that deep that it can sustain an interest over years and years. Of course not every American is the same, not every American author is the same, there are levels to American culture, certainly but what is reflected in our literature, especially contemporary lit, isn't that compelling.

[Jozanny]

And that brings up another interesting point. Nothing could have been more foreign to me than Russian culture when I first started reading Russian lit but I found it utterly fascinating and had an almost overwhelming desire to dig deeper and to capture an understanding and that drive is still there, several years later. I don't think it's that Europeans can't understand American culture, I think for a lot of them, they just have no interest in doing so. And American culture just isn't that deep that it can sustain an interest over years and years. Of course not every American is the same, not every American author is the same, there are levels to American culture, certainly but what is reflected in our literature, especially contemporary lit, isn't that compelling.

This is an interesting and quiet condemnation, but I have to disagree Idril; we are nearly on opposite poles here.

Broadly, in my personal opinion, Russian literature, as a cultural entity, is somewhat stagnant to me. My problem with Tolstoy is he sits perched between Romanticism and Realism and never the twain shall meet. Now, as you say about American Literature, there are exceptions. I do enjoy Tolstoy's living relative, Tatyana Tolstaya, or maybe she is better translated.

However, I do not consider my personal sentiments enough to say Russian literature isn't compelling. No offense. You have to take into account some history, whether America's or Russia's, and weigh these things in the balance.

The state of contemporary American Letters, or even the American Academy as a whole, this may be worrisome, no argument from me there, but this country's contribution to the canon has been nearly as rich and varied as Russia's, though maybe not quite as much as England's and France. Maybe Italy as well, but Itay as the Roman Empire is a different thing from the Italy of Dante.

[Virgil]

Now didn't I take a relatively quiet and mundane thread and transform it into something. :p :D Oh how controversial I can be. ;) Well, I don't have the time right now to get detailed but I will return this evening probably and reply to all. You all make good points.

[aabbcc]

[...] but this country's contribution to the canon has been nearly as rich and varied as Russia's, though maybe not quite as much as England's and France. Maybe Italy as well, but Itay as the Roman Empire is a different thing from the Italy of Dante.
Let me add one more thing to that which you said.

It is very common to speak of some national literature as of "big literature" in sense that it had significantly contributed to the canon; or, in the other hand, to neglect certain other national literature based on the lack of its general presence in the "mutual canon", to say so.
One must, however, take into consideration two big factors - political and economical power of the country and, deriving directly from that, the importance of its language abroad. For, not everything is translated, from some 'small' national literatures perhaps there are translations of only some and only modern literature, but all of that does not mean that that particular national literature does not have other things to offer.

Without diminishing the importance and cultural value of national literatures of France, England, Russia or Italy, I would like to point that their quality is only one of the reasons why they have more 'representatives' in the "mutual canon" than do some other nations. If you take a look at these concrete examples, is it really that surprising that one France or one England, with their colonial expansion in history, expansion of their respective languages and thus cultures, are more represented than some other country, who did not go through historical circumstances under which it could have spread its language and culture? The case for Italy is, for the most part, the heritage of the Renaissance and considering its literary culture almost 'by the way' as the main focus when studying Italy is usually on visual art or music.

But, that does not mean that their national literatures are a priori richer than national literatures of other nations - just because more of them is available in other countries, translated into other languages, and thus available, to say so, on a global market.

There is an example I always bring up when speaking of that - Croatia (and other countries of former Yugoslavia, but let us take Croatia in particular). Its national literature is, in a word, fascinating. And obscure. Hardly anything is translated into English, and most of what is translated are some XX century works. However, Croatian literature does not begin with Krleža or Andrić (though it is debatable to which of the ex-Yu national literatures he belongs, but for the purpose of this thread let us put him here). There are innumerable literary treasures before it, especially in the realm of poetry, a lot of which could 'compete' their contemporaries in other national literatures which are far better represented in the "canon". As somebody who speaks the language, I have an access to it, but very few speak it and thus the circle of people who consume that literature is quite limited - but it does not mean that Croatian contributes to the common cultural heritage are any lesser than any of the "big literary nations" you mentioned.

So I personally know for that example, but there are bound to be others, in the same situation. What have you ever read in Czech literature? If you can think of five works, you have actually read a lot, compared to most other people; yet they tell me things such as that Czech romanticism in poetry can go right together with French, Russian or English romanticism. It is unknown, but supposedly of great quality. And the same goes for a plethora of other "small nations", whose contributions to the world literature tend to be neglected because of the lack of translations available, money and will for such translations, people who speak the language, etc.
Also, the "book market" is centered, today, mostly around money, not actual literary value (which brings us back to the original question). It is more profitable to edit a new book by Stephanie Meyer than to translate into English something other than Death and the Dervish by Meša Selimović (fine, I think Fortress is translated as well, but you get my point). Far more profitable in fact. But that does not mean that there is not a huge field of obscure literature of incredible value which has simply not been translated into "big languages".

So, to return to your point - I agree with you regarding American contributions to the "canon", following my logic above; but following that same logic above, I do not think that you can really objectively "quantify" how much somebody had contributed, because you only have access to a small part of all that.
All of us on this forum speak English - some natively, some better than the others who are not natives, but technically we all speak it, otherwise it would be impossible to communicate. Most of us, I assume, can speak second language and read in it. But how many of us can read in third? Fourth? Fifth, and so on?

We all, inevitably - even the polyglots among us - have only access to a limited body of literature. That is why I believe that it is simply unjust - and here I speak mostly of somebody's assumptions on, for example, absolute supremacy of American XX century poetry - to speak in absolute terms on totality of world's literature, or trying to 'measure' some of it, for we have very, very little experience with it actually.

(I know you all love me for going off-topic so often. :crash: :D Sorry.)

[kelby_lake]

Better yet, why are educated readers of high value, or should they be?

Read or watch Educating Rita. It's about a woman going to an Open University course in Literature. Her teacher goes on about the importance of classics whilst descending into alcoholism and hiding from the world. basically it's about the things discussed here: how important is literature to life?

[jgweed]

Most of us here are "serious" readers, by which I mean perhaps only that we engage ourselves when we read and attempt to understand what is written.
We do not hesitate to pick up a book written by an author from another place, using another language, or from one who has lived and written in an earlier time.
We read with some care, and discover both that there is sameness and difference. A character in a novel, for example, may both show us the difference in national perspective as well as the enduring sameness that is the human condition. As we read additional books from that time or place, we begin to increase our understanding of the milieu from which they came.

[Nossa]

I read everything. I enjoy reading serious and complex books, but at the same time I love some chick lit writers, thrillers, and even comic books and children books. I'm not sure why your teacher thinks that we should be picky about books, but what I know is that whatever makes you feel good and makes you enjoy your time, then just read it. It doesn't have to be Shakspeare or Faulkner, it just has to be something you like.

[Drkshadow03]

This couldn't be more false. There are lots of jobs for English majors, apart from teaching. You can work in publishing companies as an editor, you can be a writer (yes, that is a job ;) ), you can work in libraries and my teacher told me about one guy who finally ended up working for TV as a journalist. So really, there are opportunities, you just have to have a broader view of things. :)

This isn't entirely true. Yes, publishing industries love people with English backgrounds, but you could still probably get the job without an English background. Not to mention publishing jobs, especially if you're a lowly editor do not make a ton of money.

You can be a writer without a degree in English. This is the kind of fallacy that make many people with a Ph. D. disbelieve someone like William Shakespeare couldn't have written his plays on the grounds that he didn't have enough education.

As far as a library, traditionally you have to get a Masters of Information and Library Science (an entirely different degree in an entirely different field). You only need an additional degee in English, say a masters, if you want to work in academic libraries. And then, by the way, I would recommend getting something a bit more specialized like a degree in nursing or business or Middle Eastern studies rather than a dime-a-dozen degree like English. There are exceptions here. Many libraries will hire paraprofessionals without a M.L.I.S. to save money; however, then you can pretty much have a bachelors in just about anything, it doesn't matter whether you specifically have an English degree or not.

So, yes, there are opportunities, but few them require you to actually have an English degree.

[Dori]

I believe that one can derive pleasure from reading books that they wouldn't normally read. Like Lin Yutang once wrote, "there is a greater pleasure in picking up a small pearl in an ash-can than in looking at a large one in a jeweler's window." We shouldn't let any professor of literature dictate what we read.

Heck, while you're pondering all of this (the shortness of life and such), I recommend reading Lin Yutang's The Importance of Life (from which the above quotation was quoted). It is very enlightening. This is my first venture into the realm of the East (exception: Sun Tzu), and how foolish I've been to limit myself to the thoughts of the West!

[Sweets America]

This isn't entirely true. Yes, publishing industries love people with English backgrounds, but you could still probably get the job without an English background. Not to mention publishing jobs, especially if you're a lowly editor do not make a ton of money.

But, you took the question in reverse. I was not talking about what kind of jobs required an English degree, I was talking about what kind of jobs you could do with an English degree. That is not the same thing.

And, who on earth said I wanted to have tons on money?! That is not what would make me decide what kind of job I want to do, personally. Being enclosed in a consumption society is not my goal, but that's another debate.



You can be a writer without a degree in English. This is the kind of fallacy that make many people with a Ph. D. disbelieve someone like William Shakespeare couldn't have written his plays on the grounds that he didn't have enough education.

Now that's very true, that one can be a writer without a degree in English, I totally agree with you and I realize how you could interpret what I said this way. I was just thinking of all that one can learn through studying literature or creative writing, but now I still agree that one can learn as much and even more without getting any degree. ;) I was just starting from the basis of someone having such a degree, and how they could use it.


As far as a library, traditionally you have to get a Masters of Information and Library Science (an entirely different degree in an entirely different field). You only need an additional degee in English, say a masters, if you want to work in academic libraries. And then, by the way, I would recommend getting something a bit more specialized like a degree in nursing or business or Middle Eastern studies rather than a dime-a-dozen degree like English. There are exceptions here. Many libraries will hire paraprofessionals without a M.L.I.S. to save money; however, then you can pretty much have a bachelors in just about anything, it doesn't matter whether you specifically have an English degree or not.

I see, but I've noticed that in booklets, they always say that to do this or that job, you need this or that degree, but that in real life it doesn't necessarily work that way. That's often a question of opportunities, and being at the right time in the right place.

It's just that frankly, I am not interested in having any of the other degrees, studying American literature was a dream that I took a long time to fulfill, so I was talking from my own point of view, I guess. I don't want to study something just because it will give me more chances to have a job. I only care about the present moment and I do what makes me happy, I will not smother myself anymore, I did it enough in the past. If in the future I do not get any job and end up as a bum (which might not be bad, according to my own way of seeing things), I'll still be happy to have fulfilled this dream of mine.

[raider60]

To me it's pretty simple--read what fulfils you. In some corners, I might be considered a book snob--my girlfriend accuses me of only reading American dead white guys, and she may be right, but in the end, to me, people should read what fufils them, no matter what it is--

[Equality72521]

I think you should read whatever floats your little boat. Classics are good, and so are more modern novels, but you need a balance of heavy and light reading. So I just think that you should read what ever makes you happy.

[Leabhar]

Long rant

We also were taught about Europe in school. There is no difference in understanding. Europeans are cocky and think no one can understand them without being European and this just isn't the case, especially since a majority of Europeans, like Americans, are barely knowledgeable in literature and culture at all.

[Virgil]

I think, well, my first thought was that this seems a rather arrogant statement, and I'm resisting the urge to raise my eyebrows and declare 'typical American' ;)
Well, you did it while saying you wouldn't. :lol: I am arrogant, but I don't think I'm representative of Americans that way. ;)


though I'd temper that with saying I don't think you intended it as such, so I hope you understand, no offence intended.
No, of course not, none taken. :)


Everything you've said about whether Europeans understand Americans, and about the American experience goes the same in reverse.
That may be true. I certainly admit I can be corrected in my understanding of Europeans, but I know that Europeans don't understand Americans. That is quite clear in my interactions on various forums. Eruopeans just don't get many of our defining values, such as the right to own a gun, the fact that the majority of Europeans are atheists while over 90% of Amricans are not, and I can go on with many things, the death penalty for instance, the notion that we are not anti business or feel that everything should government managed. I can go on, but I find Europeans completely stumped.


America may have a European heritage but to imply that gives an implicit understanding of Europe implies that Europe has not changed in the last 200 years,
Who's talking about a two hundred years ago? Most Americans are immigrants of at most a couple of generations. I was actually born in Italy and my parents immigrated to the US when I was three. I've been to relatives in Italy many times and they've come here and we've exchanged views. That's not unusual.


in fact referring to it as 'Europe' is a sign of that lack of understanding. Great Britain doesn't 'understand' France, France doesn't understand Romania, and so on.
No I understand that. We are discussing at some level of generality. But I do believe there is what might be seen as a western european experience. Certainly eastern europe has a different experience.


I don't understand the man that sits next to me on the train. We all have difficulty understanding each other, period. Literature is a tool that helps to bridge that gap. With all literature, British, American, Spanish, Japanese, whatever, you have to approach it with an open mind.
Sure. I don't disagree with that.


