american lit

[americanlit]

Hi, just wondering if anyone knows where to find Gravity's Rainbow and The Bell by Sylvia Plath online. Also, do you recomend these novels? What are some of your favorite post WWWII novels/ short stories? thanks

[JBI]

Www.amazon.com Try there.

[Dr. Hill]

I really dislike 20th century American Literature. It's all about adventure and finding yourself, which I've always viewed as trite. Eh. To each his own.

[JBI]

As apposed to 19th century American literature which was about...?

[kelby_lake]

I really dislike 20th century American Literature. It's all about adventure and finding yourself, which I've always viewed as trite. Eh. To each his own.

I love it! Maybe you're reading the wrong stuff.

[Dr. Hill]

The only American literature I enjoy is American Romanticism from authors such as Hawthorne and Melville. Kerouac, JD Salinger, Steinbeck, Fitzgerald; I can do without them. It's not awful, but it isn't anything that catches my attention.

[JBI]

What about Wallace Stevens? T. S. Eliot? Willa Cather?

[Dr. Hill]

T.S. Eliot, sure. Willa Cather, absolutely not. I've never read Wallace Stevens.

I do like T.S. Eliot, particularly "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"

[Etienne]

One thing I've noticed, is that Dos Passos doesn't seem to be discussed much in these forums, I can't remember even having seen his name mentioned... why is that so?

[Virgil]

One thing I've noticed, is that Dos Passos doesn't seem to be discussed much in these forums, I can't remember even having seen his name mentioned... why is that so?

In all my college endeavor, both undrergrad and grad school, I've never had to read Dos Passos in any class. I don't think he's pushed much in the University. I've still never read him.

[Dr. Hill]

Nor have I.

[Cookie Monster]

I really dislike 20th century American Literature. It's all about adventure and finding yourself, which I've always viewed as trite. Eh. To each his own.

This, it seems to me, is a very myopic statement, entitled to this opinion as you are. 20th Century American Literature cannot be summed up in a single sentence or in a simple phrase. I think that by simply listing the names of authors so different from one another yet all American - Thomas Pynchon, Saul Bellow, Raymond Carver, Junot Diaz, Toni Morrison, Willa Cather - I am discrediting your statement.

For a more nuanced and learned introduction to American literature, I recommend From Puritanism to Postmodernism by Malcom Bradbury.

[Dr. Hill]

Oh my, one is entitled to his opinion, sir. No need to attempt to shoot it down, especially considering all tastes are naught but opinions in the first place.

And to call my opinion uneducated is a bit of an assumption, no? This considering I have taken several American Literature classes and am going on to teach English. I concede that not ALL American literature is as described, though, in my opinion, the authors you've listed do not astonish either, for different reasons.

[spearmint]

I've heard Gravity's Rainbow is a must read but I haven't got around to it. I have it saved on this hard drive but probably won't be reading it here.

The Bell Jar I do not recommend. Depressing, slow, dry. There were a few memorable scenes, though.

[JBI]

Well, to play the devils advocate, you haven't read Wallace Stevens. He's like the central figure of 20th century poetry - though some would say Eliot.

[quasimodo1]

http://www.sylviaplath.de/ Site doesn't have the complete text of "The Bell Jar" [also http://www.sylviaplathforum.com/plath-sites.html ]

[mayneverhave]

Hi, just wondering if anyone knows where to find Gravity's Rainbow and The Bell by Sylvia Plath online. Also, do you recomend these novels? What are some of your favorite post WWWII novels/ short stories? thanks

I will suggest what I am most familiar with.

Hemingway wrote novels dealing with the war directly (A Farewell to Arms) and the interwar period and lost generation (The Sun Also Rises). I am not familiar with For Whom the Bell Tolls, as of yet, so I could not say.

As for the discussion of 20th century American literature as a whole, there is certainly as much literary merit in the States as anywhere else (except perhaps Ireland).

Outside of Fitzgerald and Steinbeck (the latter I find dreadful), there is Hemingway, Faulkner, Wallace Stevens, Ezra Pound, W.H. Auden, T.S. Eliot, and others outside of the early 20th century that I'm unfamiliar with.

Simply for the fact that Faulkner, Pound, and Eliot were Americans makes worthwhile 20th century American Literature. Of course, ignore the fact that the two poets left the country never to return.

EDIT: I misread the original post. You asked for WWII. This I cannot help you with.

[chasestalling]

The only American literature I enjoy is American Romanticism from authors such as Hawthorne and Melville. Kerouac, JD Salinger, Steinbeck, Fitzgerald; I can do without them. It's not awful, but it isn't anything that catches my attention.

hawthorne and melville aren't unassailable. melville's pierre is full of the pretentious bombast that hawthorne himself couldn't stand; and hawthorne's marble faun is yet another variation of a tired old theme, guilt.

post ww2 american literature which can stand up to any include john cheever's short stories and the latter half of john updike's rabbit tetralogy.

[Emil Miller]

The only American literature I enjoy is American Romanticism from authors such as Hawthorne and Melville. Kerouac, JD Salinger, Steinbeck, Fitzgerald; I can do without them. It's not awful, but it isn't anything that catches my attention.

I cannot agree with your comment on American literature but I would say that there has been a dirth of great writing both in the USA and Europe since WW11; I cannot speak for other parts of the world as I have not studied them but it is likely that a similar situation applies.
Much of the writing that has achieved recognition since WW11 is as a result of clever marketing; a case in point being `Catch-22` a mildly, but self- consciously, funny book about the folly of war. It is this `Hey! Look how clever I am ` quality that denies so many post-war writers any claim to importance.
The American authors you have mentioned favourably did not need this form of self-advertisement in their writing and neither, I would contend, did Hemingway, Scott Fitzgerald, Steinbeck etc. etc. The difference in their style was partly occasioned by the disruption of WW1 on the arts per se but I would submit that they are not inferior to their predecessors.
However, the hallmark of post WW11 writing , as with the arts in general, is a lack of profundity that relegates much of it to the superficial. Obviously, I am not referring only to the `best sellers` but writing in general.
Perhaps this post will engender a negative response from those who identify with the post-war period more readily than I do and names such as Roth, Bellow, Rushdie, Amis, Grass, Boll etc.etc.will be mentioned, but I suggest that they only go to underline my theory.
If that is not the case, a glance at the writers most frequently mentioned within this forum will.

[kelby_lake]

I really dislike 20th century American Literature. It's all about adventure and finding yourself, which I've always viewed as trite. Eh. To each his own.

American 20th century drama is pretty good.

A lot of modern classics were written by Americans. Don't like Lolita? The Great Gatsby? Of Mice and Men? To Kill A Mockingbird?

[Dr. Hill]

Lolita was written by Vladimir Nabokov, a Russian, and The Great Gatsby was mediocre. Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird were not awful, though I can't claim impressed.

[JBI]

Wallace Stevens is, with Faulkner, the great of American 20th century literature. Since you haven't read Stevens, I don't know how you can comment on American literature, as it is essentially impossible to read second-half century American poetry with a good understanding without reading Stevens, and his contemporary William Carlos Williams.

[Dr. Hill]

I've said nothing negative of the poetry. I adore T.S. Eliot. I think the 20th century American novel is overrated, and overdone in Lit classes, thus I may tire of it and in this may lie my only distaste for the school of Literature. I do not hate it, mind you, I merely see it as mediocre.

[JBI]

You said American literature - so poetry isn't literature anymore?

[Dr. Hill]

But I had specified in reply to your inquiry that I enjoyed T.S. Eliot and the like. I admit to a sweeping generalization in my first comment, but I do not retract the statement entirely, merely do I add exemptions to its jurisdiction. Few exemptions, that do not damage the integrity of my aforementioned opinion on 20th century (especially post World War II, as this topic is centered upon) American literature. I find the majority of it-- and here lies the distinction between a human, who would generalize without thinking that there may perhaps be one or two poets enjoyable, lies-- to be rather uninteresting. This is opinion, and cannot rightly be opposed by more opinion, as that is in contrast to the very definition of "opinion". To my opinion-- which, to be clear, (and now amended) states that "most 20th century American literature-- especially that after World War II, and excluding a few poets such as T.S. Eliot, and a few novelists such as Kurt Vonnegut-- does not particularly (note, not fill me with horrid resentment and abomination) interest me to the point in which I would actively pursue the consumption thereof."

Specification seems my only savior.

[JBI]

The second world war ended in 45, and quite frankly the individual betterment mythos seems more a product of the first half, though you haven't read Stevens, so how could you possibly hope to understand 20th century American literature.

[Dr. Hill]

I don't see how the consumption of works by one poet can encompass all of a school of literature, though I take your word seriously and will study Stevens before drawing any further conclusion. I thank you for your vigorous suggestions.

[Emil Miller]

I don't see how the consumption of works by one poet can encompass all of a school of literature, though I take your word seriously and will study Stevens before drawing any further conclusion. I thank you for your vigorous suggestions.

Whilst I am reluctant to take sides with anyone who could describe The Great Gatsby as mediocre, I have to agree with your comment here.
I happen to think that Gatsby is one of the greatest novels ever written but, considering the wide range of American literature, I would hesitate to suggest that it is essential to an understanding of the whole.

[JBI]

You forget that a) there is more to literature than novels, and b) even novelists know this, and many of them read poetry extensively.

Not having read the central poet, and commenting on the whole, is like talking about Southern Gothic without having read Faulkner.

But yeah, I guess since it's not a novel it doesn't count - yeah right, good luck then.

Either way though, the second half of the twentieth century in American literature doesn't seem to be about the betterment of the individual as you suggest, but more about the failure of the individual.

But then again, you haven't read Stevens, so who knows what other giants you haven't read.

One genre, novels, isn't literature, and isn't enough to understand a time period, even if you are only talking about novels.

[PabloQ]

I've read Gravity's Rainbow twice and I can't tell you much about it except the first line:
A screaming came across the sky.
The name of its main character:
Tyrone Slothrop
I know that it's nihilistic and absurd. I also know that I didn't get the jokes or the point. I have it on the shelf and I'll probably read it again, but Pynchon writes from a place that I don't quite get. But he's like a car wreck, you can't look away.
Other post-WW2 writers/works I'd recommend are Vonnegut (Cat's Cradle and Slaughterhous-Five), Barthelme, Cheever, and Barth (try Giles Goat-Boy).
Never read The Bell Jar. Probably won't.

[Emil Miller]

You forget that a) there is more to literature than novels, and b) even novelists know this, and many of them read poetry extensively.

Not having read the central poet, and commenting on the whole, is like talking about Southern Gothic without having read Faulkner.

But yeah, I guess since it's not a novel it doesn't count - yeah right, good luck then.

Either way though, the second half of the twentieth century in American literature doesn't seem to be about the betterment of the individual as you suggest, but more about the failure of the individual.

But then again, you haven't read Stevens, so who knows what other giants you haven't read.

One genre, novels, isn't literature, and isn't enough to understand a time period, even if you are only talking about novels.

It would be impossible to dispute that poetry is not literature but, notwithstanding the fact that some authors have also written poetry, the reading public are largely concerned with novels. If that were not so, there would be as many books on poetry as there are novels in the average bookstore. I don't doubt that poetry can open up insightful perspectives in a way that novels cannot, but they are two different disciplines and if someone prefers novels as a way of seeing the world, that is what they will read.
I dont think I said that post-WW11 American writing is about the betterment of the individual, but I agree with you that it's more about the failure of the individual.

[chasestalling]

I cannot agree with your comment on American literature but I would say that there has been a dirth of great writing both in the USA and Europe since WW11; I cannot speak for other parts of the world as I have not studied them but it is likely that a similar situation applies.
Much of the writing that has achieved recognition since WW11 is as a result of clever marketing; a case in point being `Catch-22` a mildly, but self- consciously, funny book about the folly of war. It is this `Hey! Look how clever I am ` quality that denies so many post-war writers any claim to importance.
The American authors you have mentioned favourably did not need this form of self-advertisement in their writing and neither, I would contend, did Hemingway, Scott Fitzgerald, Steinbeck etc. etc. The difference in their style was partly occasioned by the disruption of WW1 on the arts per se but I would submit that they are not inferior to their predecessors.
However, the hallmark of post WW11 writing , as with the arts in general, is a lack of profundity that relegates much of it to the superficial. Obviously, I am not referring only to the `best sellers` but writing in general.
Perhaps this post will engender a negative response from those who identify with the post-war period more readily than I do and names such as Roth, Bellow, Rushdie, Amis, Grass, Boll etc.etc.will be mentioned, but I suggest that they only go to underline my theory.
If that is not the case, a glance at the writers most frequently mentioned within this forum will.

there's some validity to the notion that affluence is anathema to great literature, the premise being that great literature is synonymous to great subject matter, and that comfortable middle to upper middle class lives are hardly the stuff to inspire awe and wonder.

i wouldn't be so cynical to think, however, that acclaimed post ww2 american literature is due to slick advertisement, nor naive enough to think that publishers of melville, hawthorne, hemingway and scott fitzgerald were above exaggerations and embellishments. furthermore i wouldn't classify fitzgerald's stories about young, idle and rich americans squandering their wealth and making *** of themselves in europe and elsewhere exactly thought provoking.