Throw some names into the hat and this could be an interesting topic of discussion. Who do you class as top, second and third tier American, and similar 'European'? What about the Antipodes? And Asia?
Here is a listing of American poets. Look at the poets from "Modernism and After." The list is absolutely endless, and the quality is excellent and frankly they shaped modern poetry. The top tier I would include: Ezra Pound, TS Eliot, Wallace Stevens, William Carlos Williams, Sylvia Plath, Robert Lowell, John Ashberry, Robert Bly. Second tier: Hart Crane, Marianne Moore, EE Cummings, Elizabeth Bishop, Thoedore Roethke, John Berryman, Allan Ginsburg, Robert Creely. And that's just the ones I'm familiar with. I'm sure I could be surprised by a few names in there. And I maintain that the second tier is as good as any front tier from elsewhere. I've seen a few European poets who have won the Nobel prize and I just shake my head.


Oh, and same question but with the novel too ;)
I'm generally disappointed with American novelists, especially post WWII. There are some really good novels, but few. Both Saul Bellow and Tony Morrison have won the nobel prize and I do like them, but are they great? I'm not so sure. I've never read Pynchon and DeLillo so I can't speak about them. I've glanced at them and they seem boring. I do like Cormac McCarthy a lot. I think he deserves to win it.


I disagree that America as a culture has an automatic understanding of "Europe" and "Europeans" simply because of its roots.

I didn't quite say an automatic understanding of European culture. But I do think we have more of an insight into your culture than you into ours. Americans all go to Europe and many of us have roots there. Not that many European actually visit us. Certainly not as many as us going there. I'm not saying it's zero coming here, but it's lopsided. It seems that if Europeans can't take a train, they don't go. ;)


Italy is rooted in classical antiquity, yet ipso facto nobody has understanding of classical antiquity unless they have undergone years and years of classical education. But, even classical education itself would not be enough to understand Italy, because classical antiquity, despite being one of its fundaments, is not the only fundament, and without understanding multiple other things that had shaped Italy - from Christianity to the present day, modern culture and relations with other countries and peoples of EU - one does not have an "understanding" of Italy, period. The same is true for any other European country, and you cannot generalise them to the concept of "Europe" as you can do with "America", because other than the fact that they are on the same continent, Italy and, for example, (European, of course) Russia do not have nearly as much in common culturally as do American states. "Europe" as a concept does not exist in a way "America" as a concept exists. That is thing number one.
I'm not disputing anything in there. I wasn't talking about classical antiquity or even perhaps Renaissance.


Thing number two is that you are simply wrong regarding the presence American literature in our culture. We do not encounter American literature, history or other things related to America later in our life - we go through them as a part of our education, though in significantly lesser amount as opposed to Americans (which is understandable). Likewise, for some reason I did not get an impression, from numerous American friends and our family friends, that America is that much into "Europe" - from what I have heard, your education seems to be even more self-centered than ours.
In elementary school, even though our program was largely centered around national and "European" literature, we have also read Mark Twain (not one, but three works - The Adventures of Tom Sawyer / Huckleberry Finn and The Prince and the Pauper), Ernest Hemingway (The Old Man and the Sea) and Richard Bach (Jonathan Livingston Seagull) as a part of our obligatory readings; not to mention that things such as Jack London's works, or The Wizard of OZ and similar American classics of children literature were read by pretty much any child I knew; so, as you see, from the very beginnings we did have certain exposure to American literature. Not to mention that America was studied in History, Geography and other lessons when possible - it was by no means ignored. And all of that is while we are still on pre-high school level.
If that is true then I stand corrected. I don't believe the average European has read those works.


In high school, if anything, we had even more exposure to American literature, we studied even more American history, spoke of America quite often in Politics/Economy lessons, not to mention Sociology, when America was, at least in my class, studied pretty extensively. So, as we were growing up, the amount of exposure to typically "American" things was increasing.

In high school we read, as obligatory readings, Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye (out of one and only reason - because it was American classic of teenage literature, and it was totally a "black sheep" in our curriculum that year, yet they thought it was important for us to be acquainted with it), Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls or Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury; and there were also works and authors we went through in excerpts and mentioned often, though were not required to read them in entirety (which many students still did) - Virginia Woolf, the representatives of "beat generation", Saul Bellow, etc.
Also, a lot of out-of-school readings of my friends and me included pieces of American literature - most of teenagers in my high school have read Ray Bradbury, William S. Borroughs, Kurt Vonnegut, Truman Capote, and others.
Ana, you are way above the average reader. Most Americans have not read those until college. :lol: If European students are that well read in American lit than I will withdraw my claim. But I don't think that is the case.


You must also keep in mind that English was for us foreign language, which meant that we studied it at school, which furthermore meant that we also had some required readings for those classes... So, things such as The Great Gatsby, The Turn of the Screw, E.A.Poe's short stories and poems, The Crucible or similar, even included some modern literature works of our choice, were read in those classes, and the periodization of American literature was done, tests were written from it, just alongside other anglophone literatures (even though we officially studied British English and had the greatest focus on the culture of UK).
I can tell you my Italian cousins have not read any of that. Maybe they read Poe.


So the average high school graduate has had certain exposure to that - not as much as Americans have had, but that is understandable - as well as to the exposure to a lot of, mainly American, pop-culture via movies, books, music.
Well, maybe that's part of the problem. I've said that Europeans have a distorted view of America from what comes out of our pop culture. It's like basing your culture on your sit coms.


I think you underestimate the presence of American culture in "Europe" - if anything, I would dare to claim it is greater than the presence of modern "European" zeitgeist in America, and I honestly do not really think you have significantly more exposure to things typically "European", in average, than we have here to things typically "American". It is still up to individuals who wish to read more, but on average, we are probably somewhere about the same regarding cultural experience with America/Europe.
Well, do you understand our reigious heterogeneity and how the different religious groups interact? Or the concept of the right to bear arms? Or our racila issues, and I don't mean the simplified view that racism keeps some down? There's a two way street there. Or the notion of individualism?


That is why, profoundly, we cannot understand each other without having lived in the opposite culture, but can have pretty much good grasp of each other - on both sides. Unlike, for example, Asian civilisations - they are complete strangers to us, practically ignored in school system, only roughly mentioned somewhere, little or no exposure to their literatures and pop-culture... But America, no, in no way it is a totally strange culture for us which we first encounter as adults and cannot grasp. You are so wrong if you view it that way. ;)
I agree we have more in common than with others, but frankly I've been surprised at how in some respects (and I emphasize some, not most) Americans have more in common with the Israeli and Muslim peoples than with Europeans. Like I've said above in the other post, you people in Europe are almost all atheists.

[stlukesguild]

"The only advice, indeed, that one person can give another about reading is to take no advice, to follow your own instincts, to use your own reason, to come to your own conclusions. If this is agreed between us, then I feel at liberty to put forward a few ideas and suggestions because you will not allow them to fetter that independence which is the most important quality that a reader can possess. After all, what laws can be laid down about books? The battle of Waterloo was certainly fought on a certain day; but is Hamlet a better play than Lear? Nobody can say. Each must decide that question for himself. To admit authorities, however heavily furred and gowned, into our libraries and let them tell us how to read, what to read, what value to place upon what we read, is to destroy the spirit of freedom which is the breath of those sanctuaries. Everywhere else we may be bound by laws and conventions—there we have none.

But to enjoy freedom, if the platitude is pardonable, we have of course to control ourselves. We must not squander our powers, helplessly and ignorantly, squirting half the house in order to water a single rose-bush; we must train them, exactly and powerfully, here on the very spot. This, it may be, is one of the first difficulties that faces us in a library."

Virginia Woolf- How Should One Read a Book?

[TheFifthElement]

Well, you did it while saying you wouldn't. :lol: I am arrogant, but I don't think I'm representative of Americans that way. ;)

I know, I guess I couldn’t help myself!


That may be true. I certainly admit I can be corrected in my understanding of Europeans, but I know that Europeans don't understand Americans. That is quite clear in my interactions on various forums. Eruopeans just don't get many of our defining values, such as the right to own a gun, the fact that the majority of Europeans are atheists while over 90% of Amricans are not, and I can go on with many things, the death penalty for instance, the notion that we are not anti business or feel that everything should government managed. I can go on, but I find Europeans completely stumped.

but then is this also evidence of your failure to understand ‘Europeans’? It seems you are stumped as to why Europe doesn’t share American values. And I say share deliberately, I think there is more understanding there than you think, but disagreement certainly.

So, like I said, everything you’ve said is equally true in reverse.

Are the majority of ‘Europeans’ athiest? That’s certainly not my experience.


Here is a listing of American poets. Look at the poets from "Modernism and After." The list is absolutely endless, and the quality is excellent and frankly they shaped modern poetry. The top tier I would include: Ezra Pound, TS Eliot, Wallace Stevens, William Carlos Williams, Sylvia Plath, Robert Lowell, John Ashberry, Robert Bly. Second tier: Hart Crane, Marianne Moore, EE Cummings, Elizabeth Bishop, Thoedore Roethke, John Berryman, Allan Ginsburg, Robert Creely. And that's just the ones I'm familiar with. I'm sure I could be surprised by a few names in there. And I maintain that the second tier is as good as any front tier from elsewhere. I've seen a few European poets who have won the Nobel prize and I just shake my head.

Ah, you see I thought when you mentioned ‘modern’ it would be a discussion about poets who were still alive. Perhaps we define modern in a different way ;)

And you only answered ½ of the question! Who are your equivalent ‘European’ poets?

But, it raises an interesting point, you see, you refer to the above poets as ‘shaping modern poetry’ and yet perhaps this defines the difference between the American and the European experience. USA is still a relatively young country, still establishing its sense of self and culture. What you refer to as ‘shaping modern poetry’ I see more as ‘reinventing the wheel’ a repetition of a cycle which has been ongoing as long as there has been poetry. Take the imagist movement, as you’ve mentioned above, they did nothing that hadn’t been done before but it was new to America, therefore Americans see it as new.

Perhaps this is the root of the lack of understanding of which you speak. Everywhere America is, Europe has been already. We are, in a sense, like a parent and a teenage son, each with their faults, each with their merits, neither one really trying too hard to understand each other but both desperate to be understood.

And just in case, I didn’t mean that as an offensive statement against the US. Apologies if anyone takes it that way.


I'm generally disappointed with American novelists, especially post WWII. There are some really good novels, but few. Both Saul Bellow and Tony Morrison have won the nobel prize and I do like them, but are they great? I'm not so sure. I've never read Pynchon and DeLillo so I can't speak about them. I've glanced at them and they seem boring. I do like Cormac McCarthy a lot. I think he deserves to win it.

Again, ½ an answer. Who are your equivalent ‘European’ writers?

[Jozanny]

I'm generally disappointed with American novelists, especially post WWII. There are some really good novels, but few. Both Saul Bellow and Tony Morrison have won the nobel prize and I do like them, but are they great? I'm not so sure. I've never read Pynchon and DeLillo so I can't speak about them. I've glanced at them and they seem boring. I do like Cormac McCarthy a lot. I think he deserves to win it.

I have to piggy-back onto Fifth Element's rebuttal with one of my own: I am not as conservative as Virgil (or luke for that matter), when it comes to exploring contemporary authors, American, English, or otherwise.

I am not a successful writer, though I rip my fingernails out admitting it, but I am an extensively published one, and I have to keep up with some kind of trends in the publishing world, and/or am more aware of literary trends because of it.

Being a mature reader has its benefits, but turning into Casaubon isn't one of them.

I think David Mitchell is absolutely extraordinary, but one also has to be very grounded in the classics, and other influences, to understand him.

I never thought I'd live long enough to discover such a modern virtuoso, but one can forgive the British Empire everything, since it produced such an extraordinary literary genius as he.

[manolia]

Are the majority of ‘Europeans’ athiest? That’s certainly not my experience.


Not mine either. Perhaps Virgil has that impression due to this forum..not sure.

I always feel uncomfortable when people start "comparing" national (or continental in this case) literature and poetry..i don't see the point :)

I agree with most Anastasija said in this thread. My country's educational system is self-centered , but one can easily have access to American lit (unfortunately i can't remember what we did in school and what i actually read on my own :lol: ). American lit is available everywhere and very popular among readers.

[Jozanny]

I always feel uncomfortable when people start "comparing" national (or continental in this case) literature and poetry..i don't see the point :) .

Valid objection manolia, as there are universalist concerns on any canon. I do not agree with Virgil on most anything he stipulated in this thread, even though I hope he realizes I am a fond new aquaintance:p , but my point to Idril, perhaps poorly made, was that one should be cautious of allowing personal opinion to say "this means X about a national cultural heritage".

To channel Christopher Hitchens, as a writer, I can separate myself from my own personal narrative with Tolstoy and classical Russian literature, even if I can offer proofs to support what I feel.

But there are valid comparisons to be had. Homer, Dante, Virgil, Milton, are great epic poets, but they aren't the same. Ethnocentricism permeates their work.

[Guinivere]

My country's educational system is self-centered , but one can easily have access to American lit (unfortunately i can't remember what we did in school and what i actually read on my own :lol: ). American lit is available everywhere and very popular among readers.