[JBI]

Oh yeah, so we should ignore the poetic tradition - it has had no effect on American letters...

Seriously that's closed minded. You'd be surprised how many people are effected by Wallace Stevens, how many wannabe poets scribbling crummy lyrics are so enveloped by him without even knowing. Just go to the Personal Poetry board - it wreaks of Stevens.

[kelby_lake]

Lolita was written by Vladimir Nabokov, a Russian, and The Great Gatsby was mediocre. Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird were not awful, though I can't claim impressed.

Fair enough for the first one :)
To Kill A Mockingbird was actually mediocre, I just put that on because some people like it.
The Great Gatsby was not mediocre. You may have not liked it, but how can you dismiss this as 'mediocre'?:
And as I sat there, brooding on the old, unknown world, I thought of Gatsby's wonder when he first picked out Daisy's light at the end of his dock. He had come such a long way to this blue lawn, and his dream must have seemed so close he could hardly fail to grasp it. But what he did not know was that it was already behind him, somewhere in the vast obscurity beyond the city, where the dark fields of the republic rolled on under the night. Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter — tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther... And one fine morning ——

[Emil Miller]

I've read Gravity's Rainbow twice and I can't tell you much about it except the first line:
A screaming came across the sky.
The name of its main character:
Tyrone Slothrop
I know that it's nihilistic and absurd. I also know that I didn't get the jokes or the point. I have it on the shelf and I'll probably read it again, but Pynchon writes from a place that I don't quite get. But he's like a car wreck, you can't look away.
Other post-WW2 writers/works I'd recommend are Vonnegut (Cat's Cradle and Slaughterhous-Five), Barthelme, Cheever, and Barth (try Giles Goat-Boy).
Never read The Bell Jar. Probably won't.

I find it thought provoking that all of the books you have on your pending list are pre WW11. We can't know for certain but we can be reasonably sure that few, if any, of the post WW11 writers you have recommended will still be in demand some 80 years after they were written.
Incidentally, I know from previous posts that you have read McTeague and The Octopus by Frank Norris as part of your tour of American writers. I don't know if you have read The Pit but it is the culmination of his work; being the last book he wrote before he died at the age of thirty-two. He never lived to write The Wolf; the last in his projected trilogy. I would so liked to have read it. His death is a real American tragedy.

[Emil Miller]

Fair enough for the first one :)
To Kill A Mockingbird was actually mediocre, I just put that on because some people like it.
The Great Gatsby was not mediocre. You may have not liked it, but how can you dismiss this as 'mediocre'?:
And as I sat there, brooding on the old, unknown world, I thought of Gatsby's wonder when he first picked out Daisy's light at the end of his dock. He had come such a long way to this blue lawn, and his dream must have seemed so close he could hardly fail to grasp it. But what he did not know was that it was already behind him, somewhere in the vast obscurity beyond the city, where the dark fields of the republic rolled on under the night. Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter — tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther... And one fine morning ——


Yes, it's wonderful writing and one can only feel sorry for those who are unable to see it.

[Emil Miller]

Oh yeah, so we should ignore the poetic tradition - it has had no effect on American letters...

Seriously that's closed minded. You'd be surprised how many people are effected by Wallace Stevens, how many wannabe poets scribbling crummy lyrics are so enveloped by him without even knowing. Just go to the Personal Poetry board - it wreaks of Stevens.

Why are you trying to put words into my mouth? I haven't suggested or implied that poetry isnt integral to American letters and I don't deny that there are many people who find poetry wonderfully inspiring. There are plenty of contributers to this forum who participate in both.

[Emil Miller]

there's some validity to the notion that affluence is anathema to great literature, the premise being that great literature is synonymous to great subject matter, and that comfortable middle to upper middle class lives are hardly the stuff to inspire awe and wonder.

i wouldn't be so cynical to think, however, that acclaimed post ww2 american literature is due to slick advertisement, nor naive enough to think that publishers of melville, hawthorne, hemingway and scott fitzgerald were above exaggerations and embellishments. furthermore i wouldn't classify fitzgerald's stories about young, idle and rich americans squandering their wealth and making *** of themselves in europe and elsewhere exactly thought provoking.

Where have I said that affluence is anathema to great literature? And why are comfortable middle/upper class lives unable to inspire great writing?
There is plenty of evidence to the contrary; Jane Austen and John Galsworthy are but two examples. One of the greatest German novels ever written is Buddenbrooks by Thomas Mann and is in similar vein.
You may think I am being cynical with regard to the hype that surrounds so much post WW11 writing and naive about pre-war publishers but it is hardly possible for someone to a cynic and a naif at one and the same time.
As for Fitzgerald's stories about wealthy young americans swanning around Europe and elsewhere, it's in the writing that they become interesting.

[PabloQ]

I find it thought provoking that all of the books you have on your pending list are pre WW11. We can't know for certain but we can be reasonably sure that few, if any, of the post WW11 writers you have recommended will still be in demand some 80 years after they were written.
Incidentally, I know from previous posts that you have read McTeague and The Octopus by Frank Norris as part of your tour of American writers. I don't know if you have read The Pit but it is the culmination of his work; being the last book he wrote before he died at the age of thirty-two. He never lived to write The Wolf; the last in his projected trilogy. I would so liked to have read it. His death is a real American tragedy.

The primary purpose of my post was to respond to the original post in the thread. I quite agree that only time will tell if any of the authors I recommended will stand the test of time. I suspect Vonnegut's got a better chance than Pynchon does because Kurt's easier to understand. Pynchon though is clearly the better artist. He labors over the words whether the reader appreciates it or not. I still remember looking for missing pages at the end of The Crying of Lot 49. That one's right there on the reread list as well.

I was trying to give the original poster some other as yet unmentioned post-WW2 novelists to consider. More come to mind -- Mailer, Malamud, Bellow. All we know is that in their time, these authors have held critical acclaim, which gives them a better chance of survival over 80 years than selling a gazillion books about teenage wizards (sorry JBI, couldn't resist:brow:). I think some will be taught in high schools and colleges and others will fade away.

Which brings me to Norris. He's the best naturalist I've read thus far. The Pit is on the shelf in the post Dos Passos morass. I'm very much looking forward to it. But first, I've lined up America's 20th century giants for some samples -- Hemingway, Steinbeck, and Faulkner. I've read them before, but when I was younger and much less appreciative. Reading them on the heals of Fitzgerald and Dos Passos (not to mention Norris, Howells, Crane, and James) should give me enough background on this segment of American Literature (novel division) to post a few opinions.

p.s. I know Rowling is Scottish. Not the point.

[JBI]

Why are you trying to put words into my mouth? I haven't suggested or implied that poetry isnt integral to American letters and I don't deny that there are many people who find poetry wonderfully inspiring. There are plenty of contributers to this forum who participate in both.

Plenty is quite a hyperbolic word. I would ballpark at 10 - give or take, unless participate means post once.

[mayneverhave]

Why are you trying to put words into my mouth? I haven't suggested or implied that poetry isnt integral to American letters and I don't deny that there are many people who find poetry wonderfully inspiring. There are plenty of contributers to this forum who participate in both.

As regards your last statement there, the majority of people who would be reading any of the 20th Century American novels with any seriousness (I mean this in a literary way, if catch my drift), would undoubtedly read poetry as well and not just stick to the genre of novels.

Indeed, when I first began reading novels when I was younger (slightly younger - I'm not too old even now), I quickly realized that if I was to understand anything about literature during any time period, I would have to read a ton of poetry. At first this seemed a chore, but my mind has obviously changed since then.

[chasestalling]

"hey, look how clever i am," [a] quality that denies so many post war writers any claim to importance....you're asserting that the great majority of post ww2 writers who have achieved some sort of acclaim have earned their acclaim not on literary merit but clever marketing. that's a lot of books and writers you're throwing under the bus. and if you know you can do better, the more power to you.

[Emil Miller]

Plenty is quite a hyperbolic word. I would ballpark at 10 - give or take, unless participate means post once.

There are a good many more than ten contributors to the Poems, Poets and Poetry Forum and the very latest is a thread on Wallace Stevens.
You might care to check it out.

[Dr. Hill]

EDIT: Ah, I hadn't realized the discussion continued much further without me.

I think the most modern American poet I take quite a liking to is Charles Bukowski. Granted, his literature is much less serious than that of most, but I find it entertaining nonetheless.

[Emil Miller]

"hey, look how clever i am," [a] quality that denies so many post war writers any claim to importance....you're asserting that the great majority of post ww2 writers who have achieved some sort of acclaim have earned their acclaim not on literary merit but clever marketing. that's a lot of books and writers you're throwing under the bus. and if you know you can do better, the more power to you.

I'm afraid that hype characterises much of the post WW11 writing scene; here's what I felt obliged to reply another member who complained about the obsession with Harry Potter.

The reason why "everyone is so obsessed over it" is because they are too gullible to see that they are being used.
In a world where the lowest common denominator has become the touchstone for excellence it is hardly surprising that so much juvenilia fills the bookstores.
Obviously, there are some childrens' books that might be considered as literature but they were written before the advent of mass marketing and the band-wagon syndrome that has reduced publishing to an outlet for whatever people can be gulled into buying.

I'm old enough to know that this scenario has prevailed for some time.

[Emil Miller]

As regards your last statement there, the majority of people who would be reading any of the 20th Century American novels with any seriousness (I mean this in a literary way, if catch my drift), would undoubtedly read poetry as well and not just stick to the genre of novels.

Indeed, when I first began reading novels when I was younger (slightly younger - I'm not too old even now), I quickly realized that if I was to understand anything about literature during any time period, I would have to read a ton of poetry. At first this seemed a chore, but my mind has obviously changed since then.

Well, I don't disagree that a reading of poetry might help some people to appreciate reading novels in a literary way but I wouldn't say it was essential.
It would depend on the person. If they were studying for a degree in literature it most cerftainly would help, but outside of the academic sphere, which is where the majority of readers reside, I think an intelligent reader would be able to appreciate the finer points of writing were they to spend a number of years being selective and systematic in what they read.

[JBI]

There are a good many more than ten contributors to the Poems, Poets and Poetry Forum and the very latest is a thread on Wallace Stevens.
You might care to check it out.

Yes, and you would note besides the few posts by other people, that thread is essentially a one-man show of Quasimodo.

The threads themselves get less posts in general than threads here, and by fewer members. The board itself has only a few names that seem to pop up commonly. Trust me, I post there, I've seen it. There have even been threads about the subject of lack of activity on the board.

This isn't to poke and Dr. Hill, who, though zealous, is still quite young (I too, am quite young for that matter) and perhaps hasn't had the exposure some of us have had, but in truth comments like that can only be made after a long lapse into the study of a tradition are undertaken. It is difficult, because it requires immense amounts of reading, in all literary forms, non-fiction included, but in order to really make those comments, you need to be a super-critic. The whole twentieth century isn't even one area of study, it's really two, and that is just American.

I think though, that the range of American twentieth century literature, in terms of prose and poetry is immense. Such a statement, equating literature to a thematic construct is dangerous. It works in principle - the bettering yourself theme is a popular one, but in terms of range, there is a big difference between Hemingway, or Faulkner, or Willa Cather, or F. Scott Fitzgerald, and from William Carlos Williams, Wallace Stevens, Hart Crane, Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, or Robert Frost, and that is just the first half, and only a few names.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=JBI;642898]Yes, and you would note besides the few posts by other people, that thread is essentially a one-man show of Quasimodo.

The threads themselves get less posts in general than threads here, and by fewer members. The board itself has only a few names that seem to pop up commonly. Trust me, I post there, I've seen it. There have even been threads about the subject of lack of activity on the board.

This isn't to poke and Dr. Hill, who, though zealous, is still quite young (I too, am quite young for that matter) and perhaps hasn't had the exposure some of us have had, but in truth comments like that can only be made after a long lapse into the study of a tradition are undertaken. It is difficult, because it requires immense amounts of reading, in all literary forms, non-fiction included, but in order to really make those comments, you need to be a super-critic. The whole twentieth century isn't even one area of study, it's really two, and that is just American.

Alright, I'm sorry if you feel that poetry isn't sufficiently represented in the forum but I don't see how the situation can be improved.
I have to agree with you that now Dr.Hill has revealed his age in a subsequent post, he is obviously too young to have had the years of reading experience required to seriously comment on literature; American or otherwise.
In the case of Gatsby, however, 17 ought not be a bar to its appreciation, I also was that age when I first read it and was totally bowled over; and have been ever since.
However, one thing in his favour is his realisation that a story such as Twighlight isn't worth botherering with when there is so much writing that is.
Obviously I haven't read it, I don't have to, because the moment I see the word 'vampire' I know it is just another of the countless, and usually childish, rip-offs from Dracula. and underlines what I have said previously about the hype that has dogged publishing in the post-war period.

[PabloQ]

Maybe we can take this thread a different direction and I can spin a new one if we need it, but what make American Literature American? Regardless of discipline (novel, poem, short story, essay or drama), what make a work American? Is it simply that the author is born in or resides in the US? Latin American and Canadian writers are already spun off into seperate classifications.
Are we talking about the contributions to all literature written by Amercans or is there a subset (one or more) of all literature that is uniquely American in its voice, its style, or in some other way? It's an interesting question and becomes even more so when we start talking about expats like Eliot and others.
What do you think? Discuss it here or spin a new one?

[kelby_lake]

there's some validity to the notion that affluence is anathema to great literature, the premise being that great literature is synonymous to great subject matter, and that comfortable middle to upper middle class lives are hardly the stuff to inspire awe and wonder.


It is the destruction of those high/middle echelons that is so fascinating. When you're sitting on a street, it's not that far to fall to the ground, but what if you're standing on a high tower which you're desperately trying to rebuild as it slowly crumbles?

Middle classes rely so much on keeping a respectable place in society. They don't want to become yobs and 'scum'. So they try and hide their problems, meaning that they boil up and then explode.

[Emil Miller]

Maybe we can take this thread a different direction and I can spin a new one if we need it, but what make American Literature American? Regardless of discipline (novel, poem, short story, essay or drama), what make a work American? Is it simply that the author is born in or resides in the US? Latin American and Canadian writers are already spun off into seperate classifications.
Are we talking about the contributions to all literature written by Amercans or is there a subset (one or more) of all literature that is uniquely American in its voice, its style, or in some other way? It's an interesting question and becomes even more so when we start talking about expats like Eliot and others.
What do you think? Discuss it here or spin a new one?

This isn't easy to answer because of the reasons you have already given but ultimately I suppose it would come down to nationality. Lets take T.S.Eliot, who lived for so long in in England and is buried in the small English village of East Coker from where his ancestors originated, as an example.
Despite his having taken British nationality, I dont think anyone would describe Eliot as anything other than an American poet; so perhaps birthplace also plays a part in this.
Another example would be Henry James who lived mostly in Europe and also took British nationality shortly before he died. He is still classed as an American writer and nobody, as far as I know, disputes it.
But what does one do about Joseph Conrad? He was born in Europe of polish parents but is accaimed as British writer. So how far does the American analogy hold up?
There a number of examples of cosmopolitan writers from the US; Hemingway, Fitzgerald etc. who, unlike James, are distinctley American in their writing even when writing about the foreign countries they lived in.
By that I mean that James writes like an Englishman, whereas the others view the Old World from a New World standpoint.
Take Somerset Maugham: he was born in France, but due to the technicality of having been born in the British Embassy in Paris, the birth was deemed to have taken place on Briitish soil, and although he subsequently spent most of his life in France, he is a British writer.
So viewed from an international level,nationality alone doesn't seem to confer a distinctive American voice on those writers born in the US so, perhaps, birthplace is the most convenient yardstick to use.

[PabloQ]

This isn't easy to answer because of the reasons you have already given but ultimately I suppose it would come down to nationality. Lets take T.S.Eliot, who lived for so long in in England and is buried in the small English village of East Coker from where his ancestors originated, as an example.
Despite his having taken British nationality, I dont think anyone would describe Eliot as anything other than an American poet; so perhaps birthplace also plays a part in this.
Another example would be Henry James who lived mostly in Europe and also took British nationality shortly before he died. He is still classed as an American writer and nobody, as far as I know, disputes it.

I don't know enough about Eliot to comment too far on him. I just hold him responsible for that damn "Cats" musical.
It's interesting that you start with James. I've read several of his later novels and I don't find anything particularly American about them. I really felt that I was reading a European novel (Portrait, Wings of the Dove, and the Ambassadors). For the most part. James ignores the US altogether and distances the plot and its characters from it even though the characters may have come from there. So I put James in the classification of an American writer (by birth) who contributed to literature as a whole, but not with works that were uniquely American in nature.
Mark Twain, on the other hand, is a truly American author. His voice, his subject matter, his dialectic writing is uniquely American. Huckleberry Finn doesn't work on the Danube or the Seine or the Thames. Other 19th century novelists that qualify are Hawthorne, Melville, and (God help us all) Fennimore Cooper. Moving into the 20th century, Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis, Crane, Steinbeck, and Faulkner clearly write on American themes.
For poets, I'd start with Longfellow and Whitman.
So I think there is a subset of all literature that is uniquely American written by Americans. But the point holds as well the other way as with James. I don't know that Hemingway wrote anything particularly American, but he made a significant contribution to literature as a whole. I hope others chime in on the topic.

[mayneverhave]

Hemingway's protagonists are American, and act American, even though they are all set in European countries - just like their creator. Out of his major 3 novels (The Sun Also Rises, A Farewell to Arms, and For Whom the Bell Tolls), all of them feature American protagonists in Europe (mostly for military reasons). Despite this dislocation though, Hemingway's style and proganonists are all very American, while his subject matter (which in The Sun Also Rises deals with supressed emotions, seasonal cycles, and, in theory, the myth of the Fisher King) is more universal than American.

As regards Fitzgerald: I don't know how you could consider the author of the Great Gatsby anything but American.

Eliot, himself, attributed his unique style to his being both American and English - and it is hard to place his work in either tradition.

As for Faulkner - of whom I like best - aside from his focus on the American South and traditional southern values, there is nothing in his style that is specifically American. In his novels we see characters in the tradition of all literary cultures and not just American.

[Virgil]

Hemingway's protagonists are American, and act American, even though they are all set in European countries - just like their creator. Out of his major 3 novels (The Sun Also Rises, A Farewell to Arms, and For Whom the Bell Tolls), all of them feature American protagonists in Europe (mostly for military reasons). Despite this dislocation though, Hemingway's style and proganonists are all very American, while his subject matter (which in The Sun Also Rises deals with supressed emotions, seasonal cycles, and, in theory, the myth of the Fisher King) is more universal than American.

As regards Fitzgerald: I don't know how you could consider the author of the Great Gatsby anything but American.

Eliot, himself, attributed his unique style to his being both American and English - and it is hard to place his work in either tradition.

I pretty much agree with all of the above. I do think the Hemngway themes are more than as you state. The self realization of the central characters strike me as American.


As for Faulkner - of whom I like best - aside from his focus on the American South and traditional southern values, there is nothing in his style that is specifically American. In his novels we see characters in the tradition of all literary cultures and not just American.
Here I strongly disagree. There is a historical context in Faulkner that situates most of his novels in a time and place that is wholey American. The themes of race and the aftermath of the civil war and the characters are completely southern. You can't possibly think they are French or English or Chinese or even from New York. This is more than just a focus. It is inherent.

[mayneverhave]

I pretty much agree with all of the above. I do think the Hemngway themes are more than as you state. The self realization of the central characters strike me as American.

No, of course Hemingway's themes are more complex than how I generalized them. What I meant by saying that thematically Hemingway is not distinctly American is that - at least how I read A Farewell to Arms, and especially The Sun Also Rises - you can interperet his novels as dealing with themes are thatcan be found in The Waste Land. This meaning: the impotence of the major figure, the drying up and death of a previously fertile land, the end of the cycle of seasons and rebirth, etc. This is thematic resemblance to the Waste Land is most apparent in The Sun Also Rises, and by resembling the Waste Land in theme, The Sun Also Rises then resembles the hundreds of other works that deal with the theme of death and rebirth (including Yeats, Vico, Joyce, Stravinsky, etc.) that is not necessarily American, but Universal.

But yes. His characters, in the most obvious ways, are undoubtedly American.


Here I strongly disagree. There is a historical context in Faulkner that situates most of his novels in a time and place that is wholey American. The themes of race and the aftermath of the civil war and the characters are completely southern. You can't possibly think they are French or English or Chinese or even from New York. This is more than just a focus. It is inherent.

What I meant here was intended to be complimentary to Faulkner - the idea that he is not bounded thematically by location. You are correct, Faulkner is a southern writer, his main novels are all set in the south, as are his characters, histories, etc. But as is always the case in great literature, setting is transcended by theme, and therefore Quentin Compson, while a southerner, can be read as continuing the line of tortured, intellectual, introspective protagonists like Hamlet, Ivan Karamazov, etc.

Here is a quote concerning Faulkner by Ralph Ellison:

"For all his concern with the South, Faulkner was actually seeking out the nature of man. Thus we must turn to him for that continuity of moral purpose which made for the greatness of our classics."

I am not sure whether the "our" here refers to American, or world-wide. If this quote sounds familiar it is because it adornes the back cover of every Faulkner novel printed by Vintage.

[JBI]

That Ellison quote is so dated. There is no "nature of man" according to the currents of scholarship, but merely currents of A Man, or some Men. I don't deny Faulkner's genius, but his brilliance isn't in creating moral purposes, but more of destroying and building dark myths and superstitions. If anything he sought to dissect the south, and the results are often haunting, yet he did it very well, so unmistakably brilliant.

[mayneverhave]

That Ellison quote is so dated. There is no "nature of man" according to the currents of scholarship, but merely currents of A Man, or some Men. I don't deny Faulkner's genius, but his brilliance isn't in creating moral purposes, but more of destroying and building dark myths and superstitions. If anything he sought to dissect the south, and the results are often haunting, yet he did it very well, so unmistakably brilliant.

I had a feeling someone would call me on that. I was more interested in the first part of the quote illuminating the idea of Faulkner not being bounded by location. I would agree with you however, in not considering him a moralist.

[americanlit]

thanks for all the replies. i read the bell jar and enjoyed Plath's dry, ironic style, possibly an influence on Joan Didion?

[promtbr]

The following is SO germane to this thread:

http://www.dalkeyarchive.com/catalog/show_comment/240

(I do assume you have heard of him...)

[Virgil]

What I meant here was intended to be complimentary to Faulkner - the idea that he is not bounded thematically by location. You are correct, Faulkner is a southern writer, his main novels are all set in the south, as are his characters, histories, etc. But as is always the case in great literature, setting is transcended by theme, and therefore Quentin Compson, while a southerner, can be read as continuing the line of tortured, intellectual, introspective protagonists like Hamlet, Ivan Karamazov, etc.

Here is a quote concerning Faulkner by Ralph Ellison:

"For all his concern with the South, Faulkner was actually seeking out the nature of man. Thus we must turn to him for that continuity of moral purpose which made for the greatness of our classics."

I am not sure whether the "our" here refers to American, or world-wide. If this quote sounds familiar it is because it adornes the back cover of every Faulkner novel printed by Vintage.

Oh I agree that Faulkner is universal, but you can say every author is universal. You listed Hemingway as American, but he was universal too. No one was probably more American than Mark Twain, but I think he's universal.

[JBI]

No author is "universal". I think one would be hard pressed to explain the relevance of even Shakespeare to the tribes people in Papua New Guinea. He simply wouldn't be relevant in the sense that he is to the Western, and primarily English Speaking World.

[Jozanny]

No author is "universal". I think one would be hard pressed to explain the relevance of even Shakespeare to the tribes people in Papua New Guinea. He simply wouldn't be relevant in the sense that he is to the Western, and primarily English Speaking World.

But human and even higher primate nature has universal attributes, hence our best storytellers touch upon them, whether we're dealing a protagonist of Shakespeare's or Achebe's, or Faulkner's--who was a *regionalist* with universal concerns, to paraphrase my instructor.

[Virgil]

No author is "universal". I think one would be hard pressed to explain the relevance of even Shakespeare to the tribes people in Papua New Guinea. He simply wouldn't be relevant in the sense that he is to the Western, and primarily English Speaking World.


But human and even higher primate nature has universal attributes, hence our best storytellers touch upon them, whether we're dealing a protagonist of Shakespeare's or Achebe's, or Faulkner's--who was a *regionalist* with universal concerns, to paraphrase my instructor.

I agree with jozy, JBI. Of course there are things that are universal. We all are human. Not everything is culturally derived.

[Dr. Hill]

A good bit of Shakespeare was, though its underlying themes are very primal. I think JBI meant that they wouldn't understand the literature; the surroundings of the themes, the story that, to someone unaware of western culture, would be confusing and absurd.

[JBI]

No I mean simply it wouldn't be relevant. Society is so different there than it is here, that the structuring myths that Shakespeare uses and created would be completely alien to them.

Beyond that though, I doubt their languages are able to have Shakespeare translated into them, for lack of diction.

It is the notion that in most dialects of Inuktitut, there are traditionally numerous words for snow, whereas only one real word for flower, (note there are a wide range of flowers that grow in the north). The reason is quite simply snow is more central to the culture, whereas flowers don't really effect their survival.

The concept of a universal is rather limited. Shakespeare may have universal aspects, or Faulkner even (though I think Faulkner less), but as a whole, the works are hardly universal.