Same for me. We only did German classics, Goether, Schiller, Kafka (only because he was from a then widely German speaking part of Prague...thank God, or I might have missed him), and the like. A few Shakespearean stuff in English, but that was it. Very self-centred, not only when it comes to literature but history as well. But that is another matter.
Anyway I hardly know anyone who missed out on contemporary American literature. Very popular in Germany (Stephen King especially). But as for the classics, if I hadn't started reading them for myself I would have missed out completely. Anyway most of my lit teachers were of the opinion that American Literature started and ended with Stephen King. Very unfortuate for them. :)

[TheFifthElement]

I always feel uncomfortable when people start "comparing" national (or continental in this case) literature and poetry..i don't see the point :)


Oh Manolia, I agree. I think it's difficult to make value comparisons between individual writers, let alone the product of whole countries.

That being said, I'm still curious how Virgil has reached his conclusion.

[Virgil]

I don't have time now to fully respond to everything. I'm at work and work comes first of course. ;)

But quickly on the issue of the demographics of atheism, check here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism. On the question of whether one believes there is a God, other than Portugal and Greece, who are above 50%, Italy and Ireland who are about 50%, all the western European countries are below 50%, and in some cases down to 30%. Perhaps you guys should learn more about your culture. :p :D This is not believe in a formal religion, this is in a general sense of whether God exists. Scroll down the page to North America and you will see that all the North American countries are around 90% on the question, even Canada which might just be under 90%. I beleive that the question of whether a God exists is such a fundemental cultural distinction that such a separation between America and Europe indicates quite a cultural divide.

I'll get to the other specifics of your replies tonight.

[TheFifthElement]

But quickly on the issue of the demographics of atheism, check here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism. On the question of whether one believes there is a God, other than Portugal and Greece, who are above 50%, Italy and Ireland who are about 50%, all the western European countries are below 50%, and in some cases down to 30%. Perhaps you guys should learn more about your culture. :p :D This is not believe in a formal religion, this is in a general sense of whether God exists. Scroll down the page to North America and you will see that all the North American countries are around 90% on the question, even Canada which might just be under 90%. I beleive that the question of whether a God exists is such a fundemental cultural distinction that such a separation between America and Europe indicates quite a cultural divide.

Well, wikipedia is flawed! Taking UK as an example according to the 2001 census only 15.1% of the population claimed to have no religion. The predominant religion was Christianity at 71.8%. Doesn't really match your wiki stats.

[Guinivere]

Well, wikipedia is flawed! Taking UK as an example according to the 2001 census only 15.1% of the population claimed to have no religion. The predominant religion was Christianity at 71.8%. Doesn't really match your wiki stats.

I totally agree. Everytime I research something I try to avoid Wikipedia, there are just too many faults on that site. Who believes in internet statistics anyway. The chance that one of them might actually be right is rare.

Winston Churchill famously said, "I only believe in statistics that I have doctored myself."

And he didn't have to mess around with the internet for giving him false data.

[manolia]

Just as i thought Virgil. More than 80 % of the people in my country believe there is a God ;) Ok some of them believe that there are gods, but i guess that counts too :p

[Drkshadow03]

Well, wikipedia is flawed! Taking UK as an example according to the 2001 census only 15.1% of the population claimed to have no religion. The predominant religion was Christianity at 71.8%. Doesn't really match your wiki stats.

I would agree with you, except almost all of the numbers and studies in the wikipedia entry where Virgil got his statistics are footnoted to actual legit studies on this topic. Everyone seems to be ignoring THAT part.

It seems the real issue here isn't whether he used wikipedia or not, but rather the original sources. Apparently studies on this topic have gotten very different results from each other.

--------------------------------------------------

Ironically enough much of American Literature is obsessed with the differences of culture between America and Europe and their general differences in attitudes towards life. Two writers that come to mind that have dealt with this issue explicitly are Edith Wharton and especially Henry James (that's one of his major themes). Particular stories of interest include: "Madame de Treymes" (http://www.online-literature.com/wharton/2926/)by Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence (http://www.online-literature.com/wharton/innocence/)by Edith Wharton, The Portrait of a Lady (http://www.online-literature.com/henry_james/portrait_lady/) by Henry James, and "Daisy Miller" (http://www.online-literature.com/henry_james/1100/) by Henry James.

[Erichtho]

I don't have time now to fully respond to everything. I'm at work and work comes first of course. ;)

But quickly on the issue of the demographics of atheism, check here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism. On the question of whether one believes there is a God,

Being religious and believing in a God is not the same.


other than Portugal and Greece, who are above 50%, Italy and Ireland who are about 50%, all the western European countries are below 50%, and in some cases down to 30%. Perhaps you guys should learn more about your culture. :p :D

First you were talking of Europe, now you are talking of western European countries, including Greece and Italy...I'm confused.


This is not believe in a formal religion, this is in a general sense of whether God exists. Scroll down the page to North America and you will see that all the North American countries are around 90% on the question, even Canada which might just be under 90%. I beleive that the question of whether a God exists is such a fundemental cultural distinction that such a separation between America and Europe indicates quite a cultural divide.

I'll get to the other specifics of your replies tonight.

Actually this proves one of our former points - while North America is more or less homogenous, the map of Europe is very heterogenous - and there aren't even data for one of the most religious regions, the Balkans (which certainly shouldn't be excluded in your "all western European countries"- list, since Greece also has such a nice place there :D ).

To be honest, I cannot see where this discussion is leading and what all of this has still to do with literature. Yes, there are many cultural differences, we all have agreed on that. Ok, most Americans, that is those who have the necessary petty cash, are having a vacation in Europe at least once in their lives, visiting Rome, Barcelona, Paris and London within a fortnight, standing in awe of some historical buildings and visit some museums - but I doubt that this gives them any cultural insight. No offence. ;)

[aabbcc]

To be honest, I cannot see where this discussion is leading and what all of this has still to do with literature. Yes, there are many cultural differences, we all have agreed on that. Ok, most Americans, that is those who have the necessary petty cash, are having a vacation in Europe at least once in their lives, visiting Rome, Barcelona, Paris and London within a fortnight, standing in awe of some historical buildings and visit some museums - but I doubt that this gives them any cultural insight. No offence. ;)
... And again you are able to say in few words what I would have written. :)

@ Virgil, I assume it would be the best to agree to disagree. I have neither will nor desire to go through each of your points now and elaborate on why I disagree and why I believe you to be fundamentally wrong regarding some things. If you insist, we can take it to PM after - and if - I return from Israel.

@ Leabhar - Arguments, tesoro, arguments.

[Virgil]

Well, wikipedia is flawed! Taking UK as an example according to the 2001 census only 15.1% of the population claimed to have no religion. The predominant religion was Christianity at 71.8%. Doesn't really match your wiki stats.

Yes, one can look at Wikipedia's results with a grain of salt, but i have found them to be correct way more often than not. Asking people their predominant religion is subtley differrent than asking them whether they believe in God. There is still an identity that goes along with an upbringing that would cause people to say they are Anglican (if that's the case) and still not believe in God. Second this study is more recent and not apparently linked to any other survey such as a census, but specifically on a religious question. I think that would bring out the most accurate results. Third I know from several other studies on this that the US data is accurate. Plus it jives with what I know of Italians, since I know many. They are less likely to be atheists than the British that I know. Fourth, this jives with what I've noticed on this and other forums. Actually the only englishman that I have ever seen on any forum that I recall that believed in God was Lote. And he had some vague spiritualist belief. (At least vague to me, I'm not trying to put down his beliefs.)

Let me ask you Fifth, how many of your fellow countrymen from your experience believe in God? Do you?

To all the Europeans, what's your experience with your country's belief in God? Do you?

I'm just trying to get a sense on how accurate my sense is on this.

[TheFifthElement]

Let me ask you Fifth, how many of your fellow countrymen from your experience believe in God? Do you?



My experience is that more of my countrypeople believe in God than would say they were religious. Personally I don't believe, but I find I am more the exception than the rule, and still conceptually I could more easily concieve of a God than follow a religion which seems to be too much a tool for humans.

But, as has been pointed out, this does not aid the literature debate. Virgil, I sense you are avoiding the question ;)


I would agree with you, except almost all of the numbers and studies in the wikipedia entry where Virgil got his statistics are footnoted to actual legit studies on this topic. Everyone seems to be ignoring THAT part.

No Drkshadow, it was more a case of pointing out that it was at odds both with personal experience, and with other legitimate studies, i.e. in this case the national census.

[Lioness_Heart]

Now didn't I take a relatively quiet and mundane thread and transform it into something. :p :D Oh how controversial I can be. ;)

Quiet and mundane? Am I correct in interpreting this as a statement that controversy has an intrinsically higher value than gentler topics?

[Drkshadow03]

Actually this proves one of our former points - while North America is more or less homogenous, the map of Europe is very heterogenous - and there aren't even data for one of the most religious regions, the Balkans (which certainly shouldn't be excluded in your "all western European countries"- list, since Greece also has such a nice place there :D ).


I don't think anyone who has seriously read American Literature or spent significant time in the various regions of America or even lives in America and interacted with the variety of populations can possibly believe that America is more or less homogenous.

Many of the major works of American literature are stories of regionalism (Hawthorne, Faulkner, Bradstreet, Taylor, Cooper, Cather) and sub-cultures (Hughes, Morrison, Roth, Silko).

I am not saying there aren't certain major themes or important beliefs that run throughout the culture, but there are huge differences in values, beliefs, religions, food culture, social cultures, dialects, customs, and politics of the various regions of America.

[Virgil]

but then is this also evidence of your failure to understand ‘Europeans’? It seems you are stumped as to why Europe doesn’t share American values. And I say share deliberately, I think there is more understanding there than you think, but disagreement certainly.

That may be true. I am continuously surprised at how different we see the world. That is why I maintain there is a culture difference between us.


So, like I said, everything you’ve said is equally true in reverse.
That is true. It's just my speculation that we have a better insight into Europe's culture than you do into ours. I could be wrong, it is a speculation. I have laid out a few reasons within the last few posts here as to why I think that. But perhaps you think I'm just another American cowboy. :D


Are the majority of ‘Europeans’ athiest? That’s certainly not my experience.
I think I answered that.


Ah, you see I thought when you mentioned ‘modern’ it would be a discussion about poets who were still alive. Perhaps we define modern in a different way ;)
Modern literature usually starts with the imagist movement at the beginning of the 20th century.


And you only answered ½ of the question! Who are your equivalent ‘European’ poets?
Ok, let's just do British of the 20th century. Top tier: WH Auden, DH Lawrence, Rupert Brooke, Philip Larkin, Dylan Thomas, Ted Hughes. Am I forgetting anyone? Frankly whle all are good poets, I don't see how any of them, except possibly Auden, even comes close to the American top tier. Except for Auden and possibly Hughes I think American 2nd and 3rd tier poets are as good or better. I'm sorry, that's just my honest opinion, and I am trying to keep my nationality out of it. Like I said I do think the British and European novel far outpasces the American novel. That's again my honest opinion.


But, it raises an interesting point, you see, you refer to the above poets as ‘shaping modern poetry’ and yet perhaps this defines the difference between the American and the European experience. USA is still a relatively young country, still establishing its sense of self and culture. What you refer to as ‘shaping modern poetry’ I see more as ‘reinventing the wheel’ a repetition of a cycle which has been ongoing as long as there has been poetry. Take the imagist movement, as you’ve mentioned above, they did nothing that hadn’t been done before but it was new to America, therefore Americans see it as new.
Just look at the innovations, the opening up of line and form. There was something about American poetry last century that strove to push the language to the limit while experimenting with new form. Just compare the differences between Eliot, Pound, Stevens, Williams, Cummings, Ginsberg, Bukowski (who you now I hate), Lowell. They are all remarkably different and original.


Perhaps this is the root of the lack of understanding of which you speak. Everywhere America is, Europe has been already. We are, in a sense, like a parent and a teenage son, each with their faults, each with their merits, neither one really trying too hard to understand each other but both desperate to be understood.
No I think we are fundementally different, not parent/son. :lol: How patronizing. :D There is something of the cowboy in us, and I can't compare anything in European experience to compare it with. For instance I was just thinking about Karadzic's (the serbian genocidal killer) who was just captured. {edit}

And just in case, I didn’t mean that as an offensive statement against the US. Apologies if anyone takes it that way.
Oh none taken. I hope no one takes offence to what I just said. :)


Again, ½ an answer. Who are your equivalent ‘European’ writers?
There is no question the quality of European novelists are much better than American as a whole in the last century. My goodness, from Joyce to Proust to Kafka to Mann to Eco to Lawrence to Woolf to Kundera to Kazantzakis to Saramago. So many. Even second tier like Italo Calvino from Italy is an exceptional novelist and could be top tier in the US.

[mickitaz]

To be honest, I cannot see where this discussion is leading and what all of this has still to do with literature. Yes, there are many cultural differences, we all have agreed on that. Ok, most Americans, that is those who have the necessary petty cash, are having a vacation in Europe at least once in their lives, visiting Rome, Barcelona, Paris and London within a fortnight, standing in awe of some historical buildings and visit some museums - but I doubt that this gives them any cultural insight. No offence. ;)


Okay, I have been following this thread, and I also think this is getting a bit offtrack. Not that it is bad, just losing sight of the original question.

I agree with Erictho, by visiting another country, or reading about it; does not necessarily make us more culturally diverse. Does it make us more open minded? I think that it closes us off to a degree. We have preconceived notions, whether active or inert from what we have read.

Back to the subject of limiting the books we read... I think that it is important to diversify. More for your brain to relax than anything. For instance, I may read something identified as a "classic", which takes me a considerable time to finish. However, I will jump back into my fantasy novels, just for a fun, no brainer good time. It is like having an awesome, in depth coversation with a philosopher; then just passing time with a best friend, laughing at fart jokes. Everything has a form and function in some manner.

[stlukesguild]

And you only answered ½ of the question! Who are your equivalent ‘European’ poets?

Ok, let's just do British of the 20th century. Top tier: WH Auden, DH Lawrence, Rupert Brooke, Philip Larkin, Dylan Thomas, Ted Hughes. Am I forgetting anyone? Frankly whle all are good poets, I don't see how any of them, except possibly Auden, even comes close to the American top tier.

Virgil! Yeats, man! Yeats! How do you forget Yeats? Besides those you've listed... I'd also add Seamus Heaney and Geoffrey Hill... but they are both too new to really judge. I largely agree with the notion that certain cultures tend to dominate at certain periods in history. This has much to do with wealth, influx of outside influences through trade, colonization, military conquest, etc... While I tend to lean toward the Eurocentric, I would not underestimate the American contributions to literature from the late 19th through the 20th century. many of the greatest writers of Europe and South America were clearly looking to writers such as Poe, Whitman, Dickinson, Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, Hemingway, etc... At the same time I would not underestimate the European contributions. Proust and Joyce are certainly the towering novelists of Modernism. Nor is there a shortage of European poets equal to Eliot... if not equal to his influence, among whom I would surely include Rilke, Yeats, Montale, Pasternak, Ahkmontova, Czeslaw Milosz, Pessoa, Garcia-Lorca, Antonio Machado, Rafael Alberti, Jorge Guillen, Miguel Hernandez, Paul Celan, etc... It is also quite likely that Pablo Neruda may just be the greatest poet of the 20th century... although he certainly owes much to Whitman.

By the way, Virg... your list of American poets? Where's Frost? I mean I can handle you demoting Hart Crane to second tier and raising Pound to the toppermost... but no Frost?:( :rolleyes:

Oh... ps... Italo Calvino second tier? While Eco is first?!:eek2: Them's fightin' words!:rage: :banana:

[TheFifthElement]

No time to respond in full, I'm just about to set off on a two day business trip, but this comment made me giggle



No I think we are fundementally different, not parent/son. :lol: How patronizing. :D There is something of the cowboy in us, and I can't compare anything in European experience to compare it with. {edit}

:lol: wimps! Now there's a laugh. Cautious perhaps. After all, everytime Great Britain has intervened in a European conflict (not on it's own borders own territory) it has resulted in world war! Twice! Can you blame us for being wary. That being said, stamp on our soil and you get your a*se kicked. Remember the Falklands War? Probably not.

I wouldn't call you cowboys but I stand by the parent/son analogy. You talk about pioneering spirit but, been there done that. 16th century, so over it ;) !!!

[mortalterror]

I wouldn't call you cowboys but I stand by the parent/son analogy.

Don't get offended Virgil, that's just a lot of their "white man's burden" talk, they give to all their ex-colonies. Everybody who's not from good ol' Europe is "half-devil and half-child" to use Rudyard Kipling's phrase. And it has nothing to do with how old America is as a nation. They gave India the same patronizing treatment and India had an ancient culture long before Julius Caesar invaded Albion's shores.

[Erichtho]

[...] I am not saying there aren't certain major themes or important beliefs that run throughout the culture, but there are huge differences in values, beliefs, religions, food culture, social cultures, dialects, customs, and politics of the various regions of America.

I don't doubt that, but those differences are comparable to the differences within a single country in Europe, not those of the whole continent. Do you think the German spoken in Swabia and Saxony is the same, that there is no difference between Bavarian and Frisian cuisine, or between Franconian and Rhinelandic customs etc? All those regions are historically grown and have to some extent their distinctive cultures, but there is also a common national idea, something that unites them - and if something like that wouldn't exist in the USA, if the differences were too big, secessionist movements would rule the country's politics.

[Leabhar]

European obstinate elitism at its finest. :rolleyes:

[Drkshadow03]

I don't doubt that, but those differences are comparable to the differences within a single country in Europe, not those of the whole continent. Do you think the German spoken in Swabia and Saxony is the same, that there is no difference between Bavarian and Frisian cuisine, or between Franconian and Rhinelandic customs etc? All those regions are historically grown and have to some extent their distinctive cultures, but there is also a common national idea, something that unites them - and if something like that wouldn't exist in the USA, if the differences were too big, secessionist movements would rule the country's politics.

A couple of points. It should be noted in fact that there was a secessionist movement in the U. S., which eventually led to the Civil War because of major cultural differences, lifestyles, and disagreements. Of course one might say it was really over slavery, but I think those differences of culture and understanding played an equal role.

Secondly, America is a big country, I believe third or fourth largest in the world as far as actual land area goes. When we talk about region A versus region B in Germany, well, we need to remember that there are many states in the U. S. that are bigger than Germany by themselves; Texas to name one. I suspect your analogy is more apropos to the differences between states within a single region, such as the differences between Mississipi and Florida in the south or Rhode Island and Conneticut in New England.

However, I don't disagree that for the most part their is national unity and we all more or less think of ourselves as American. I do think, however, the differences are more than custom and state differences in your typical European country. I suspect more accurately if we put it on a scale with differences between countries on one end and differences between a typical European region on the other, the regions in the U.S. would fall somewhere in the middle. I do think the differences are a tad more significant. I think the reason for this is at the end of the day it's not merely a question of different food or music or dialect, but also a question of different values! We may all think of ourselves as American, but we don't necessarily all want the same things or same future for America, even to the point that I know people in certain states have joked about seccessionism out of current frustrations with the other states and their differing values.

Mostly, I wanted to relate it back to literature, however. I wanted to point out that I think regionalism is not just a reality of the U.S., but also it is a major theme and feature of U.S. literature. Disregarding second tier works in the variety of European literatures, the bit of European literature whether French, German, Russian that I've read doesn't seem particularly interested between the differences in one region/state or another. American literature is very interested in that question whether explicitly or if one read Twain or Hawthorne it comes out in the locales they choose for their setting (the south versus Puritan New England in the case of those two authors). At times they almost feel like different countries, they are that different from each other. But I never picked up that vibe from any European literature I've read; though, I admit I am not particularly well-read in European literature. Perhaps the regional differences are something one would miss if not from those countries and not looking from the inside out, but somehow fail to believe one cannot notice the stark differences in locale and culture of Twain's Huckfinn in comparison to Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter. I think the differences in culture are so stark that someone from outside the culture WOULD notice it.

Then of course this completely ignores multi-culturalism that is much more prevelant in the U.S. than your average European country, and has become very prevelant in literature lately. This is not to say there isn't any multi-culturalism in those other countries, but rather that literally if you look at the demographics of the average European country versus the U.S. you're going to find a much larger diversity of ethnic groups in the latter from a wider variety of cultures and more people from those distinct cultures (perhaps with Britain as the exception). So a great deal of literature is written by immigrants or children of immigrants who are conscious of their difference, still have a lot of their parent's native cultural values and viewpoints, and bring with them those themes and ideas as they interact and bear down on American identity and typically American themes.

Keep in mind I don't mean any of this as a sort of national chauvanist, Ha! we're better than you! I merely am putting it out there as a statement of fact. It might be true that you cannot simply refer to some large homogenous European literature because there are all sorts of different countries that are extremely different from each other. But in fact I believe that American culture and literature is even less homogenous than say only German literature or French Literature or Italian literature for the very reasons I stated above.

In that regard, I don't think it is impossible for Europeans to understand American culture and sub-cultures with a little bit of study and perhaps a few visits (but maybe just with study). Likewise, it isn't impossible for Americans to understand the individual European countries or individual Asian countries or the Middle East or Africa or wherever. The same goes for all those countries trying to understand any other. Therfore, I think most of the commentators in this thread on this issue are basically wrong. Understanding another culture isn't some insurmountable task, an impossible self-delusion that takes fifty years of immersion within the culture and the good graces of the Almighty Himself and you'll still be lucky to understand half of what makes a culture tick. No doubt someone born and raised within a culture will have a much more intimate understanding of the cultural norms and attitudes, and that can never truly be learned if you weren't raised in the culture. But this ignores the big difference between knowledge/understanding of a culture and the intimacy of growing up within the culture. I was born and raised as an American Jew; I consider myself a Jew both ethnically and religiously. I have a very good "insiders" understanding of what American Jewish culture is like and transnational Jewish cultural as well to a certain degree (which I realize is not a single entity either, but I still ultimately believe mostly from interactions with Jews outside the U. S. and through study that there are more similarities than differences), how we interact as a group, what the general attitudes are among that group, our cultural values, etc. However, a White Christian from France could spend a few years studying Hebrew and Torah and Jewish Literature, and would probably have a better understanding of the Torah and Jewish Literature than I would, despite the fact that I was born into the culture. I do believe it's more than possible to have not only a working understanding of another culture, but a very good understanding of other cultures, their values, habits, food, customs, etc., if maybe impossible to ever have a lived experience as a full member of that culture.

[Jozanny]

Secondly, America is a big country, I believe third or fourth largest in the world as far as actual land area goes. When we talk about region A versus region B in Germany, well, we need to remember that there are many states in the U. S. that are bigger than Germany by themselves; Texas to name one. I suspect your analogy is more apropos to the differences between states within a single region, such as the differences between Mississipi and Florida in the south or Rhode Island and Conneticut in New England.

However, I don't disagree that for the most part their is national unity and we all more or less think of ourselves as American. I do think, however, the differences are more than custom and state differences in your typical European country. I suspect more accurately if we put it on a scale with differences between countries on one end and differences between a typical European region on the other, the regions in the U.S. would fall somewhere in the middle. I do think the differences are a tad more significant. I think the reason for this is at the end of the day it's not merely a question of different food or music or dialect, but also a question of different values! We may all think of ourselves as American, but we don't necessarily all want the same things or same future for America, even to the point that I know people in certain states have joked about seccessionism out of current frustrations with the other states and their differing values.

Mostly, I wanted to relate it back to literature, however. I wanted to point out that I think regionalism is not just a reality of the U.S., but also it is a major theme and feature of U.S. literature. Disregarding second tier works in the variety of European literatures, the bit of European literature whether French, German, Russian that I've read doesn't seem particularly interested between the differences in one region/state or another. American literature is very interested in that question whether explicitly or if one read Twain or Hawthorne it comes out in the locales they choose for their setting (the south versus Puritan New England in the case of those two authors). At times they almost feel like different countries, they are that different from each other. But I never picked up that vibe from any European literature I've read; though, I admit I am not particularly well-read in European literature. Perhaps the regional differences are something one would miss if not from those countries and not looking from the inside out, but somehow fail to believe one cannot notice the stark differences in locale and culture of Twain's Huckfinn in comparison to Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter. I think the differences in culture are so stark that someone from outside the culture WOULD notice it.

Then of course this completely ignores multi-culturalism that is much more prevelant in the U.S. than your average European country, and has become very prevelant in literature lately. This is not to say there isn't any multi-culturalism in those other countries, but rather that literally if you look at the demographics of the average European country versus the U.S. you're going to find a much larger diversity of ethnic groups in the latter from a wider variety of cultures and more people from those distinct cultures (perhaps with Britain as the exception). So a great deal of literature is written by immigrants or children of immigrants who are conscious of their difference, still have a lot of their parent's native cultural values and viewpoints, and bring with them those themes and ideas as they interact and bear down on American identity and typically American themes.

Keep in mind I don't mean any of this as a sort of national chauvanist, Ha! we're better than you! I merely am putting it out there as a statement of fact. It might be true that you cannot simply refer to some large homogenous European literature because there are all sorts of different countries that are extremely different from each other. But in fact I believe that American culture and literature is even less homogenous than say only German literature or French Literature or Italian literature for the very reasons I stated above.

Nicely done, and to your point, I'm Italian-American and still have relatives in Italy, can speak a little Italian, and read everything about my real home that I can get my hands on. Plop me in Rome and I've no doubt I'd be fine within a year. Do I understand di Lampedusa's Il Gattopardo? Yep. Do I understand Italian provincialism, corruption, and virtual inability to govern itself? Yep.

Do Italians understand America? They have romanticized notions about it. Meeting your lover in a Fiat in Italian slang is "doing Indiani" because they know native Americans used teepees.

Am I an American? Of course.

[ex ponto]

To all the Europeans, what's your experience with your country's belief in God? Do you?

In my country majority of people consider themselves as Christians (more than 80%).


{edit}
There is something of the cowboy in us,

I think Russians are sometimes like that (look at ''The Siberian Barber''), but ,somehow, in a different direction. Maybe that comes from living in so wast country.
When you spoke of American novelists, you didn't mention William Saroyan. Would you rank him as a top one? I admire him very much. Uf...

[Virgil]

Virgil! Yeats, man! Yeats! How do you forget Yeats?