I think people need to be careful in thinking that there is some sort of Truth in everything great writers wrote. What makes Shakespeare more truthful, than lets say, Sophocles.

I think style has more to do with the canonical than people allow themselves to admit. Shakespeare was a great stylist. That is simply it. He took what was there before, and presented it in the best way he could. The universal aspects are minimal in relevance compared to his rhetoric, and the language he used.

I think we need to be more careful in what we deem universal. Shakespeare is deeply rooted in the English tradition, whether people decide to admit it or not. Faulkner is firmly put in his Southern United States. There may be universals, if such things exist beyond the basic born aged died commonality, but the universality of these guys is perhaps limited.

Everything is constructed in some frame of reference. That doesn't mean Shakespeare is bad, or not relevant, it simply means his relevance isn't as universal as we seem to think at the moment. The more complex a work gets, I think, the less universal it becomes, unless it becomes absorbed into the majority of cultures.

In that sense, the fable as a genre seems the most universal, as its themes seem to be the most basic.

[Dr. Hill]

That's what I said, in a nutshell. The way he presents it is not universal. The themes of jealousy, greed, lust, vengeance, guilt, suffering, love, longing; these are universal without question.

[JBI]

Are they? and does Faulkner present those in a way somehow "more" universal than the next writer? That is what we must ask ourselves. Those are merely words, the concept of universality is rather ridiculous. The English language itself isn't universal, therefore none of its writers are.

[Dr. Hill]

I don't know if Faulkner is more universal, but I think the fact that all GREAT literature we know of is based around themes that can be called universal (as the literature spans more than the Western world) says SOMETHING about the themes, and the simple truth that we all are humans also plays some part. It isn't definite, but it can be gathered.

[JBI]

No all works of literature are based around language. Language, and the way we understand it makes great literature great.

The concept of the Universal, in the Frye sense seems rather dated. Most universals aren't actually universal, and those that perhaps are, aren't the central focus of the works of literature, or primarily what makes them "good", or "better" than others.

Language is the centre. Even a translation relies on the language of the language it is translated to. Therefore some things cannot work in other languages, such as Shakespeare's Puns.

Finnegans Wake cannot be translated. Does that mean it doesn't have universal elements in it? no, though tell me if you can understand them, for the most part I cannot. But it means it isn't universal, as it is merely language, and thereby constrained by it.

Complex works, and even simple works rely on language. Language isn't universal, the same way until a couple of centuries ago, the act of lighting fire wasn't even universal.

[Tallon]

Nothing is universal, what about aliens? They wouldn't get Shakespeare at all!

[Emil Miller]

The following is SO germane to this thread:

http://www.dalkeyarchive.com/catalog/show_comment/240

(I do assume you have heard of him...)

I agree with the general tenor of the article but, as is often the case with over-erudite dissertations of this nature, the message tends to get lost in the semantics.

[kelby_lake]

No all works of literature are based around language. Language, and the way we understand it makes great literature great.


Sort of agreed. Language is after all how emotions are conveyed.

[Virgil]

The concept of the Universal, in the Frye sense seems rather dated. Most universals aren't actually universal, and those that perhaps are, aren't the central focus of the works of literature, or primarily what makes them "good", or "better" than others.


Dated? How could the notion of universal be dated? Either universality exits or it doesn't. And I believe it does. That's my opinion. It's academics frankly who in an effort to make a name for themselves have formulate new notions out of thin air. If you think there is nothing universal between human beings then you have never sat around a table with people of various ethnicities. Everyone I have ever known and any culture that I have ever explored form human bonds as food is shared.


Language is the centre. Even a translation relies on the language of the language it is translated to. Therefore some things cannot work in other languages, such as Shakespeare's Puns.

Finnegans Wake cannot be translated. Does that mean it doesn't have universal elements in it? no, though tell me if you can understand them, for the most part I cannot. But it means it isn't universal, as it is merely language, and thereby constrained by it.

Complex works, and even simple works rely on language. Language isn't universal, the same way until a couple of centuries ago, the act of lighting fire wasn't even universal.
This is so overly intellectualized JB that it's ridiculous. It's not language that is universal, it's themes and human experience. Language is a medium for expressing themes and human endeavors. Perhaps one culture does not have a large enough vocabulary to translate an experience directly, but to jump to the conclusion that there is no shared commonality does not follow.

One more thing. Anyone that has raised dogs will tell you that there are universal elements to dog's natures. I have. I expect that cats have the same. I expect that all animals have a universality to them. If dogs and cats have universal natures, why wouldn't humans?

[JBI]

Look, Jealousy, Death, Birth, Aging, Love, those may be universal. That doesn't matter, for the commentary on them, which is literature, can never be, because language isn't universal.

Themes may be universal, but books aren't just themes. They are made up of words.

Ask yourself this - if everything in Shakespeare was so universal, what would be the point of Shakespeare? It is the sense that his ideas create newness, or express things better than anyone else in his time period, or perhaps in English in general that has established his reputation. Not his universality, but his style, as these themes you mention, are, as you say, "universal", I.E. they already exist out there, and everywhere.

I don't doubt there are universal things, in the sense that everyone lives and dies. I just doubt that literature is "universal". It's subject matter may be, but the actual text is merely expression.

[Dr. Hill]

Oh, I don't know. Translations have always worked fine to surpass that little language barrier. But I can see what you mean.

[mercymyqueen]

I don't believe anyone's mentioned Emerson. I find him quintessential, even if he is also easily identified with the Romantic movement.

[Virgil]

Look, Jealousy, Death, Birth, Aging, Love, those may be universal. That doesn't matter, for the commentary on them, which is literature, can never be, because language isn't universal.

Themes may be universal, but books aren't just themes. They are made up of words.


I guess then we're saying the same thing. Words are the medium to express. I agree a writer from a distant culture may not get the cultural cues of a work because of a language barrier.


Ask yourself this - if everything in Shakespeare was so universal, what would be the point of Shakespeare?
I didn't say everything was universal.


It is the sense that his ideas create newness, or express things better than anyone else in his time period, or perhaps in English in general that has established his reputation. Not his universality, but his style, as these themes you mention, are, as you say, "universal", I.E. they already exist out there, and everywhere.
If you're trying to say that the difference betwen a great writer and a lesser writer is the ability to use language, then I agree. Lesser writers can think up the most original themes ever imagined, and through the lesser execution makes it a lesser work. But a lesser writer can touch on universal themes too. In fact they do.


I don't doubt there are universal things, in the sense that everyone lives and dies. I just doubt that literature is "universal". It's subject matter may be, but the actual text is merely expression.
Are you saying that some cultures may not appreciate a work of art from another culture in the same way? Perhaps I might agree with that. I think it wold take explaining and filling in the cultural distinctions, but it may be done to some level of appreciation. How many people in western countries love and appreciate African music and sculpture? It takes understanding.

[Dr. Hill]

I really enjoy Emerson, along with Thoreau.

[stlukesguild]

All ART is constructed of a language... whether it be written, visual, musical, kinetic (dance) etc... All language is learned and dependent upon culture. Music is often spoken of a "universal language" (lacking the barriers of language) but is this true? How many can appreciate the music of Chinese opera, Arabic chant, etc... to the point that they can discern that which is better and best? By and large we draw our own conclusions and make our aesthetic judgments from the position of our own culture. As a visual artist I am greatly enamored of Islamic miniatures, Byzantine mosaics, Japanese Ukiyo-e woodblocks, etc... but I must admit that my own opinions are largely formed by my in-depth and profound experience of Western art. In spite of the fact that I admit that ART is deeply dependent upon culture... I will still admit that certain works of ART achieve a greater degree of "universalism" than others. This may be owed to a variety of reasons... but primarily it would seem that it involves the fact that certain artist... and certain artworks achieve a recognition and an appreciation by a broader audience from across various cultures. Shakespeare is appreciated by not merely the English-speaking world, but also in France, Russia, Germany, (most of Europe), Japan, China, India, etc... Beethoven and Mozart are performed throughout Europe, the Americas, Asian, etc... yet the Shanameh... the great Persian epic poem which may aesthetically rival Homer, Dante, and other "universal" figures is largely unknown... while the same is not true of the Arabian Nights. In spite of this, I would assume that when a work of art is spoken of as "universal" it denotes that the work deals largely with "universal" concerns... with issues that are common to all mankind: birth, death, love, lust, jealousy, anger, hatred... in a manner that is not excessively tied to a single culture or a certain time or place.

[JBI]

Even translation relies on the translator, not just on the Work. If I paint a picture from a live model, who is beautiful, I would probably seek to capture some of the beauty. The same is with translation, except that perhaps some hands are unable to get exactly that which is beautiful about it, or portray it accurately. Sometimes a translator, though very seldom, can make something more beautiful. I would throw the KJV over the Hebrew Bible, and I hear Dostoevsky improves in translation, but that isn't the point. The translator is just as much a part of the process as the original author.

It isn't Shakespeare you hear when you see Shakespeare in French, but merely a French interpretation of Shakespeare. Likewise, anything not in the original is but an interpretation by one, or a few people of the original.

[mayneverhave]

It isn't Shakespeare you hear when you see Shakespeare in French, but merely a French interpretation of Shakespeare. Likewise, anything not in the original is but an interpretation by one, or a few people of the original.

Hence the famous French saying that sounds something to the extent of:

"We are blessed with a new Shakespeare in every generation."

[mortalterror]

JBI wants literature to be words and symbols without meaning because it allows him to dismiss content out of hand. He's probably reading a lot of Saussure, Chomsky, Derrida and guys like that right now for a modern criticism class, and in contemporary criticism there's a large movement to make meaning plastic or reinterpretable. If he wants to get good grades then his opinions naturally have to be aligned with those of the people he's reading. He has to minimize the universal, downplay all previous theories, and make a big deal about signifiers and signified. Ceci n'est pas un critique.

By focusing our primary value upon the particular rather than the general attributes we are actually privileging an interpretation or point of view. In this case, the position is very clearly an elitist view of art as it seeks to minimize the importance of less finely executed works of art which happen to share the same themes as great works or art. It may not be intentional, but the emphasis of language to the exclusion of content has that effect. It discredits less polished, more popular forms of art. It delegitimizes the masses experience, monopolizes the power (who gets to interpret, or create), brands less crafted works as different, other, alien, pretends various people are not enjoying the same thing. This bastardization of the popular experience is disenfranchisement, a negation of the pleasures regular people experience from reading, framing aesthetics as either right or wrong. The populace says, “Look here, we like the same things. What we read is more or less the same.” But the elitist says, “No, it is our differences which matter. There is no common bond. We do not enjoy the same things. Our enjoyment is different. Our books are different. We are different.”

If we admit that content is primary and language secondary, or if they were equal, or if perhaps there were such a thing as a universal then that would mean that the popular would share a common ground with the elite and would have to be judged on a gradient rather than a good/bad mutually exlusive dichotomy. Back in March we had this discussion on the Byron, Shelley, or Keats? (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31576&page=4) Thread, and there also I made the case for theme, subject, and content. StLukesGuild and Petrarch's Love illustrated their position with the example of Arthur Brooke's Romeus and Juliet. They claimed that what made Shakespeare's version better was his skillful handling of language. What they failed to address, and what I was too tired to point out, was that although Brooke's Romeus and Juliet was inferior to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, the content probably raised it above the main of Brooke's own oeuvre.

JBI's stand has a second effect in that it allows him to raise works of art with unworthy themes, minimal content, obscure application, and oblique language, which wallow in narcisistic eccentricity to the level of greatness by virtue of their individual diction. Case in point, his mention of Finnegans Wake. There is no subject more frivolous than that of sophistry, the splitting of hairs, and disection of language. Authors who make words their subject are prone to the worst abuses of language and self-conscious navel gazing. The authors he would raise from oblivion to the heights of Mount Parnassus are the ignoble pygmies who would gild a lily, polish a turd, and pen beautiful words in a cause for which it would be waste of breath to speak. “These same people also think themselves clever if one has to be clever to understand them, as Diomedes wittily remarked, and prefer to write something that will result in amazement rather than comprehension(Erasmus, De Copia).”

Finally, JBI and StLukesGuild are fond of saying that literature is not translatable. They quote Frost and say that “Poetry is what get's lost in translation.” This is one more view that can be extrapolated from their position. If the phonemes are more important to you than the enthymemes, then of course you are going to say that nothing is translatable.

[Jozanny]

I am, one, chiming in, and two, staying out of this to the extent that I don't see the big deal, in terms of universalism and specialization (or exclusiveness, or elitism) existing hand in hand. Any aesthetic elevation may contain universal traits even while being cued into particular cultural codes. Language may not be universal, but all languages function pretty much the same way with S-O-V structures, and can find approximation between themselves. Diderot's honnete may not be translatable into English, but a good translator can back-door out of it to remain true to the original intent, and no means no in English or Russian.

Light In August is more universal than The Tin Drum both in ease of read and critical interpretation, but both novels make brilliant use of *the Other*, of metaphorical redemption, and examine fascism in the 20th century, even if appreciation of Grass takes a little more effort and grasp of literary theory.

[Emil Miller]

I suppose it's inevitable that something as wide-ranging as American literature will lead people to go off on a tangent so that the original thread becomes lost in a discussion on something else. All this talk about universality, language etc. etc. is way off beam to the original subject. How can universality apply when the original post was entitled "AMERICAN" literature.
So please let's get back to discussing US writers and their output. Tangential subjects can be discussed in other threads.

[Virgil]

:lol:You are right Brian. It's amazing how discussions evolve and take on a life of their own.

[Bitterfly]

yet the Shanameh... the great Persian epic poem which may aesthetically rival Homer, Dante, and other "universal" figures is largely unknown...

Because of the Western world's ethnocentric approach to literature, no doubt?

Mortalterror, I'm not sure I get your connection between your first and second paragraphs. If you are associating relativism and elitism, I would have said the contrary - a universalistic thought would be more likely to shape hierarchies (as it has done for cultures, ie all cultures reach towards a common aim, therefore some are more backwards than others because they are further off from that aim), whereas a relativistic viewpoint would be more inclined to admit the differences between cultures and therefore more open to them. What you are describing ("It delegitimizes the masses experience, monopolizes the power (who gets to interpret, or create), brands less crafted works as different, other, alien, pretends various people are not enjoying the same thing.") is what a universalistic standpoint does. One of the things Derrida (and some of his predecessors) did was open the academic world onto works that were seen as alien and other (and popular). The emphasis on language, if taken too strictly, can also lead to putting Shakespeare and Eminem on the same level.

If there was no connection and you just meant that focusing on language and style to the detriment of content is elitist, I definitely agree with you. :)

To come back to the subject of American literature, what do you think about Henry James? Do you consider him to be an American author, even if he became British?

[JBI]

I want to respond, but perhaps can a moderator move the offtopic posts to another thread, so we don't sidetrack this thread even more?

[Emil Miller]

Because of the Western world's ethnocentric approach to literature, no doubt?

Mortalterror, I'm not sure I get your connection between your first and second paragraphs. If you are associating relativism and elitism, I would have said the contrary - a universalistic thought would be more likely to shape hierarchies (as it has done for cultures, ie all cultures reach towards a common aim, therefore some are more backwards than others because they are further off from that aim), whereas a relativistic viewpoint would be more inclined to admit the differences between cultures and therefore more open to them. What you are describing ("It delegitimizes the masses experience, monopolizes the power (who gets to interpret, or create), brands less crafted works as different, other, alien, pretends various people are not enjoying the same thing.") is what a universalistic standpoint does. One of the things Derrida (and some of his predecessors) did was open the academic world onto works that were seen as alien and other (and popular). The emphasis on language, if taken too strictly, can also lead to putting Shakespeare and Eminem on the same level.

If there was no connection and you just meant that focusing on language and style to the detriment of content is elitist, I definitely agree with you. :)

To come back to the subject of American literature, what do you think about Henry James? Do you consider him to be an American author, even if he became British?

The Henry James question has already been discussed on page 4 of this thread.

[Bitterfly]

Ah, thank you - I missed quite a lot of this interesting thread, being sick.

I'd love to know what you think make American authors American, and I read a few tentative answers to this question on the page you referred me too, but they remain just that, tentative. I can think of a few themes, but they come from a Francocentrist perspective, so please correct me if I'm wrong, especially as my knowledge of American literature is limited:
_ puritanism (and the almost schizophrenic outlook it gives sometimes, when a puritan streak is in conflict with a desire for freedom)
_the wilderness
_The conquest of nature/corresponding hubris/final mastery or failure
_ the failure of the American dream, and I suppose of ideals in general
_ ?

And beyond typically American themes, is there an archetypically American voice and is it definable? I'm sorry if that's already been answered as well, I'm still a little woozy.

The discussion about universality, by the way, seems to be a natural outcome of this attempt at definition, rather than a mere digression - maybe because it is impossible to really define an artist by his/her nationality?

[Emil Miller]

Ah, thank you - I missed quite a lot of this interesting thread, being sick.

I'd love to know what you think make American authors American, and I read a few tentative answers to this question on the page you referred me too, but they remain just that, tentative. I can think of a few themes, but they come from a Francocentrist perspective, so please correct me if I'm wrong, especially as my knowledge of American literature is limited:
_ puritanism (and the almost schizophrenic outlook it gives sometimes, when a puritan streak is in conflict with a desire for freedom)
_the wilderness
_The conquest of nature/corresponding hubris/final mastery or failure
_ the failure of the American dream, and I suppose of ideals in general
_ ?

And beyond typically American themes, is there an archetypically American voice and is it definable? I'm sorry if that's already been answered as well, I'm still a little woozy.

The discussion about universality, by the way, seems to be a natural outcome of this attempt at definition, rather than a mere digression - maybe because it is impossible to really define an artist by his/her nationality?

These themes are interesting, germane to the subject and should generate some informative replies. Unfortunately, I have to leave now but I will certainly come back to this thread later.

[JBI]

The concept of the wilderness in America isn't the sense of wilderness, I would argue, but the sense of destroying the wilderness. You get the theme of conquering the barrier, planting the flag, but you don't normally get the "destructive wilderness" you may get in other literature:

"It's an immense night out there, wheeling and windy. The lights on the street and in the houses are helpless against the black wetness, little unilluminating glints that might be painted on it. The town seems huddled together, cowering on a high, tiny perch, afraid to move lest it topple into the wind."

From Sinclair Ross's As For Me and My House (Canadian).

That sort of phrase just wouldn't work towards the American vision, unless propelled by something like being in a war-torn town, whereas this is simply describing an average night on the prairies. The wildness in America acts as a frontier, something to be worked against, and destroyed, not a malevolent force.

[Jozanny]

I'd love to know what you think make American authors American, and I read a few tentative answers to this question on the page you referred me too, but they remain just that, tentative. I can think of a few themes, but they come from a Francocentrist perspective, so please correct me if I'm wrong, especially as my knowledge of American literature is limited:
_ puritanism (and the almost schizophrenic outlook it gives sometimes, when a puritan streak is in conflict with a desire for freedom)
_the wilderness
_The conquest of nature/corresponding hubris/final mastery or failure
_ the failure of the American dream, and I suppose of ideals in general
_ ?

I would say this is a good thematic platform to start with, Bitter, even from a Francocentrist perspective, as we have the French to thank for the hybrid culture of Louisiana and New Orleans, and I suppose JBI would give you a pat on the back for the endless source of amusement that is Quebec.:p

I would add to this
-newness, as the American hemisphere is, was, the last frontier, even if one makes allowances for its indigenous populations. The American Indian, too, was a *newness*, with its tribal practices unique, and certainly thousands of years younger than its counterparts in tribal Asia, Europe, and Africa.


And beyond typically American themes, is there an archetypically American voice and is it definable?

Yes, we had this discussion some months ago over a term paper, and I think one general archetype is American innocence, and this is what especially preoccupies Henry James, for readers like Pablo who do not see why James is ultimately the American native son. His Americans are, yes, Victorian upper caste, but they resent, and always have a case against Europeans and European worldliness. With a few noted exceptions, this was the life's work of Henry James, trying to bridge the gap between the American and European culture clash.



The discussion about universality, by the way, seems to be a natural outcome of this attempt at definition, rather than a mere digression - maybe because it is impossible to really define an artist by his/her nationality?

I had originally returned to suggest the same thing, but you nicely beat me to it. But again, I don't really see the controversy. It seems an ingrained part of human nature to be driven toward narrative, whether it is a tribal elder on Nova doing the *science* of fire ants in his own unique African terms, or the American preacher doing a sermon, which is so much a part of our literary mythos. If JBI is trying to parse universality as patently false in terms of what makes great literature, I remain unconvinced. Yes, stick me down in Haiti on a tour bus and I may come to a lightning reassessment of my own poverty in American terms, but that Haitian child's pestering of a tour bus and my bitter dreams of wealth, these both are driven by the same impetus, oui?

[JBI]

I didn't say there weren't universal things in the world, I simply said good literature a) isn't established as good because it contains a "universal", and that no literature is ever "universal" though it may discuss universal things.

The simple proof is the language, as I have argued. I don't even need to go to a Joyce work for the proof, I simply used that as the best example. Let's go to the oldest works, perhaps?:

The Iliad. I know you've read it (can you read Greek?). But the point is, there is a huge difference between the Fitzgerald translation, and the Fagles translation, and the Lattimore Translation, which has essentially nothing in common with the classic Alexander Pope translation. Are we supposed to believe any of these texts can be read the same way?

I don't doubt Shakespeare may have things, or Henry James may have things, or Li Bai may have things that are of interest to many people. I read translations like everyone else. I simply think that these works aren't universal. Which they aren't, since their languages aren't. Their translations allow wider range, but someone who reads something out of the original, isn't really reading the text, they are reading an interpretation.

Take Chinese literature for instance. The classical Tang poetry essentially cannot be translated and maintain its meanings or facets. The language, based on the character, allows for certain things within the text which cannot, and I mean cannot, be replicated in another language. Does that mean these poets are worse than other national poets? no. Is their scope limited because of language? yes. Is their discussion of theme limited no? but are their works universal? I would say no, like I say no about every other author.

On topic now, I would think that there are universal themes. But the opinions expressed on them by authors aren't universal. The American vision is different than the Mexican vision, which is different from the Canadian vision.

Hell, the Texas vision is different than the New York vision.

[Jozanny]

It seems to me your argument is a caution more against multi-culturalism than universality, I dunno. John Gardener once said there are only two types of stories:

1. Man goes on a journey
2. Man returns

The fact that Asian calligraphy cannot have its meanings understood in traditional English means what then? I cannot speak for Japan, but the story of China seems to be all about the tension between merging the individual will to conformity of social norm, and the success or failure of that through both its Imperial and Communist history, which lends itself in particular to hieroglyphic art forms.

It is a great civilization. So are many others, and I am not so sold on human ignorance that we cannot marvel at each other. Just as I've read in the paper that the Chinese are flabbergasted at Barack Obama's elevation to the Presidency. Each can teach JBI.

[Drkshadow03]

The concept of the wilderness in America isn't the sense of wilderness, I would argue, but the sense of destroying the wilderness. You get the theme of conquering the barrier, planting the flag, but you don't normally get the "destructive wilderness" you may get in other literature:

"It's an immense night out there, wheeling and windy. The lights on the street and in the houses are helpless against the black wetness, little unilluminating glints that might be painted on it. The town seems huddled together, cowering on a high, tiny perch, afraid to move lest it topple into the wind."

From Sinclair Ross's As For Me and My House (Canadian).

That sort of phrase just wouldn't work towards the American vision, unless propelled by something like being in a war-torn town, whereas this is simply describing an average night on the prairies. The wildness in America acts as a frontier, something to be worked against, and destroyed, not a malevolent force.

Eh, in Hawthorne's "Young Goodman Brown", the wilderness definitely equals the place where evil resides, ditto The Scarlet Letter to a lesser degree (but it's there as well). In Cooper's novels the wilderness is a placed to be conquered, but it's also the place where those "savage" Indians reside.

In other words, I would agree that a major part of the wilderness theme in American Lit is the American desire to conquer it and bring civilization, but there is also I think a fear of it and it does obtain a certain degree of malevolence. I suppose it's a bit trickier than that. Cooper, for example, seems to bemoan the spread of civilization to the wilderness (civilization will ruin the pristine beauty of the wilderness and exacerbate issues with the natives, while the chaotic nature of the wilderness will infect society and turn law and order into chaos); this of course finds its ultimate expression in Cooper's fear in the mixing of "races," even though his main character in the leatherstocking novels practices a kind of hybrid culture (you can learn from the Natives, but you should always remember that you're white, and vice-versa). I think in the works of Cormac McCarthy, which I've only read a few it could be argued that the wilderness has a malovolent character, something that people want to conquer, to find a newfound freedom for themselves from society, but which more often than does the conquer and spews out it victims.

A typical American theme is one of individual freedom. The wilderness, especially when it takes the form of the Western Frontier, is ultimately a different way of expressing this typically American concern. The main problem that appears in scores of American literature is how does one find freedom where there is no law or developed civilization. Likewise, how does one find freedom in a society with too many laws and rules and regulations (usually the very reason characters in these novels flee for the wilderness).

The wilderness can also represent the American Dream in general. The founding of America as a way to restart oneself, restart one's life, economic fortunes, and reform one's identity. The wilderness is a repetition of this dream; instead of refounding America, it is the spreading of American culture where those dissatisfied with their station, economic fortunes, or identity in the established America can restart within the unexplored territories of the wilderness and restart their identities.

So I would say it's not that the wilderness drastically comes to represent something different. I do think often the wilderness is seen as a malovolent force, if not initially, then eventually in many American narratives. What's really going on, in my view, is there are typically American concerns being thrust upon and explored through the wilderness, which still also represents its other symbolic connotations, though slightly demphasized so it doesn't overpower those other concerns. Though, of course, it all depends on the writer.