I was only considering British. Is Ireland British? I bet they don't think so. ;)


Nor is there a shortage of European poets equal to Eliot... if not equal to his influence, among whom I would surely include Rilke, Yeats, Montale, Pasternak, Ahkmontova, Czeslaw Milosz, Pessoa, Garcia-Lorca, Antonio Machado, Rafael Alberti, Jorge Guillen, Miguel Hernandez, Paul Celan, etc... It is also quite likely that Pablo Neruda may just be the greatest poet of the 20th century... although he certainly owes much to Whitman.
It's always hard to judge poetry from translation. I've perused those writers and there are good. But I almost never say wow when I read them. Other than Yeats of course. I have read Lorca more extensively, and while I enjoy his poetry, is he TS Eliot? No.


By the way, Virg... your list of American poets? Where's Frost? I mean I can handle you demoting Hart Crane to second tier and raising Pound to the toppermost... but no Frost?:( :rolleyes:
Oh sorry I forgot Frost. Would I include him in top tier? Hmm, probably 2nd tier. As to Pound, I know a good deal of his poetry is mediocre if not crap. But he does have a good body of work that really is top notch, and given that he is the central figure of modernism in poetry I placed him in top tier. I can see why others feel different.


Oh... ps... Italo Calvino second tier? While Eco is first?!:eek2: Them's fightin' words!:rage: :banana
I think Eco is very good. You're probably right about Calvino. He was original and innovative, and had he not died prematurely the rumor was that he was to get the Nobel prize. Ok, you convinced me, Calvino is top tier. :)




:lol: wimps! Now there's a laugh. Cautious perhaps. After all, everytime Great Britain has intervened in a European conflict (not on it's own borders own territory) it has resulted in world war! Twice! Can you blame us for being wary. That being said, stamp on our soil and you get your a*se kicked. Remember the Falklands War? Probably not.

I retract that. I don't really think Europeans are wimps. I think you guys get wrapped up in complexity to the point of paralysis. Also, you seem to need leadership. It seems if the US is not leading something you don't make a move. Is it because Europeans have such government oriented societies, so you are habituated to rely on Big Brother?


I wouldn't call you cowboys but I stand by the parent/son analogy. You talk about pioneering spirit but, been there done that. 16th century, so over it ;) !!!
Pioneers were in the 19th century! :D In what way are we your sons? :lol:


A couple of points. It should be noted in fact that there was a secessionist movement in the U. S., which eventually led to the Civil War ...

Secondly, America is a big country, I believe third or fourth largest in the world as far as actual land area goes. When we talk about region A versus region B in Germany, ...

However, I don't disagree that for the most part their is national unity and we all more or less....

Mostly, I wanted to relate it back to literature, however. I wanted to point out that I think regionalism is not just a reality of the U.S., but also it is a major theme and feature of U.S. literature. Disregarding second tier works in the variety of European literatures, the bit of European literature whether French, German, Russian that I've read doesn't seem particularly interested between the differences in one region/state or another. American literature is very ...er. I think the differences in culture are so stark that someone from outside the culture WOULD notice it.

Then of course this completely ignores multi-culturalism that is much more prevelant in the U.S. than your average European country, and has become very prevelant in literature lately. This is not to say there isn't any multi-culturalism in those other countries, but rather that literally if you look at the demographics of the ....




Nicely done, and to your point, I'm Italian-American and still have relatives in Italy, can speak a little Italian, and read everything about my real home that I can get my hands on. Plop me in Rome and I've no doubt I'd be fine within a year. Do I understand di Lampedusa's Il Gattopardo? Yep. Do I understand Italian provincialism, corruption, and virtual inability to govern itself? Yep.

Do Italians understand America? They have romanticized notions about it. Meeting your lover in a Fiat in Italian slang is "doing Indiani" because they know native Americans used teepees.

Am I an American? Of course.

Darkshadow I cut back your post in the quote to make this more compact. But I agree with both you and Jozy here. Darkshadow's point about the differences between Twain and Hawthorne is right on; and then add Henry James into the mix. ;) Perhaps this is just perception on my part, but i think Americans understand Europeans better than the other way around. Now I mean Europeans as a whole. It could be that I don't catch the nuances of German culture or French culture, but there is what I would call a European perspective. There is such a thing as a European Union. On top of that, Europeans play soccer together and travel to each other's countries. While I'm sure there are national identities, I think they have been eroded.


In my country majority of people consider themselves as Christians (more than 80%).

I do apologize. When I've said European in this thread, I have really meant western european. There is no question that there is a distinction between the cultures of eastern and western europe.

{edit}
There is something of the cowboy in us,

I think Russians are sometimes like that (look at ''The Siberian Barber''), but ,somehow, in a different direction. Maybe that comes from living in so wast country.
Yes, probably so. :)


When you spoke of American novelists, you didn't mention William Saroyan. Would you rank him as a top one? I admire him very much. Uf...
I've never read a Saroyan novel. I've read his famous short story. He's not mentioned as a great novelist. I would be interested in what you liked. I should give it a read. :)

[Scheherazade]

Just a reminder.

The OP of the thread:
A while ago, one of my teachers asked what kind of books I like reading. He seemed shocked when I said that I like reading pretty much anything. In hindsight, this wasn't strictly true: there are lots of books that I probably wouldn't read, but was surprised by his reaction. He went on for a while about how our lives are so short in comparison to the amount of books out there, and we should be picky about what we read so that we only experience the best.

I'm not really sure what I feel about that. I mean, while I want to make the best of my limited time on Earth, every now and then, I want to read books that are just good fun, and while not completely empty, are not too heavy or meaningful. What does everyone else think? Should we limit ourselves to what has been deemed good literature? Of course, if everyone did that, no new books would ever be read. Are frivolous books harmful, or do we need to read some in order to both appreciate and rest from more serious literature?

Please note that comments of political nature have been and will be removed without any further notice.

If you have further questions on the issue, please read the Forum Rules or PM one of the Moderators.

We are not here to discuss who is better/worse but (when necessary) the differences.

[TheFifthElement]

I was only considering British. Is Ireland British? I bet they don't think so. ;)

I thought you were talking about European literature?


I retract that. I don't really think Europeans are wimps. I think you guys get wrapped up in complexity to the point of paralysis. Also, you seem to need leadership. It seems if the US is not leading something you don't make a move. Is it because Europeans have such government oriented societies, so you are habituated to rely on Big Brother?

Oh I agree on the complexity point, but I'm really not sure what you mean by 'government oriented societies', perhaps you could elaborate, but it sounds like a 'perception' rather than a statement of fact, though I might be misinterpreting your point. In terms of Europe, yes it is complex. Europe has been in and out of war for as far back as history goes, so a degree of caution is required when 'interfering' in matters of foreign sovereignty, on foreign territories. Perhaps that is difficult for you to understand, but sovereignty for nations which have, and have been, habitually invaded is a big issue. Perhaps if USA were invaded by a foreign force it might make more sense, but I'd imagine that in the US you have no concerns about threats to your national sovereignty, whereas in Europe sovereignty seems a very tenuous thing.

I'm also not sure what you mean by the comment 'it seems as if the US is not leading something you don't make a move'. Could you elaborate?

On my travels, I got wondering about some things, sovereignty, Europe, etc. The past couple of days I've been in Wales, and of course the UK is comprised of several separate countries being England, Scotland, Wales and, though there may be disagreement on the concept of country here, I'll include Northern Ireland too. The state of the union at the moment is tenuous. Scotland is moving towards independence, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies and, I suspect, if Scotland gains independence then Wales and Northern Ireland will follow. I don't have a problem with this, personally, though I know there are people who feel threatened by the idea of it. But what I did wonder is, how strong is the union in USA? I know there are differences between states, using your earlier example of the death penalty - there is not unity in USA on that point. What would happen if, say, California decided it didn't want to be part of the US anymore?


There is such a thing as a European Union. On top of that, Europeans play soccer together and travel to each other's countries. While I'm sure there are national identities, I think they have been eroded.

Yes there is a European Union, but the European Union is very tenuous. It is certainly not a cohesive whole. National identities have not been eroded, in my opinion, and it certainly doesn't seem so politically, or day to day though there are more similarities between us than we would care to admit - which is true of all nationalities, actually. Bear in mind that the European Union stated very much as an economic union. I think the union remains primarily because of that, and also out of fear, and the desire for power. I'm pretty sure that if the European Union did not provide an economic incentive it would fall apart pretty quickly.


Pioneers were in the 19th century! :D In what way are we your sons? :lol:

I was talking about the 'European' pioneering spirit which occurred in the 16th Century. That was the time where Europe was going out into the world and stealing anything worth stealing. Everything worth stealing has been stolen now, or taken back, so there's just no point anymore ;)


Don't get offended Virgil, that's just a lot of their "white man's burden" talk, they give to all their ex-colonies. Everybody who's not from good ol' Europe is "half-devil and half-child" to use Rudyard Kipling's phrase. And it has nothing to do with how old America is as a nation. They gave India the same patronizing treatment and India had an ancient culture long before Julius Caesar invaded Albion's shores.

Oh mortalterror, don't take it so seriously, it wasn't meant offensively at all, though I wonder if your comments were? It is based on a serious point though which is, it's very difficult to divorce yourself from your experience and 'training' for want of a better word. Many of the subjects Virgil raised as points which 'Europeans' don't understand about 'Americans' were subjects that I, and many of my European counterparts, were taught in history class. So when it is raised as a current issue, it is hard not to equate the subject with history the 'been there done that' point of view. I know, at a root level, it is a difference of opinion/experience, but metaphorically speaking when you look at the viewpoints it has that feel. And perhaps you take the comment offensively because you see the parent figure as being in some way superior to the child. I certainly don't. Europe, in my experience, is full of cyncism and apathy, and in large parts is a shining example of how to get things wrong and mess it up. And the US, it isn't tainted with all of that. The US has a chance to make that 'fresh start', or will they make the same mistakes as Europe has done, and continues to do? I don't know. Recent experience suggests the latter.


As to the point of literature, I find it very hard to discuss in terms of 'best' or 'worst', as it's always, for me, too tainted by 'like' and 'dislike' and 'familiar' and 'unfamiliar'.

[Jozanny]

On my travels, I got wondering about some things, sovereignty, Europe, etc. The past couple of days I've been in Wales, and of course the UK is comprised of several separate countries being England, Scotland, Wales and, though there may be disagreement on the concept of country here, I'll include Northern Ireland too. The state of the union at the moment is tenuous. Scotland is moving towards independence, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies and, I suspect, if Scotland gains independence then Wales and Northern Ireland will follow. I don't have a problem with this, personally, though I know there are people who feel threatened by the idea of it. But what I did wonder is, how strong is the union in USA? I know there are differences between states, using your earlier example of the death penalty - there is not unity in USA on that point. What would happen if, say, California decided it didn't want to be part of the US anymore?

Against my better judgment, I am going to jump back in here. DrkShadow had a very nice post which I think was perceptive, no need to repeat it, but no state takes the issue of succession seriously, despite the polarization of the electorate, and I offer that merely as a statement of fact, moderators.

Now, the US is undergoing a generational shift which could be interesting. Virgil and I are on the very tail end of the boomer generation, but the post-gen X crowd may be removed enough from the psychic scarring of the Civil War, that social unrest could be more significant, with its more multi-cultural, racially tolerant, and sexually ambiguous norms.

Not that I have any scars from 1865 thru Reconstruction, but my grandparents do, and they created the boomer era. Civil War history permeates American culture. It is one of the most written about and debated time periods in university and popular literature. Ken Burns film about it made him something of the latest public American icon-intellectual.

There are still enough boomers around that any real threat to the state of the union would be unthinkable. When we die off, and the WASP grip on power continues to shrink, then I can't say.

However, we know we have real problems, we're anxious about them, and our current leaders, with a great deal of shock, have presided over the death of American Exceptionalism.

We are still the biggest kid on the block Fifth, but with the hits we've taken we too are coming to terms with the end of the American Empire. Virgil doesn't like the word, and others with more influence also take exception, but since WWII we basically inherited that mantle from Britain.

[kasie]

I was only considering British. Is Ireland British? I bet they don't think so. ;) ......

If you are excluding Yeats on the grounds of being 'non-British', would you please exclude Dylan Thomas from the list? The English think Wales is British - the Welsh have other ideas!

[Virgil]

If you are excluding Yeats on the grounds of being 'non-British', would you please exclude Dylan Thomas from the list? The English think Wales is British - the Welsh have other ideas!

:lol: I'm sorry. Perhaps I don't understand Europeans as well as I think. ;)

These strifes between regions are all across Europe. I take it as part of the European experience. It has always amazed me how one region in Italy despises another. Perhaps despise is too strong a word, but they certainly identify themselves differently. And I'm not sure that the cultrual distinctions are all that great; it's just an identity to a land and history. Nothing wrong with it by the way. The difference culturally between a Californian and a New Yorker and a Texan are considerable, but they all think of themselves as American. There is no chance of a separatist movement in any state in the US, even remote states like Hawaii and Alaska. I think it's the way we evolved as a government. We had one bad experience with a civil war, and I don't think therre has ever been a serious thought of separating since. Actually just the opposite. The evolution has been that more and more regions wish to become part of the Union. It maxed out in 1950 with Alaska and Hawaii, but regions like Puerto Rico still have a desire to become the 51st state. They have an incredible deal right now where they don't have to pay American taxes, yet get many of the benefits of being American. If this deal ever ran out, I'm sure they would quickly strive to become part of the Union.

I don't have time right now to respond to all the recent comments, perhaps this afternoon, otherwise this evening.

[TheFifthElement]

Jozanny that was a really interesting post, I think I need to read it a couple of time to digest it. I hadn't had chance to read the post by DrkShadow but I have done now, and that too is very interesting, thought provoking and insightful. Thanks!

It's interesting actually, reading the posts. I get the impression that the US is a country which has been built, people from lots of different places have gone there and built it and there's a sense of togetherness about it, and although people will refer to themselves as 'Irish American' or 'Italian American' there is always that American in there which gives a sense of unity, perhaps; whereas in Europe it is more that it is a place where people are and have been, and have fought over and clung onto, and there's a sense of protectionism, the fear of being forced to become something else and a temptation to fight to hold onto your sense of identity as 'English' or 'Welsh' or 'German' or whatever. That's a very simplified version of my perception, of course. And what's weird about that is that I can feel, to an extent, and understand those things but then they have never happened to me personally. It made me wonder, actually, have I been indoctrinated into thinking this way, is there such a thing as free thinking? Is it possible to divorce yourself from your history and the history of your country, and your nationality? I mean, I could go and live in the US, but at my essence I would still be British, and I would still carry this 'Britishness' around with me. Makes me wonder how much you can really be in control of who you are.

Phew, way off subject. Sorry, this discussion has really got me thinking but I like that, I feel like I'm learning something. Thanks guys!

[armenian]

I've never read a Saroyan novel. I've read his famous short story. He's not mentioned as a great novelist. I would be interested in what you liked. I should give it a read. :)

The Human Comedy - William Saroyan

you'll finish it in a day, its short and not a boring moment at all (its not an action novel).

he shows you dont need overcomplicated metaphors for your writing to be considered 'beautiful'.

[Jozanny]

Jozanny that was a really interesting post, I think I need to read it a couple of time to digest it. I hadn't had chance to read the post by DrkShadow but I have done now, and that too is very interesting, thought provoking and insightful. Thanks!

It's interesting actually, reading the posts. I get the impression that the US is a country which has been built, people from lots of different places have gone there and built it and there's a sense of togetherness about it, and although people will refer to themselves as 'Irish American' or 'Italian American' there is always that American in there which gives a sense of unity, perhaps; whereas in Europe it is more that it is a place where people are and have been, and have fought over and clung onto, and there's a sense of protectionism, the fear of being forced to become something else and a temptation to fight to hold onto your sense of identity as 'English' or 'Welsh' or 'German' or whatever. That's a very simplified version of my perception, of course. And what's weird about that is that I can feel, to an extent, and understand those things but then they have never happened to me personally. It made me wonder, actually, have I been indoctrinated into thinking this way, is there such a thing as free thinking? Is it possible to divorce yourself from your history and the history of your country, and your nationality? I mean, I could go and live in the US, but at my essence I would still be British, and I would still carry this 'Britishness' around with me. Makes me wonder how much you can really be in control of who you are.

Phew, way off subject. Sorry, this discussion has really got me thinking but I like that, I feel like I'm learning something. Thanks guys!

You are most welcome. This thread has had a most amazing drift and discourse for an opening post which basically was conflicted between egalitarian consumption over and above making more selective choices.

Don't know how we got from that point to this, but we all know it's Virgil's fault.;) :thumbs_up :p

Teasing aside, I feel the ghost of post-paranoia rising back up in my brain, which is another drawback of getting involved in online forums. I am always leery, not that I've done anything *bad* yet, but one gets fearful of the flip side of the coin--what's okay to say? What's not? Or how to react.

So maybe I will snooky back in my lair and resurface when it is safe again. :alien:

Maybe I am not making any sense, but I seem to use posts to talk when I'm under personal stress. Maybe it eases some tension, or avoids it, but is it healthy when it matters to me if my content (which, granted, is not important) passes litmus tests?

And the swell and blowback of our discussion here is a great example of what we do well and not so well online.

Now I'm truly snookied! Frustrated that I cannot keep an engagement to get to an appointment, tomorrow I have to go for broke, but right now should get some sleep.

[TheFifthElement]

:lol: Jozanny, you sound like me!! Sometimes I start writing, and where I end up is somewhere completely different and I think, how did I get there? Then I edit...or sometimes not!!

What were we talking about? Oh yes, it was Virgil's fault ;)

[stlukesguild]

SLG- Virgil! Yeats, man! Yeats! How do you forget Yeats?

Virgil- I was only considering British. Is Ireland British? I bet they don't think so.

kasie-If you are excluding Yeats on the grounds of being 'non-British', would you please exclude Dylan Thomas from the list? The English think Wales is British - the Welsh have other ideas!

"British" as in the literature of Great Britain written in English. We include Kafka (Czech) and Paul Celan (Jewish Romanian) among German literature because they wrote in the German language and were rooted in German literature. Yeats, for all his "Irishness" wrote in English and was most certainly aware of and part of the British literary tradition.

It's always hard to judge poetry from translation. I've perused those writers and there are good. But I almost never say wow when I read them. Other than Yeats of course. I have read Lorca more extensively, and while I enjoy his poetry, is he TS Eliot? No.

Perhaps no harder than judging prose. It all depends upon the quality of the translation. I will assume we both agree that Homer, Virgil, and Dante are towering figures of literature without recourse to the original tongue. The argument as to who is better among 20th century poets is made all the more complex as a result of the fact that Modernism is still being digested. Is Eliot a greater poet than Lorca? Perhaps. But then I don't think Lorca is the greatest Modern Spanish poet... although he might be the most influential. Is Eliot more influential than Lorca? Arguable, considering the impact of Lorca upon Spanish letters... including those of Latin America. Rilke and Montale on the other hand, I have no problem placing shoulder to shoulder with Eliot. Nor would I dare to suggest that Ahkmontova, Pasternak, Mandelshtam, Hernandez, Alberti, and a good number of others may just be as strong as Eliot...

[Niamh]

SLG- Virgil! Yeats, man! Yeats! How do you forget Yeats?

Virgil- I was only considering British. Is Ireland British? I bet they don't think so.

kasie-If you are excluding Yeats on the grounds of being 'non-British', would you please exclude Dylan Thomas from the list? The English think Wales is British - the Welsh have other ideas!

"British" as in the literature of Great Britain written in English. We include Kafka (Czech) and Paul Celan (Jewish Romanian) among German literature because they wrote in the German language and were rooted in German literature. Yeats, for all his "Irishness" wrote in English and was most certainly aware of and part of the British literary tradition.


great britain being England, Scotland and Wales, Ireland doesnt fit. Yeats wrote in English because that is the main language spoken in Ireland. To say Yeats was british because he wrote in English is abit off the wall. You might as well say American and Australia authors where british authors because they too wrote in english.
You must note in the case of Yeats, he was part of the anglo-irish revival, a literary period in Ireland, where people wrote things traditionally Irish, in English, as part of a Irish cultural revolution. As a majority of Ireland spoke English due to British occupation, it was better to educate the Irish about their old traditions and culture, that was nurtured via the Irish speaking comunities, in English.
So no. Yeats would not be included as a British author.

-just a note before some starts saying Ireland was a part of Britain. It wasnt. It was a part of the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland, hence why Irish authors arent British Authors. :)

anyway, back on topic. Lioness, if you want to read as many different types of books as possible, do it. I dont think its a good i dea to just stick to one or two genres, or books are are classed as greats etc. Knowledge is power, and the greater expanse of reading you do, the more knowledge you acquire.

[Erichtho]

"British" as in the literature of Great Britain written in English. We include Kafka (Czech) and Paul Celan (Jewish Romanian) among German literature because they wrote in the German language and were rooted in German literature. Yeats, for all his "Irishness" wrote in English and was most certainly aware of and part of the British literary tradition.

Your examples are flawed. I cannot understand why people constantly think that Kafka was Czech. Both of his parents were German Jews, thus his native language was German. Just because after WW2 the German-Bohemians were persecuted and had to flee/ were evacuated ("deported") to Germany and Austria almost 1000 years of German-Czech co-existence in Bohemia shouldn't be dismissed so easily. And Kafka lived earlier anyway. The strange thing about this is that I've never seen anyone suggesting that Rilke or Werfel are Czech?!
The same goes for Celan. He was a German Jew living in Romania, not a Romanian.



It's always hard to judge poetry from translation. I've perused those writers and there are good. But I almost never say wow when I read them. Other than Yeats of course. I have read Lorca more extensively, and while I enjoy his poetry, is he TS Eliot? No.

Perhaps no harder than judging prose. It all depends upon the quality of the translation. I will assume we both agree that Homer, Virgil, and Dante are towering figures of literature without recourse to the original tongue.

I think you cannot judge a literary work in translation, you can only judge the literary merit of the translation. That those authors are "towering figures" you can't say due to your own reading but only because countless people who have read them in original say they are great. Translation only gives you a taste of the original work, and the more a work depends on style (poetry compared to prose) the more difficult it is to say something about it if you don't know the original.

[Virgil]

I thought you were talking about European literature?

I was, but I thought I'd simplify when it came to poetry. It's harder to know the good poets. St Lukes mentioned the great European poets. I responded to it.


Oh I agree on the complexity point, but I'm really not sure what you mean by 'government oriented societies', perhaps you could elaborate, but it sounds like a 'perception' rather than a statement of fact, though I might be misinterpreting your point.
It is my perception that Europeans will look for government oriented solutions to societal problems. So much is socialized there. I admit that UK is much less than continental Europe, thanks to Margret Thatcher. :)


In terms of Europe, yes it is complex. Europe has been in and out of war for as far back as history goes, so a degree of caution is required when 'interfering' in matters of foreign sovereignty, on foreign territories. Perhaps that is difficult for you to understand, but sovereignty for nations which have, and have been, habitually invaded is a big issue. Perhaps if USA were invaded by a foreign force it might make more sense, but I'd imagine that in the US you have no concerns about threats to your national sovereignty, whereas in Europe sovereignty seems a very tenuous thing.
I will be more conscious of it in the future. Thanks.


I'm also not sure what you mean by the comment 'it seems as if the US is not leading something you don't make a move'. Could you elaborate?
Well, this might get into political, but in every international military effort that has gone on, it's been up to the US to lead. The other countries just balk until US leads.


On my travels, I got wondering about some things, sovereignty, Europe, etc. The past couple of days I've been in Wales, and of course the UK is comprised of several separate countries being England, Scotland, Wales and, though there may be disagreement on the concept of country here, I'll include Northern Ireland too. The state of the union at the moment is tenuous. Scotland is moving towards independence, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies and, I suspect, if Scotland gains independence then Wales and Northern Ireland will follow. I don't have a problem with this, personally, though I know there are people who feel threatened by the idea of it. But what I did wonder is, how strong is the union in USA? I know there are differences between states, using your earlier example of the death penalty - there is not unity in USA on that point. What would happen if, say, California decided it didn't want to be part of the US anymore?
I answered the US part. As to the Eropean part, it seems that while Europe gravitates to greater unity, the sub regions strive for greater independence. I wonder if it's related. The greater unity gives cover and support to smaller nations. Otherwise I doubt it would be in their interests to seek indepedence. Frankly on a world level I think it weakens the nation to have a chunk spliced off. If Wales and Scotland splits off I think UK will not be as infleuential. But it is not for me to say.


Yes there is a European Union, but the European Union is very tenuous. It is certainly not a cohesive whole. National identities have not been eroded, in my opinion, and it certainly doesn't seem so politically, or day to day though there are more similarities between us than we would care to admit - which is true of all nationalities, actually. Bear in mind that the European Union stated very much as an economic union. I think the union remains primarily because of that, and also out of fear, and the desire for power. I'm pretty sure that if the European Union did not provide an economic incentive it would fall apart pretty quickly.
Really, you don't think natonal identities have been eroded. How many French have immigrated to England? How many English have immigrated to France? I'm sure your opinion is way more valid than mine, but I seem to notice the opposite.


Perhaps no harder than judging prose. It all depends upon the quality of the translation. I will assume we both agree that Homer, Virgil, and Dante are towering figures of literature without recourse to the original tongue. The argument as to who is better among 20th century poets is made all the more complex as a result of the fact that Modernism is still being digested. Is Eliot a greater poet than Lorca? Perhaps. But then I don't think Lorca is the greatest Modern Spanish poet... although he might be the most influential. Is Eliot more influential than Lorca? Arguable, considering the impact of Lorca upon Spanish letters... including those of Latin America. Rilke and Montale on the other hand, I have no problem placing shoulder to shoulder with Eliot. Nor would I dare to suggest that Ahkmontova, Pasternak, Mandelshtam, Hernandez, Alberti, and a good number of others may just be as strong as Eliot...