Yes, we had this discussion some months ago over a term paper, and I think one general archetype is American innocence, and this is what especially preoccupies Henry James, for readers like Pablo who do not see why James is ultimately the American native son. His Americans are, yes, Victorian upper caste, but they resent, and always have a case against Europeans and European worldliness. With a few noted exceptions, this was the life's work of Henry James, trying to bridge the gap between the American and European culture clash.

Ditto everything Jozanny said. I think writers like Eliot, James, Pound and other transatlantic voices in all fairness can be placed in both European literature and American.

As Jozanny pointed out James's fiction is often about the "innocent" American traveling abroad in Europe who is either corrupted or destroyed by "decadent" European culture. That seems like a very American theme to me, one that Edith Wharton picks up on to a certain degree, but in a very different way. Not to mention it builds off my comments about the wilderness. It stems to a certain degree from American anxiety over its "newness" as a political entity and as a culture. Europe again offers many of James's characters their "freedom," a space for Americans to roam and find agency much like the wilderness where the social rules are slightly different from American society, and also like the "malovelent" it swallows the characters and spits them out.

Also, not all the characters read like Victorian upper-class Americans either. Henrietta Stackpole from The Portrait of a Lady I think reads as typically American and in certain ways does a nice job of capturing American personality (at least the stereotype of it) as it exists today in the minds of many! The muckracking, consistently pushy and materialistic, insulting Europe and its culture, thinking it a backwards land of tyrants, while proping up her own culture and society as the best.

[promtbr]

I agree with the general tenor of the article but, as is often the case with over-erudite dissertations of this nature, the message tends to get lost in the semantics.

As opposed to the other posts on this thread? That was easly to follow and a linear argument that made sense (at least to me, and I am 30 yrs removed from Lit classes in college) Not sure if I can say that about some other posts .

[Dr. Hill]

I think I can honestly say I have a great appreciation for earlier American Lit, like Melville and Hawthorne. The wilderness is quite often used as a symbol in their works, such as the forest in the Scarlet Letter and the whale in Moby Dick, and what it represents to me is a sort of reminder of the nature of the world. Human nature: the whale's representation of greed, lust, and ambition, all the so-called vices of humanity. The forest's representation of freedom from society, where the love between Hester and Dimmsdale can be expressed without restraint. The fact is that the "great naturalism of America" can prove positively invigorating. It's when the 20th century arrives that I lose interest.

The 20th century standard for American Literature revolves around that world vs. man instead of man vs. world. I much prefer the latter and find the former a bit tedious on occasions. When the MAIN theme of the story is the victimization of Gatsby and his weakness, his flaw, it drags. I find it so. The problem here is that I enjoy a psychological novel, like Crime and Punishment, but even then, I suppose, it is more man vs. world than the contrary. I'm babbling and I don't really know, but something about the canon of "great 20th century American Literature" has never appealed to me, I just find it mediocre.

[JBI]

From Burnt Norton by T. S. Eliot:

What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
Footfalls echo in the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened
Into the rose-garden. My words echo
Thus, in your mind.
But to what purpose
Disturbing the dust on a bowl of rose-leaves
I do not know.


I think the loss of innocence too can be read as an echo on James's build up, except the society itself's loss of innocence as a whole seems to be quite the modernist preoccupation. Eliot's rose garden, where he heard the little girls at play when he was a kid seems his ultimate nostalgic vision that haunts almost all of his poems.

Still though, we can take it further. Cather's Nostalgia is there, it is evident, especially in perhaps Antonia, and her other Prairie novels. Frost in some ways echoes this sense of nostalgia as well, if we think "Birches".

I think growing up seems a preoccupation of the late-realists and early modernists. It seems like Wordsworth's concept of aging, but made a thousand times darker by the concept of the youth disappearing completely, rather than just being outgrown.

[Virgil]

I want to respond, but perhaps can a moderator move the offtopic posts to another thread, so we don't sidetrack this thread even more?

Why don't you just start the topic in a new thread and post a link back here?

[JBI]

Alright then.

[stlukesguild]

JBI wants literature to be words and symbols without meaning because it allows him to dismiss content out of hand. He's probably reading a lot of Saussure, Chomsky, Derrida and guys like that right now for a modern criticism class, and in contemporary criticism there's a large movement to make meaning plastic or reinterpretable. If he wants to get good grades then his opinions naturally have to be aligned with those of the people he's reading. He has to minimize the universal, downplay all previous theories, and make a big deal about signifiers and signified. Ceci n'est pas un critique.

I'll make no comments about where JBI is or is not coming from. That is for him to say. I will note that I have very little use for the sort of criticism that you mention... and had even less respect for it when I was confronted with it during my undergrad studies (and yes, some art majors did take classes on literature).

By focusing our primary value upon the particular rather than the general attributes we are actually privileging an interpretation or point of view. In this case, the position is very clearly an elitist view of art as it seeks to minimize the importance of less finely executed works of art which happen to share the same themes as great works or art.

My own position is admittedly "elitist" if by "elitist" we denote a position which places the aesthetic pleasure of a work primary. I suppose that such does lead to a position of placing form over content... but I would argue that the two are intrinsically intertwined. What I would suggest is that content or theme alone without the form to match is nothing. There are endless works of art... paintings, novels, poems (shall I again select Maya Angelou as an example... or perhaps To Kill a Mockingbird?) that convey themes that are certainly of great merit... that I certainly empathize with... and yet as a work of art they fall short due to aesthetic short-comings.

It may not be intentional, but the emphasis of language to the exclusion of content has that effect. It discredits less polished, more popular forms of art. It delegitimizes the masses experience, monopolizes the power (who gets to interpret, or create), brands less crafted works as different, other, alien, pretends various people are not enjoying the same thing. This bastardization of the popular experience is disenfranchisement, a negation of the pleasures regular people experience from reading, framing aesthetics as either right or wrong. The populace says, “Look here, we like the same things. What we read is more or less the same.” But the elitist says, “No, it is our differences which matter. There is no common bond. We do not enjoy the same things. Our enjoyment is different. Our books are different. We are different.”

I don't think that a preference for works of the highest aesthetic merit need be seen as elitist in this way whatsoever. In a way I would say that such accusations made by MortalTerror are but a marvelous use of rhetoric to suggest his own camaraderie with the masses... his own "being down with the folk" as opposed to snobby over-intellectualized "elitists"... but such is belied by his own aesthetic preferences and his own education (I doubt too many of the folk have ever even heard of Saussure, Chomsky, and Derrida). I might suggest this is not far from the sort of rhetoric spouted by certain politicians in attempting to suggest that their opponents have less in common with the common voter than they do.

If we admit that content is primary and language secondary, or if they were equal, or if perhaps there were such a thing as a universal then that would mean that the popular would share a common ground with the elite and would have to be judged on a gradient rather than a good/bad mutually exlusive dichotomy.

I personally do not imagine form (language) as primary... but neither would I suggest content is first. I have stated before that I feel that form and content are intertwined. Content without a strong form is nothing. Simply writing about important subjects (racism, class struggle, ethical choices, etc...) is not enough to assure a work a place among the great works of literature. On the other hand... the form married to a shallow or empty subject matter can certainly lead to rather trite... albeit beautiful... works of art. One thinks immediately of the candy-cane paintings of the French Rococo. The greatest works of art have always exhibited a marvelous merger of form and content... perhaps to the point that the two cannot be separated. Neither do I feel that the suggestion that some works of art are towering achievements immediately disqualifies everything else. Shakespeare, the Bible, Homer, Dante... and I suspect the Shanameh may be achievements that far surpass most works of art... but that does not mean that works not of this level are to be immediately excluded. I quite like Augusto Monterroso, Edgar Allen Poe, H.G. Wells, J.S. LeFanu, Lord Dunsany... and many others I am more than certain are not on the same aesthetic level. I find much to enjoy in Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir John Davies' Orchestra, and Michael Drayton's Nymphidia... in spite of the fact that they most certainly are not the equal of A Mid-Summers' Night Dream, let alone Hamlet.

Back in March we had this discussion on the Byron, Shelley, or Keats? Thread, and there also I made the case for theme, subject, and content. StLukesGuild and Petrarch's Love illustrated their position with the example of Arthur Brooke's Romeus and Juliet. They claimed that what made Shakespeare's version better was his skillful handling of language. What they failed to address, and what I was too tired to point out, was that although Brooke's Romeus and Juliet was inferior to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, the content probably raised it above the main of Brooke's own oeuvre.

Mortal... you mistake me. I most certainly would not have ever made such a comparison... having never read anything by Brooke. On the other hand... I would certainly be willing to point out endless works of art that have a theme of real merit and fail to achieve the greatest level of success due to the failings of the form. Again... I don't think such comparisons are always a dichotomy of good/bad... but rather a scale of mediocre, good, better, even better, etc... Of course we all know that Mallarme's famous exclamation of ennui ("Life is long... and I have read all the books"... or words to that effect) was but empty rhetoric. None of us has the time to read... let alone fully devour and digest everything that has been written. Thus we make aesthetic decisions... and we need to make aesthetic decisions.

JBI's stand has a second effect in that it allows him to raise works of art with unworthy themes, minimal content, obscure application, and oblique language, which wallow in narcisistic eccentricity to the level of greatness by virtue of their individual diction. Case in point, his mention of Finnegans Wake. There is no subject more frivolous than that of sophistry, the splitting of hairs, and disection of language. Authors who make words their subject are prone to the worst abuses of language and self-conscious navel gazing.

Here I would raise the question as to what subjects, themes, or contents are more worthy than others... and who decides? Do we assume that erotic love or the adoration of beauty and nature are but trivialities in contrast to confronting issues such as mortality, honor, and injustice? Do we then assume that the works of art which focus upon such "trivialities" can never achieve a rank equal to the best works of art... or even equal to any work which deals with a theme of great import? Such was not far from the theory put forth in the filed of painting known as the "heirarchy of painting" in which it was suggested that any painting of a great historical painting was inherently better than even the best landscape or still-life. Undoubtedly it was against similar prejudice that the Art pour l'art movement was begun. By declaring the importance of the form or the aesthetic merit of a work of art, such artist were not so much negating the content as they were suggesting that external standards or considerations (religious, political, moral, social, etc...) should not be the measure of a work of art. Certainly the abuse of such a concept has led to self-indulgent and narcissistic schlock... but it has also meant that I can appreciate the Shahnameh, Dante's Inferno, Plato's Republic, etc... in spite of my not sharing the same religious or political values. I won't speak upon Finnegan's Wake. I was deeply impressed with Ulysses... although I far prefer Proust... but have yet given Joyce's final book the effort due.

The authors he would raise from oblivion to the heights of Mount Parnassus are the ignoble pygmies who would gild a lily, polish a turd, and pen beautiful words in a cause for which it would be waste of breath to speak. “These same people also think themselves clever if one has to be clever to understand them, as Diomedes wittily remarked, and prefer to write something that will result in amazement rather than comprehension(Erasmus, De Copia).”

Again... such seems rather false rhetoric. I have yet to hear JBI suggest we offer undying allegiance to any writer... nor have I ever suggested that even the greatest do not have their flaws and the mediocre their moments of brilliance.

Finally, JBI and StLukesGuild are fond of saying that literature is not translatable. They quote Frost and say that “Poetry is what get's lost in translation.” This is one more view that can be extrapolated from their position. If the phonemes are more important to you than the enthymemes, then of course you are going to say that nothing is translatable.

Again you wrongly accuse me. I have repeatedly defended translation:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38922

I would also like to second JBI's request that a moderator move these digressions to a separate thread where we may more fully discuss the issue without further disrupting the original dialog on American Lit.:argue:

[JBI]

St Lukes, I started a new thread; feel free to cut and paste that out of here.

[vega0508]

hey i'm stumped on a question for my hw on chapters 8-16"....Critic Kristin Boudreaux states that "Dimmsdale...becomes a victim precisly because he is unable to enter into the feelings and motives of others." Draw from the text at least 2 examples how each example supports the quote. thank you !!!

[kelby_lake]

The 20th century standard for American Literature revolves around that world vs. man instead of man vs. world. I much prefer the latter and find the former a bit tedious on occasions. When the MAIN theme of the story is the victimization of Gatsby and his weakness, his flaw, it drags. I find it so. The problem here is that I enjoy a psychological novel, like Crime and Punishment, but even then, I suppose, it is more man vs. world than the contrary. I'm babbling and I don't really know, but something about the canon of "great 20th century American Literature" has never appealed to me, I just find it mediocre.

Isn't world vs. man basically the same as man vs. world? Gatsby can be a hard ride but Moby Dick?! Reading the thing is an epic. It has long chapters on THE DIFFERENT SPECIES OF WHALE. The best bit was when Queequeg and Ishmael were in bed together.

A man cannot fight a world if it's not against him.

[Emil Miller]

Ah, thank you - I missed quite a lot of this interesting thread, being sick.