Certainly we agree on Homer, Virgil, and Dante. You are way more well read than I St. Lukes. I'll have to differ to you on the other poets. :)

[stlukesguild]

great britain being England, Scotland and Wales, Ireland doesnt fit. Yeats wrote in English because that is the main language spoken in Ireland. To say Yeats was british because he wrote in English is abit off the wall. You might as well say American and Australia authors where british authors because they too wrote in english.
You must note in the case of Yeats, he was part of the anglo-irish revival, a literary period in Ireland, where people wrote things traditionally Irish, in English, as part of a Irish cultural revolution. As a majority of Ireland spoke English due to British occupation, it was better to educate the Irish about their old traditions and culture, that was nurtured via the Irish speaking comunities, in English.
So no. Yeats would not be included as a British author.

-just a note before some starts saying Ireland was a part of Britain. It wasnt. It was a part of the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland, hence why Irish authors arent British Authors.

Ah yes... The United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland... but only post-!800. My Irish grandmother would have been appalled at my faux pas:rolleyes:. So all those years of shared history as part of the British Isles... and often under English rule... amount to nothing? Perhaps this is but an example of one of the things that greatly separates Europe from the US... this constant "balkanization"... where every little borough or burg aspires to national independence rather than embracing the larger common culture. There are times I think that Texas or California are from another nation entirely (if not another planet) but it only seems to make sense that the extent of a nation be limited by the extent (excluding some great continental divide) of the common language. But maybe that's an American idea... and probably, unfortunately, part of our problem with immigration and the lack of multi-lingual education.

Your examples are flawed. I cannot understand why people constantly think that Kafka was Czech. Both of his parents were German Jews, thus his native language was German. Just because after WW2 the German-Bohemians were persecuted and had to flee/ were evacuated ("deported") to Germany and Austria almost 1000 years of German-Czech co-existence in Bohemia shouldn't be dismissed so easily. And Kafka lived earlier anyway. The strange thing about this is that I've never seen anyone suggesting that Rilke or Werfel are Czech?!
The same goes for Celan. He was a German Jew living in Romania, not a Romanian.

So then the greatest German artist was actually not German, but Hungarian... born as he was, of Hungarian parents? Again... I would tend to go with the culture and language under which the person was educated... especially when considering the fact that the actual unified nations of Germany or Italy did not exist until quite recently. Are we then to define Dante and Tuscan... or Florentine and not Italian?

I think you cannot judge a literary work in translation, you can only judge the literary merit of the translation. That those authors are "towering figures" you can't say due to your own reading but only because countless people who have read them in original say they are great. Translation only gives you a taste of the original work, and the more a work depends on style (poetry compared to prose) the more difficult it is to say something about it if you don't know the original.

To a great extent that is ridiculous. It largely suggests that we can virtually know nothing of other cultures excepting that we have mastered their language... and how many can master more than a few languages... to the extent that they understand the archaic older usages, neologisms, figures of speech, etc...? Certainly something is lost in translation... more or less dependent upon the abilities of the translator. But in a good translation the art survives... just as the music survives transcription:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd_oIFy1mxM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9reoUinXgA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfVbdoXFtDk

(By the way... there are musicologists who suggest that the second version on violin... and not the organ version... may have been the original)

Europe has been in and out of war for as far back as history goes, so a degree of caution is required when 'interfering' in matters of foreign sovereignty, on foreign territories.

Somehow I doubt that a great concern for other's sovereignty is the driving motivation behind European relations... especially when one considers that there are not a hell of a lot of innocent parties here. Nearly every European state has been the aggressor at one time or another. I agree that having suffered through two of the most destructive wars in history upon your own soil has to have affected European politics... but at the same time you must recognize that we were essentially dragged into both of these conflicts which were not of our making... in spite of the fact that America is quite isolationist... if not xenophobic in many ways. There is probably a degree of fear (well founded or not...) of needing to clean up after another one of your messes... and at the same time there is undoubtedly a degree of resentment at the lack of support for us in our misguided military ventures.

[TheFifthElement]

It is my perception that Europeans will look for government oriented solutions to societal problems. So much is socialized there. I admit that UK is much less than continental Europe, thanks to Margret Thatcher. :)

Ah, I see. UK is still a very socialist country, even old Maggie couldn't change that! (might I add, thank goodness!)

So, what's the alternative then? I doubt that it's left entirely to individuals to resolve the problems of society?


Well, this might get into political, but in every international military effort that has gone on, it's been up to the US to lead. The other countries just balk until US leads.

Yes, I agree it will definitely become too political, and another example of where our views would differ greatly I suspect. Where you say 'lead' I would say 'dragged into', especially in relation to recent military efforts which were not something that the UK, in the main, wanted. Perhaps something to take off forum?


Really, you don't think natonal identities have been eroded. How many French have immigrated to England? How many English have immigrated to France? I'm sure your opinion is way more valid than mine, but I seem to notice the opposite.

Very few actually! There's been a recent move of Brits to France because it's cheaper to live in France and commute to London than to live in London, but otherwise it's pretty stable. In fact at the moment immigration into Britain tends to be from Eastern Europe, again because of the economics, and you tend to find that immigrants maintain their unique culture. I don't know if this differs in US but certainly my experience of Europe is that even if you move to a foreign state there is no expectation that you would concede your cultural values. UK is a difficult case to discuss because UK law and practice surrounding citizenship is complex due to its collonial history and the continuation of the Commonwealth.


Somehow I doubt that a great concern for other's sovereignty is the driving motivation behind European relations...
I agree stlukesguild but you misquote me. I didn't say 'concern' I said "a degree of caution is required when 'interfering' in matters of foreign sovereignty", and of course you've made my point: haven't we learned to our cost the price of interfering in matters of foreign sovereignty?

[Erichtho]

So then the greatest German artist was actually not German, but Hungarian... born as he was, of Hungarian parents? Again... I would tend to go with the culture and language under which the person was educated... especially when considering the fact that the actual unified nations of Germany or Italy did not exist until quite recently. Are we then to define Dante and Tuscan... or Florentine and not Italian?

If you are talking about Dürer: his mother was German and there was also no Hungarian minority living in Franconia. I don't know much about his life, e.g. whether Hungarian was spoken at home (I doubt it though), and how "versed" he was in Hungarian culture (has he ever been there?).

You seem to look at a current European map, saying: Prague is the capital of Czech Republic, Kafka lived in Prague, ergo Kafka is Czech. But this is nonsense. At the time of Kafka's life Bohemia was part of the Austrian Empire and around 25% of the population was German. Kafka's first language was German (and German being spoken within the family, isn't that enough of a cultural influence already?), he attended German schools and went to German university in Prague (which is the oldest German university). How does that make him Czech? Kafka, Rilke and Werfel were German and not Czech.

A German nation existed before, just the national state was formed very late. And btw, if we are to follow your logic, Dante would indeed be Florentine and not Italian. If we follow my logic, we can say: Dante was ethnically and culturally Italian, so even though he never lived in the national state "Italy" he was Italian.


To a great extent that is ridiculous. It largely suggests that we can virtually know nothing of other cultures excepting that we have mastered their language... and how many can master more than a few languages... to the extent that they understand the archaic older usages, neologisms, figures of speech, etc...? Certainly something is lost in translation... more or less dependent upon the abilities of the translator. But in a good translation the art survives... just as the music survives transcription:[...]

I don't say we can know nothing of another culture when we don't speak its language, I say we cannot judge the quality of a literary work through translation. You are always throwing around so many names in your posts, but how many of them have you really read, and how many of them do you only know through translation?

[stlukesguild]

I say we cannot judge the quality of a literary work through translation. You are always throwing around so many names in your posts, but how many of them have you really read, and how many of them do you only know through translation?

And I must beg to disagree. Of course the primary source is always to be preferred... but then this would surely limit us to being able to "judge"... in other words form an opinion... on but that small part of art with which we have an absolute mastery of the primary source. I would not even be permitted to offer judgment upon Chaucer, for surely he employs a goodly degree or archaisms that I would not be fluent in without access to footnotes. By this notion none of us can even offer judgment of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert... for none of us have experienced them in the primary source... performed as intended by the composer. Every version we experience, whether live or in recorded version (which further removes the work), is an interpretation by another: the conductor... the performer... and as a classical music fanatic I can assure you that these interpretations can vary greatly... even versions of equal merit. The same might be said of art. Can we offer no judgment except of that we have seen in person? Again that is the ideal, and I would certainly prefer that. I have made the effort to do so as much as possible, but there are art works and artists whose work I must take (for the time being) solely upon photographic reproduction. Even in the case of works of art that I have seen in person I certainly find the need or desire to experience them in reproduction frequently... far more frequently... than I do in "reality". I simply am unfortunate in that the Met, the National gallery, and the Louvre are not in my backyard.

[Virgil]

Ah, I see. UK is still a very socialist country, even old Maggie couldn't change that! (might I add, thank goodness!)

So, what's the alternative then? I doubt that it's left entirely to individuals to resolve the problems of society?

You make my point exactly. You don't have a clue as to anything other than government.


Yes, I agree it will definitely become too political, and another example of where our views would differ greatly I suspect. Where you say 'lead' I would say 'dragged into', especially in relation to recent military efforts which were not something that the UK, in the main, wanted. Perhaps something to take off forum?
Well, that's between you and your leaders. I don't think we dragged anyone into anything. Your leaders decided to be a part of whatever. In some cases your leaders were the ones that pushed America into acting.


Very few actually! There's been a recent move of Brits to France because it's cheaper to live in France and commute to London than to live in London, but otherwise it's pretty stable. In fact at the moment immigration into Britain tends to be from Eastern Europe, again because of the economics, and you tend to find that immigrants maintain their unique culture. I don't know if this differs in US but certainly my experience of Europe is that even if you move to a foreign state there is no expectation that you would concede your cultural values. UK is a difficult case to discuss because UK law and practice surrounding citizenship is complex due to its collonial history and the continuation of the Commonwealth.
That sounds like erosion to me.

[MorpheusSandman]

Having not read all 8 pages of this thread, I'm just replying to the OP:

It's difficult to have foresight of retrospection. What I mean by that is this: When one comes to the end of their life, I've so often heard that most don't regret what they've done, but what they didn't do. In that sense, life is much too short to experience everything that one with a voracious appetite (especially an artistic one) can experience. So it becomes a question of asking yourself; When I'm on my death bed what works would I look back on and regret never being able to experience?

In that respect, I tend to agree that if you love literature as an art-form, it's best to stick with the classics. However, my overall artistic education has taught me that some of the most rewarding experiences come from artists and works that are off the beaten path. In music I've discovered so many niche artists that have enriched my life. Likewise, amidst all the art I've experienced, none has had as profound effect on my life as a 1995/'97 anime series/movie called Neon Genesis Evangelion / End of Evangelion which certainly wouldn't be found in any kind of set canon.

My point is that I'd recommend sticking to the canon but occasionally venturing out to try and find those nooks, crannies, and off-the-beaten hidden paths that can lead to riches outside that main path. It's a tricky balancing act certainly, but worth attempting to perfect.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Well, this might get into political, but in every international military effort that has gone on, it's been up to the US to lead. The other countries just balk until US leads.

You appear to be overlooking that 'minor' skirmish, WWII, where England, France, Denmark, the Soviet Union &c. fought alone until the US was attacked at Pearl Harbour. Britain was quick to honour its mutual defense pact with France and declared war on Germany as soon as France was attacked...

[stlukesguild]

England, France, Denmark, the Soviet Union &c. fought alone until the US was attacked at Pearl Harbour...

England, France, Denmark, the Soviet Union... and let's add Holland, Belgium, Poland, etc... Seems like quite a group to be fighting "alone"... all against Germany. So why did they need the US to get the job done?:D

[Virgil]

You appear to be overlooking that 'minor' skirmish, WWII, where England, France, Denmark, the Soviet Union &c. fought alone until the US was attacked at Pearl Harbour. Britain was quick to honour its mutual defense pact with France and declared war on Germany as soon as France was attacked...

Oh that is true. I think the context of my post was in the last fifty years or so. If I wasn't clear, that's what I was referring to.

[TheFifthElement]

You make my point exactly. You don't have a clue as to anything other than government.

Enlighten me. Or can't you think of anything either?


Well, that's between you and your leaders. I don't think we dragged anyone into anything. Your leaders decided to be a part of whatever.

Yes, there are issues with our leaders. We were dragged into things, and it was undemocratic. Made me realise that the only line between modern Britain and Nazi Germany is conditions, probably economics. Very worrying.


In some cases your leaders were the ones that pushed America into acting.
examples?



That sounds like erosion to me.

it isn't. Did you read my post?


So why did they need the US to get the job done?:D

It didn't, is the easy answer. It was the involvement of Russia that effectively changed the course of the war in Europe, Hitler over extended himself.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Oh that is true. I think the context of my post was in the last fifty years or so. If I wasn't clear, that's what I was referring to.

That is perhaps a convenient afterthought. Very few, I think, would deny that the US has been a force for good in the world, possibly the most benevolent of empires, although an empire nonetheless and therefore given to the same self-serving use of force, but currently is there any doubt that the US is the chief practicioner of eco-murder or if you prefer eco-suicide?

And yes, the US is the subject of a lot of hostile envy, but those Americans who talk about it as the greatest nation on the face of the earth only irritate the hell out of many.