I'd love to know what you think make American authors American, and I read a few tentative answers to this question on the page you referred me too, but they remain just that, tentative. I can think of a few themes, but they come from a Francocentrist perspective, so please correct me if I'm wrong, especially as my knowledge of American literature is limited:
_ puritanism (and the almost schizophrenic outlook it gives sometimes, when a puritan streak is in conflict with a desire for freedom)
_the wilderness
_The conquest of nature/corresponding hubris/final mastery or failure
_ the failure of the American dream, and I suppose of ideals in general
_ ?

And beyond typically American themes, is there an archetypically American voice and is it definable? I'm sorry if that's already been answered as well, I'm still a little woozy.

The discussion about universality, by the way, seems to be a natural outcome of this attempt at definition, rather than a mere digression - maybe because it is impossible to really define an artist by his/her nationality?

The idea of a puritan streak being in conflict with a desire for freedom is true but ironic when one considers that the Pilgrim Fathers left England in order to obtain freedom for their religious beliefs.
I suppose that Henry James, with his equivocal attitude to sex, might be an example of puritanism in American writing but I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong.
The theme of the wilderness in the US appears quite early on with James Fennimore Cooper whose novels the Deerslayer and The Last of the Mohicans
portray a dangerous and savage struggle to survive amongst the indigenous peoples.Other writers who fit into the "wilderness" theme are Henry David Thoreau and Mark Twain. There is also Frank Norris whose main work dealt with the the problems of Californian wheat farmers and who is heavily influenced by Emil Zola.
The conquest of nature is probably best captured in Frank Norris's novel The Pit, which deals with the trading of wheat in Chicago and shows the attempt by one man to corner the American wheat crop. I won't comment on the "hubris, final mastery or failure" of the story because I know of at least one other contributor to this site who has the book on his pending list.
The American Dream was doomed to failure from the start because it runs contrary to human nature. There are a number American authors who have shown that, despite the overwhelming natural resources that might have allowed the dream to be realised, there were always some who tried to own more than their fair share; three good examples are Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, Frank Norris's The Octopus and the aforementioned The Pit.
The American Dream, as a phrase, became common currency throughout the 1950s following the defeat of the Axis powers and the rise of American mass consumerism, but following defeat in the Vietnam war, American writing began to discount the idea and a series of downbeat novels seems to have been the result. U.S involvment in Iraq would appear to have further dented the American dream although I don't know if it has affected American writing.

[Dr. Hill]

Isn't world vs. man basically the same as man vs. world? Gatsby can be a hard ride but Moby Dick?! Reading the thing is an epic. It has long chapters on THE DIFFERENT SPECIES OF WHALE. The best bit was when Queequeg and Ishmael were in bed together.

A man cannot fight a world if it's not against him.

I meant that the world started it in the instances like in Moby Dick, whereas it seemed that Gatsby was the instigator for his own problems.

[Bitterfly]

I suppose that Henry James, with his equivocal attitude to sex, might be an example of puritanism in American writing but I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe you're right. I just finished Author, Author by David Lodge (a wonderful book about Henry James's last years), and it mentions the fact that James died a virgin, and obviously was, perhaps not puritanical, but wary of the body and sexuality.

Speaking about James, I was interested in what you said about the American voice being characterised by its innocence, Jozanny. If you read my post, would you care to explain? Do you mean there are many innocent narrators, or that there's a general wistfulness for a lost age of innocence? I would have said that innocence, its loss and its quest were themes rather than components of a voice, which is why I'm intrigued, actually. I imagined the American voice somewhat like Whitman's, but I'd be at a loss how to define it...


The American Dream was doomed to failure from the start because it runs contrary to human nature.

The Great Gatsby shows this quite well too - the last page, with its evocation of what you can imagine as a virgin continent being deflowered and thus robbed of its innocence by the very fact of its discovery.

[JBI]

The human nature argument is rhetoric to justify the "failure". the failure isn't because of "human nature" but of the nature of the system installed. Historically it never functioned, and the idea was a myth from its beginnings. One can approach the concept of Frontier Manifest Destiny by looking at those who died on the frontier. If we say that the Americans carved out names for themselves in the west, we must also realize that they carved it out on the corpses of a) the unmourned who died on the way, and b) the native population, that was destroyed.

The American dream has never, and was never a serious attempt at equality, or opportunity. It was merely a nationalist agenda attached to a fallacy. It isn't human nature that brought the "failure of the dream", but the nature of the dream itself - political propaganda.

[vega0508]

hey i'm stumped on a question for my hw on chapters 8-16"....Critic Kristin Boudreaux states that "Dimmsdale...becomes a victim precisly because he is unable to enter into the feelings and motives of others." Draw from the text at least 2 examples how each example supports the quote. thank you !!!

bump.

[Drkshadow03]

The human nature argument is rhetoric to justify the "failure". the failure isn't because of "human nature" but of the nature of the system installed. Historically it never functioned, and the idea was a myth from its beginnings. One can approach the concept of Frontier Manifest Destiny by looking at those who died on the frontier. If we say that the Americans carved out names for themselves in the west, we must also realize that they carved it out on the corpses of a) the unmourned who died on the way, and b) the native population, that was destroyed.

The American dream has never, and was never a serious attempt at equality, or opportunity. It was merely a nationalist agenda attached to a fallacy. It isn't human nature that brought the "failure of the dream", but the nature of the dream itself - political propaganda.

Except for all the people the American Dream has failed, it has just as many success stories, you know like my Jewish immigrant family from Russia, Poland, and Austria. And to only present one side of the story like you just did is itself a blatant form of political propaganda, not to mention inaccurate.

There is no denying that there are many problems in America, but there is also no denying many people who were suffering in the Old World from problems have flourished in America.

Getting this back on topic, I think the best literature that deals with this topic doesn't so much criticized the American Dream as recognizes the inherent problems with the dream and the realities of it given racism and the difficulty of social class movement. In other words, they almost always do so with both realities, the good and the bad, in mind.

[Virgil]

The American dream has never, and was never a serious attempt at equality, or opportunity. It was merely a nationalist agenda attached to a fallacy. It isn't human nature that brought the "failure of the dream", but the nature of the dream itself - political propaganda.

Says who? What in god's name are you talking about? Do I have to show you statistics in how people in the US rose from immigrants to middle class in a generation and then beyond if so lucky? Do you want to comapre the percentage of people in the US that have owned homes across the two centuries in comparison to anywhere including Europe? Do you want to see the statistics that the US has had the highest per capita GDP going back to at least the mid 19th century (with the possible exception of England, which was based on colonialization)? The US has had the highest standard of living for the possibly over 150 year if not longer.

Because a bunch of writers characterize what has been called "the American dream" as being a millionaire has nothing to do with the reality. The reality is that the American dream is ownership of a home (and not just these little flats that they have in Europe) and a middle class life.

It's very dangerous to judge reality by fiction.

[Jozanny]

Speaking about James, I was interested in what you said about the American voice being characterised by its innocence, Jozanny. If you read my post, would you care to explain? Do you mean there are many innocent narrators, or that there's a general wistfulness for a lost age of innocence? I would have said that innocence, its loss and its quest were themes rather than components of a voice, which is why I'm intrigued, actually. I imagined the American voice somewhat like Whitman's, but I'd be at a loss how to define it...

Mmm. I am honored to be asked about this, Bitter, but I need to ponder the question. For a start though, I don't think Jamesian narration itself is innocent, as it is usually either third person limited/omniscient. But I think it can be argued that James catches our irritating American naivete near perfectly. Maggie is not only shocked that the Prince would sleep with Charlotte--she refuses to accept that an evil such as this would corrode the excellent freedoms she and her wealthy father enjoy, so she out-maneuvers both her worldly titled foreign husband, and her persumably ex-friend (Charlotte). What her triumph amounts to is open to question--yet it is clear she would not "look the other way" as some women might to keep their status intact. We could also take Bessie, in a shorter, less complex work, who rejects an English Lord because he cannot meet her *ideal* of what an English Lord should amount to. It is radical stuff, within James's sphere, when one really thinks about it.

[mortalterror]

The human nature argument is rhetoric to justify the "failure". the failure isn't because of "human nature" but of the nature of the system installed. Historically it never functioned, and the idea was a myth from its beginnings. One can approach the concept of Frontier Manifest Destiny by looking at those who died on the frontier. If we say that the Americans carved out names for themselves in the west, we must also realize that they carved it out on the corpses of a) the unmourned who died on the way, and b) the native population, that was destroyed.

The American dream has never, and was never a serious attempt at equality, or opportunity. It was merely a nationalist agenda attached to a fallacy. It isn't human nature that brought the "failure of the dream", but the nature of the dream itself - political propaganda.

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. — D.H. Lawrence

God, I wish. — Mortalterror

As flattering as that hard eyed, unsentimental, pragmatic myth of American strength and dominance is, the truth is we're much softer than our enemies imagine us. I wouldn't say we are a paper tiger, but there's definitely a flabby white underbelly to the nation that likes to gingerly tiptoe around people's feelings and whip itself over every crushed flower. You've been reading too much Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky though, if that's what you really think.

Also, I'm a little surprised nobody mentioned Jack London or Henry David Thoreau when you claimed we didn't have the same kind of wilderness literature as Canada.

[Emil Miller]

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. — D.H. Lawrence

God, I wish. — Mortalterror

As flattering as that hard eyed, unsentimental, pragmatic myth of American strength and dominance is, the truth is we're much softer than our enemies imagine us. I wouldn't say we are a paper tiger, but there's definitely a flabby white underbelly to the nation that likes to gingerly tiptoe around people's feelings and whip itself over every crushed flower. You've been reading too much Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky though, if that's what you really think.

Also, I'm a little surprised nobody mentioned Jack London or Henry David Thoreau when you claimed we didn't have the same kind of wilderness literature as Canada.

The Amercian soul probably was closer to Lawrence's description when he made that quote. It's throughout post WW11 consumerism that the "flabby white
underbelly" has developed, and not only in America.

I was going to mention Jack London but I stupidly missed him out. However, I did mention Thoreau.

[kelby_lake]

I meant that the world started it in the instances like in Moby Dick, whereas it seemed that Gatsby was the instigator for his own problems.

Well, yes he's the tragic hero, but he gets sucked in to the horrible vacuous world. The American Dream has posioned him:

'Gatsby turned out all right at the end; it is what preyed on Gatsby, what foul dust floated in the wake of his dreams that temporarily closed out my interest in the abortive sorrows and short-winded elations of men.'

[JBI]

Says who? What in god's name are you talking about? Do I have to show you statistics in how people in the US rose from immigrants to middle class in a generation and then beyond if so lucky? Do you want to comapre the percentage of people in the US that have owned homes across the two centuries in comparison to anywhere including Europe? Do you want to see the statistics that the US has had the highest per capita GDP going back to at least the mid 19th century (with the possible exception of England, which was based on colonialization)? The US has had the highest standard of living for the possibly over 150 year if not longer.

Because a bunch of writers characterize what has been called "the American dream" as being a millionaire has nothing to do with the reality. The reality is that the American dream is ownership of a home (and not just these little flats that they have in Europe) and a middle class life.

It's very dangerous to judge reality by fiction.

First of all, GDP is the most pointless statistic in this argument, as that doesn't show income inequality. Second of all, I don't think it is possible for you to come up with data tables that are unbiased from that time period, and would include everything.

To Drkshadow, when did your family come to the U.S.? During the 19th, or 20th century. I can't accurately respond without really knowing that, though I suspect you imply early 20th century? Or after the war?

When we talk about American development verses the "old world" we must keep in mind what the old world was. There wasn't the "uninhabited" (I use that word ironically) landmass to be taken and carved, but an already settled piece of land, with a history and a past, and I would say with less resources at disposal.

We can say that some families moved up in the social ranks, but I would say all families moved up. The economy of the States went to boom, and as a result, all prospered, or I should say most, since many didn't prosper.

When an economy goes into a boom, and has plenty of natural resources to sustain it, there is no doubt that the GDP and the average wealth of the population will increase. And, seeing as how the land only expanded, and more and more west, allowing for additional resources to be poured into the economy.


Be that as it may, sure the notion of no established classes early on was there, I won't deny that, but how long did it take for a rich elite to really form? How long did it take for Robber Barons to form in the economy? And did the lower classes really manage to "climb" as you suggest, or merely prosper. There is of course the idea that they went from nothing to perhaps millions, based on "hard work", yet did all make it so far, or just a few?


Who is to say how much of your thought on the subject is rooted in your schooling to? Perhaps there is an education bias, given that you guys say your pledge of allegiance, and read history from an American Perspective, founded on the American identity, and therefore have a nationalist sentiment from an early age. Who is to say my thought isn't biased too though, I'm sure it is to some extent, as I am sure the general American perspective is.

The point though is, the failure of the American dream. Is it a failure? Does hard work not always lead to a bettering of yourself? The 20th century in American literature would suggest that, from Gatsby to Miller, not to mention the works by various minority writers of today, which suggest a more nuanced approach to the question. I would say it is just propaganda.