[Erichtho]

And I must beg to disagree. Of course the primary source is always to be preferred... but then this would surely limit us to being able to "judge"... in other words form an opinion... on but that small part of art with which we have an absolute mastery of the primary source. I would not even be permitted to offer judgment upon Chaucer, for surely he employs a goodly degree or archaisms that I would not be fluent in without access to footnotes. [...]

First - and maybe I just misunderstand the word, then please correct me - judging and forming an opinion is not quite the same for me. E.g. I own a collection of Rumi's poetry (a translation) - I can form an opinion about that, as in after reading it I am acquainted with the topics he writes about, together with the annotations of the translator I'm pointed to certain ambiguities in his work and get a sense of the rhyme schemes he employs, so after all I have a vague idea of what reading the original could be like. But I cannot judge it, saying: he writes better than Hafez, this poem is better than this one etc.

Absolute mastery of the primary source is an ideal that probably cannot be archieved, because it would not only mean to understand a text, but also to be aware of the sociological, political, historical, biographical context, to know all the influences that led to its creation. If you read a work of modern American literature, preferably by someone who has more or less the same background that you have - even then you don't have absolute mastery, although you are certainly much closer to it than by reading Chaucer.

Concerning your comparison with music: I disagree with it. I would compare listening to the same musical piece played by different performers under different cundoctors to listening to the recitation of a poem by different persons. The notes, the text is still the same, but tempi, intonations, stresses differ. If we read a translation the words aren't the same, the melody has changed, to say so. It's not the same work anymore.

[Virgil]

Enlighten me. Or can't you think of anything either?

Like your crapy socialized health care system. But let's not get into politics.


examples?
Thatcher to George H.W. Bush (the first President) after Iraq took over Kuwiat.

"Remember, George, this is no time to go wobbly."
Margaret Thatcher
August 3, 1990
And there are enough rumors around to be somewhat credible that Tony Blair pushed George W. Bush into the current Iraq war. It's probably not accurate. I think it was a comiong together of like minded people.


it isn't. Did you read my post?
I read it and I disagree. ;)


That is perhaps a convenient afterthought. Very few, I think, would deny that the US has been a force for good in the world, possibly the most benevolent of empires, although an empire nonetheless and therefore given to the same self-serving use of force, but currently is there any doubt that the US is the chief practicioner of eco-murder or if you prefer eco-suicide?

No it was an after thought. I know what I meant. Don't put words in my mouth. And what empire? The last time I checked we actually helped at great personal cost rebuild Germany, Italy, and Japan, and South Korea, and now Iraq. What territory did the US absorb as empire? And empires are supposed to have money flowing in from the conquorered, not being sucked out. Anytime I hear some dribble about an American empire I automatically think what what sillyness, to put it mildly.


And yes, the US is the subject of a lot of hostile envy, but those Americans who talk about it as the greatest nation on the face of the earth only irritate the hell out of many.
We're a proud people. I expect every country to consider themselves the greatest nation. What can I tell you if someone looks at themselves as inferior.

[TheFifthElement]

Like your crapy socialized health care system. But let's not get into politics.

Well, you might think it's crappy, but the World Health Organisation still ranks it as better than yours! In fact all the 'Western European' countries fair better than the US. See link as follows : http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

and that wasn't answering the question.


Thatcher to George H.W. Bush (the first President) after Iraq took over Kuwiat.

And there are enough rumors around to be somewhat credible that Tony Blair pushed George W. Bush into the current Iraq war. It's probably not accurate. I think it was a comiong together of like minded people.
Well, the first one I'd accept, Maggie was a warmonger, but the second, I'm not too sure.



I read it and I disagree. ;)
Perhaps you could elaborate. Sometimes you can be rather vague. What do you mean by 'erosion', explain, what exactly is being eroded?

[PrinceMyshkin]

No it was an after thought. I know what I meant. Don't put words in my mouth. And what empire? The last time I checked we actually helped at great personal cost rebuild Germany, Italy, and Japan, and South Korea, and now Iraq. What territory did the US absorb as empire? And empires are supposed to have money flowing in from the conquorered, not being sucked out. Anytime I hear some dribble about an American empire I automatically think what what sillyness, to put it mildly.

You're something like a century out of date if you think that the overt occupation of land is any longer the definition of "empire." By some more realistic definition, the US is well on its way to becoming part of the Chinese empire!



We're a proud people. I expect every country to consider themselves the greatest nation.

The latter is a remarkable thought! I am proud to be a Canadian, in particular because in general we Canadians don't have an inflated idea of our place in the world.

[kasie]

England, France, Denmark, the Soviet Union &c. fought alone until the US was attacked at Pearl Harbour...

England, France, Denmark, the Soviet Union... and let's add Holland, Belgium, Poland, etc... Seems like quite a group to be fighting "alone"... all against Germany. So why did they need the US to get the job done?:D

By June 1940, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium and France had been invaded and occupied by National Socialist Germany. It was not until August 1941 that the US agreed to supply Britain with destroyers and the autumn of that year made to the Lease-Lend agreement, though they had instituted Mobilisation at that time, after months of negotiation between the governments, when Britain was standing alone on the Western Front with no hope of any sort of help from the US. It was only after the invasion of Pearl Harbour in December 1941 that US declared war on Japan and as an afterthought on Germany a few days later. Possibly they realised it was no longer in their interests to stand by and watch Europe disintegrate and that the war had come to them, whether they liked it or not. btw, it may have escaped your notice that the US did not 'get the job done' entirely on their own.....

[stlukesguild]

Roosevelt... with his experience as Secretary of the Navy,where he had first befriended Churchill, was certainly for involving the US in the European conflict on the side of the British... but the US Congress and a large portion of the American populace were very isolationist. This is understandable considering the experience of the First World War. The US entry into that conflict proved to be just what was needed to shift the balance enough to defeat the Germans and their allies. Once the war was over, however, it was the allied Western European powers who made all the decisions as to reparations, etc... with a small bone (The League of Nations) thrown to the US. The feeling of many in the US was that we were told "Thank you very much for your assistance (although we didn't really need it) now just run along and play and let us adults has it out. The result, of course, was establishing the gross reparations that set up Germany for the second conflict. Pear Harbor... and the declaration of war upon the US by Germany and the Axis powers... established the pretext for American involvement. Certainly it was not the US alone in this struggle... although the French weren't of much use... capitulating in less time than it took Poland. The Soviet Union took the brunt of the losses... and there are even suggestions that the great delay from American entry in the European conflict to D-Day and the establishment a a two-front war had much to due with Churchill and British strategy for allowing Germany and the Soviet Union (neither of whom were beloved by Churchill) to pummel each other into oblivion. On the other hand... outside of Britain (which of course had its holdings in India and Asia to be concerned with) I don't recall too many European powers rushing to the assistance of the Americans, Australians, Philippines, Chinese, etc... in the Pacific Theater.

[Virgil]

Well, you might think it's crappy, but the World Health Organisation still ranks it as better than yours! In fact all the 'Western European' countries fair better than the US. See link as follows : http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Among the many articles I've seen:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1019/p04s01-woeu.html
and read through the details of this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm
I wonder what the criteria used for that list. I find it hard to believe that Italy has the second best healthcare system in the world. Lord knows I find that impossible to believe. What people confuse with the American system is a coverage issue. Given the way we cover people there are people who go without coverage. But everyone gets medical treatments. I'm not going to get inot the intracies. But the fact remains that people come here for medical procedures, even from Europe. Other than terminally ill patients who are looking for miracle cures, no one from America goes anywhere for procedures. We come up with most of the innovations and pharmeciticals.


and that wasn't answering the question.
Well, you know what is government run in England. All I can tell you is that centralized planning leads to reduced quality over free market forces. Look at the economic changes in UK post Thatcher. And Tony Blair didn't socialize anything. He confirmed her reforms. Actually UK is hardly a socialized country anymore. I've been pushing this tongue in cheek. I think we're getting into politics though.


Well, the first one I'd accept, Maggie was a warmonger, but the second, I'm not too sure.
Oh I went looking for Blair's speeches. There are lots. Here are quotes from a speech prewar: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2765763.stm. But there are recent ones defending and rationalizing it. Why do you think he was appointed envoy to the middle east, because he believes in what's being accomplished.


Perhaps you could elaborate. Sometimes you can be rather vague. What do you mean by 'erosion', explain, what exactly is being eroded?
I'm not a European, and you are; so your judgement is probably more accurate. I concede that. Unless sometimes an outsider sees things that one can't see from the inside. All I can tell you is from my perspective, the free flow of people between European countries has reduced national identities. I have family from Italy that now lives in Belgium and Switzerland. I've heard of Italians retiring to Greece and Spain. There are Germans who retire to Italy. You said English retire (did you say retire or something else?) to France. And the visiting of family back and forth from various countries have synthesized identity. This thing called a European Union has from my perspective created a greater Europe. But I will stand corrected if proven otherwise.



You're something like a century out of date if you think that the overt occupation of land is any longer the definition of "empire." By some more realistic definition, the US is well on its way to becoming part of the Chinese empire!


What kind of pretzel logic is required for this statement? What does it even mean? How redicuous. I would ask for clarification, but I frankly don't care.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Among the many articles I've seen:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1019/p04s01-woeu.html
and read through the details of this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm
I wonder what the criteria used for that list. I find it hard to believe that Italy has the second best healthcare system in the world. Lord knows I find that impossible to believe.

But that is the bottom line of this and of most of your arguments, that you move so readily from I find it hard to believe to I find it impossible to believe... anything that does not fit your ideological preconceptions.

It is not that one needs beware of getting into politics when debating with you but that all politics, in your case, appears to derive from personality!


What people confuse with the American system is a coverage issue. Given the way we cover people there are people who go without coverage. But everyone gets medical treatments. I'm not going to get inot the intracies. But the fact remains that people come here for medical procedures, even from Europe. Other than terminally ill patients who are looking for miracle cures, no one from America goes anywhere for procedures. We come up with most of the innovations and pharmeciticals.

And charge exorbitant prices for each, and forbid companies from importing gar cheaper versions of the same pharmaceuticals from Canada.


Well, you know what is government run in England. All I can tell you is that centralized planning leads to reduced quality over free market forces.

Such as, for instance, US automobiles versus those from Japan? About which Americans have been voting with their pocketbooks.



I'm not a European, and you are; so your judgement is probably more accurate. I concede that. Unless sometimes an outsider sees things that one can't see from the inside.

Bravo! As virtually all the world sees about the US which US citizens seem blind to!



What kind of pretzel logic is required for this statement? What does it even mean? How redicuous. I would ask for clarification, but I frankly don't care.

What it means, Virgil, is that one need not actually occupy a country to control its economy and to subject it to domestic (i.e., corporate) advantage.

I think the line you were reaching for is "Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn!" Oh, how that wounds me!

[Virgil]

But that is the bottom line of this and of most of your arguments, that you move so readily from I find it hard to believe to I find it impossible to believe... anything that does not fit your ideological preconceptions.

Have you been to Italy? I was born in Italy and have most of my family in Italy. I was actually ill on one of my visits to Italy and had to see a doctor. I will say it again: I find it incredible to believe that Italy has the second best health care system in the world.


It is not that one needs beware of getting into politics when debating with you but that all politics, in your case, appears to derive from personality!
Then do me a favor, ignore me. I really don't care what you think of me, my country, my politics, or my personality. Frankly there are plenty of people on this forum who actually - shock of shocks - who actually like my personality. :)


And charge exorbitant prices for each, and forbid companies from importing gar cheaper versions of the same pharmaceuticals from Canada.
Yeah I agree that's pretty stupid. We should be charging the rest of the world what we pay. For some reason the pharmeceticals seems to think we can afford it and other nations can't. American generosity seems boundless.


Such as, for instance, US automobiles versus those from Japan? About which Americans have been voting with their pocketbooks.
Oh last time I checked the car industry in Japan was not socialized. What are you taqlking about? There is a free market between Honda, Toyota, Mistsubishi, and perhaps others. It's a credit to American economics that we allow free markets to choose from and not shelter our industry and so we are not limited to our poor cars. It makes the Unions cry, but too bad.


What it means, Virgil, is that one need not actually occupy a country to control its economy and to subject it to domestic (i.e., corporate) advantage.
Which countries could that be??? Canada? UK? Some of the countries we have "conquored," Germany? Japan? Italy? The countries that allow our coprorations find it in their interest to keep American industry there supplying jobs. Just like we got BMW plants and Honda and Toyota plants here. Ask Indians (from India) if they're opening up to our corporations has helped their economy? You talk about me being political. You've got to get you head out of the rear ends of left wing ideologues. You should learn real economics, not the cliched crap you spout.


You frankly don't care? Oh, how that wounds me!
:lol: No I don't.

[Jozanny]

Stop sniping please, the discussion is becoming unpleasant and moving well beyond the bell curve.

[Virgil]

Stop sniping please, the discussion is becoming unpleasant and moving well beyond the bell curve.

You're right Jozy. I was having a nice discussion until I was attacked.

[Scheherazade]

Since this thread does not serve its original purpose anymore, it will now be closed.

If anyone would like to discuss the issue of how we limit our reading choices,
they can do so by starting a new thread on this particular issue.