I haven't even mentioned the fact that slavery existed until the 1860s, and the civil rights movement didn't come until the 1960s. Is it fair, to some extent, to say that the wealth in the southern United States came from exploitation? To what extent can we attribute the American "dream"'s truth in the raising of social status, when there were clear groups of people on virtually the bottom. It isn't a nice thought to think that the American Dream came at the cost of others, but I'm sure it is a little bit true.

Think on the scene in Gatsby when Nick sees a car drive by with an African American and a couple of white women and remarks "Only in America". Is that really true?


I'm actually surprised that there is such a defense of this "American dream", when there is actually so much literature going against it. Perhaps the historical reconfiguration of views on the past has not really taken a hold on the vision of the majority of Americans, as perhaps I suspect, or perhaps a more nuanced rejection of such attempts in fear of destroying the "national" image.

[Drkshadow03]

JBI, that's exactly my point. I want a nuance analysis that takes many factors into account, not one that automatically dismisses every aspect of America and the American dream because saying the American dream works for everyone and we have equality marginalizes lots of people such as blacks, the extremely poor, and Native Americans, but to make a claim that the American Dream is pure myth and has never worked for anyone marginalizes the history of many immigrants both yesterday and today.

Also, I would argue there is no such thing as literature that is against the American Dream. Almost all the literature that I suspect you would use as examples of works that are "against the American Dream" are in fact works that while criticizing it also rethink it. The second part is the key element I think.

As for the personal questions, it depends on which Great Great Grandparents. Some of them were here at the very tail end of 1800s, some got here in the earlier portion of 1900s. Both my grandfathers fought in WWII. I know the Russian side left because of the Russian pogroms against the Jews. I'm not sure about the relatives from Poland and Austria, though.

[JBI]

Oh, I would have guessed the moved on the Second Alliah that saw the large pouring of Russian and Polish Jews into New York, and the Birth of American Yiddish Culture, but you never know.

I just simply wanted to point out, that the American dream of anyone able to better himself is automatically a fallacy when you have people who are marginalized. If such a dream is to be "verified" as true at all, it must face the fact that not everyone had the opportunity that the dream promised, and I would say not everyone has the opportunity today that the dream promises.

I know Faulkner seems to be acting directly against the notion in Light in August. The Character of Joe Christmas seems to be somewhat reactionary to the notions of this sort. Steinbeck approaches it from a different angle, and Fitzgerald from another as well, though his is much softer, and doesn't really show the corruption as much as the others.

The I think the main point is that the market in general wasn't willing to accept contrary opinion at that point, in the sense that it was, after the second world war (though halted by Red Scare), and now today, where it has the most potential.

[Jozanny]

JBI-

I have not commented on the literary debunking of *the American Dream* because it is rather de classe at this point. All of us who have majored in literature know about *the dark side*--the long death of institutional slavery which later became de facto, the near wipe out of the Indian tribes, such that even today they have not fully joined in with our new-found rainbow coalition love chorus--pardon my mildly sardonic tone, because I really don't believe that diversity will bring on a new golden age--

We all know about the anti-hero, the shallowness of materialism, Faulkner's bleak agrarian fatalism and stark exposure of caste, which is also Steinbeck's concern, with a more utilitarian aspect, or Dos Paso's excellent exposition of the industrial speed race in the US, et al.

But most of these authors recognize, especially Henry James, the unique aspect of American optimism--including--and here I go--Barack Obama. I have not read his books yet, but I have read about them, and he is very much aware of American traditions and tropes, and steeps himself in the Ellison mold of Invisible Man, with one difference--Obama learned how to embrace his racial identity without the weight of Ellison's anguish. And we produced Obama. We, us, in these United States.

I think that speaks for itself, our capacity for renewal, rebirth, and exceptionalism; in my book the American Dream is alive--maybe not exactly healthy--but it is far from dead--and in the end I think we shall remain the global beacon for some time yet.

[Virgil]

I'm not even going to bother because I'm just going to get upset. I wonder if anyone here has even taken an economics class. I'm sure they haven't and frankly I don't feel like arguing with people who aren't even Americans about the American experience. I have no idea how a nonAmerican learns about America through literature. It's ludicrous. So I've been on forums talking to socialists who (a) think they know economics without taking an economics class and (b) think they know America from reading. :sick: I've been there, done that, and it leads to arguments. Screw it. They don't know what they're talking about.

[Dr. Hill]

That's an open-minded view. I'm American AND a Socialist. Am I ignorant as well?

[Virgil]

That's an open-minded view. I'm American AND a Socialist. Am I ignorant as well?

How many economics classes have you taken?

[Jozanny]

I'm not even going to bother because I'm just going to get upset. I wonder if anyone here has even taken an economics class. I'm sure they haven't and frankly I don't feel like arguing with people who aren't even Americans about the American experience. I have no idea how a nonAmerican learns about America through literature. It's ludicrous. So I've been on forums talking to socialists who (a) think they know economics without taking an economics class and (b) think they know America from reading. :sick: I've been there, done that, and it leads to arguments. Screw it. They don't know what they're talking about.

Frankly, I am not sure what angst you are tempering here Virgil. I may have just said deconstructing the American Dream is de classe, but by the same token, that doesn't mean it hasn't been exclusionary. I experience bigotry on a daily basis, day in and day out, as a disabled American, and I don't always keep the anger that generates bottled in. With my intelligence I should have been a professor or a political appointee--instead I struggle to survive and keep my sanity in my own little microcosm. If you don't know what it is like to be shut out from matriculated success, I'd think twice before getting upset.

[JCamilo]

May I have my saying as an outsider (and not even close to north hemisphere).
American Dream (or the democratic idealism, Emerson, Franklin, etc,etc,etc,etc) is admirable. The capacity of moving foward, supearation, socialization (not socialism) is amazing. Certainly is a key factor to build such strong nation. I may laugh the international views (the notion to put all rabitts in the same bags is too tempting for America, but that is not part of their dream, rather something inherited by english imperialism) and of course...
Have any of you guys be present in those arguments (mostly online) about communism. Someone will came and say "it was nice, good but only in theory". Everytime I see it I wonder :"Gosh, someone is telling me that an ideal is flawed while applied on reality.", so is democracy (the whole bit about equality, sure is manipulated, because equality of potential is different of equality of results) or capitalism. So, is America. The answer to the old world wasnt perfect, but well... it worked the best way possible for quite sometime. Perhaps it explains the american capacity to seek new tendencies and at sametime some need to return to europe. But , right now, pointing to a dream that was about "New", 200 years after, is just too easy. Of course it is dated.

[Dr. Hill]

How many economics classes have you taken?
Two or three, three if you count AP Government which covered economics.

[Jozanny]

Perhaps it explains the american capacity to seek new tendencies and at sametime some need to return to europe. But , right now, pointing to a dream that was about "New", 200 years after, is just too easy. Of course it is dated.

Dated in the literary tradition of realism and modernism JCamilo, yes, I agree, and today it may even be in a bit of trouble, but the US seems to have the capacity for reinvention--and there are things that bind even a pomo like DeLillo to our heritage, which isn't that old, though technology may have speeded up how and why powers rise and fall.

[Virgil]

Two or three, three if you count AP Government which covered economics.

And if you're still a socialist, then God bless you, you live in a utopian dream. No credible economist today believes in socialism.

[JCamilo]

I also would add some criticism from the philosophical point of view (and those are already dated)and yes, capacity of reinvention exists and it is necessary, probally to create something anew and this happens. I am not apocalyptic in form.

[JCamilo]

And if you're still a socialist, then God bless you, you live in a utopian dream. No credible economist today believes in socialism.

Only if you are using socialism as synounimous to marxism. If you use socialism as opposite to liberalism (and not capitalism), then you have just a doctorine with heavy governamental intervention, control and participation on economy (and the actual crise we have is a crise of liberalism, so, in a few years, universities of the world will be popping with opposers to liberalism). Fact is, Brazil, China and a few raising economies are never very liberal, so I would not be so quick to dismiss economists that claim to be socialists.

[Etienne]

How many economics classes have you taken?

Well I have taken economic classes, for one, and I don't feel anymore authority to speak on such subject other by somewhat ignorant matters of opinion. Also, I'm not sure why you are drilling this "economic class" rhetoric, as the fact that in your environment economic knowledge revolves around very capitalistic dogmas has a lot to do with a matter of national ideology. My point is that socialism is not necessarily an unworkable system as some make of it, it's practical existence failures have more to do with the political aspect than the economic one. One example I could take to illustrate my point is Cuba, while it is not wonderland, it fares better than many of it's neighbors and that, despite American embargo (which is the most ironic measure ever taken as it did nothing else than strengthen socialistic dogmas on the island, unlike say, China). Note that I am not socialist by any means, but my rejection of this system is based on philosophical basis more than economical ones but nor am I a "capitalist". Seeing such economic notions as a dichotomy is almost necessarily wrong. Both have shown their flaws and the healthiest economies have been the ones that could accept as just measure of both poles according to the current realities. And this means that the leading ideology of the USA of capitalism at all price, as a solution for everything is wrong, and has proved that it was wrong recently. Ironically the nation which was the most progressive, and therefore could the most live up to this notion of "American Dream" has become one of the most conservative, and instead of living to the principles of it's founders and it's successes (imagination, creativity, progressiveness), has tried to maintain these successes in a fixed state and this fixation is the death of "American Dreams", as such notion takes place in nation that are changing, that are growing, not those that take a fixed form.

But, in the end, the "American Dream" has really always been not much else than a popular slogan of nationalistic pride that has been applied to different shifting situations along the history of the country.

And now I feel like I've been rambling very much, and too lazy to reread and correct.


No credible economist today believes in socialism.

Without making an apology of socialism, we live in a capitalistic world, and economists are taught what current dogmas there is. Those same economists you talk of are partly responsible for a worldwide economic crisis, whose least affected parts were those with healthy measures of interventionism, and whose cure were interventionist measures. Soviet economists were pretty well driven on socialism too. But I'm not getting further into that, and besides, unless shown otherwise, you are just as ignorant as anyone on the subject of economics. Besides, I've seen American senators and bidding VPs (ahem) know less than me in economics... so where are is this all going? Nowhere, really. Economy is so complex in theory already, that to pretend one can know it's practical application well-enough is quixotic at best. How much time, mistakes, experiences, tries, etc. did it take us to come to a form that is yet so imperfect and messy of capitalism that one could claim to be able to plan anything about economy? It's a wild, wild jungle there, and he who can cut the branches better does not necessarily know the shortest way out.

[Virgil]

Two or three, three if you count AP Government which covered economics.

:lol: You're 17 years old. When you grow up, son, and live in the real world, come back and talk.

[Virgil]

I've seen American senators and bidding VPs (ahem) know less than me in economics...

Ahem, how many have you seen? I live here and I've only met one in person. How many times have you been here and seen one? And frankly what does that have to do with anything? I'm talking economics not politics.

This thread is degenerating. Let's get it back on subject. I have no desire to talk this issue. Let the economists of the world that advise all the politicians of every country work their course. None of your counties are socialist. Obviously there is a reason for that.

[JCamilo]

Ahem, how many have you seen? I live here and I've only met one in person. How many times have you been here and seen one? And frankly what does that have to do with anything? I'm talking economics not politics.

This thread is degenerating. Let's get it back on subject. I have no desire to talk this issue. Let the economists of the world that advise all the politicians of every country work their course. None of your counties are socialist. Obviously there is a reason for that.


Brazil is socialist, have been in last 14 years. Two different presidents claimed to be socialists and never denied it. One from a former Social-Democratic party (altough called a betrayer for following a liberal agenda to sync wiht the world's economy) and the other from a former communist-marxism party that moved to the center when got the power.

[Jozanny]

Can we return to the literary argument please? I have never taken economics, but even I know that there is no pure methodology for the distribution of resources. I believe in markets, but I also believe in regulatory safeguards, and a socialist safety net.

Virgil--socialism exists in the US (yes, take a few deep breaths); it is a lousy and punishing system, however. I have been in the trenches, and this is not the place to lock horns about it.

[JBI]

:lol: You're 17 years old. When you grow up, son, and live in the real world, come back and talk.

Which world? Keynes replaced Smith, and in the American view Freedman seems to have replaced Keynes. Who is to say that someone won't come along and replace Freedman in the American view?

Honestly, you use socialist as a derogatory term - I take it as a compliment. Capitalism has failed in the past, (and perhaps present, though I don't want to break board rules by going there), and undoubtedly if it exists much longer, will fail again.

There is an inherent sense of fear in, I would say, the States, and to a lesser extent parts of Canada, especially the West by my reckoning, to anything that is deemed to "left" as a sense of prolonged fear that the communists are still out there to get America. Socialism isn't an "evil force" but a system, just as capitalism is. One could argue the benefits, by looking at the growth of capitalist economies, whereas one could look at the opposite, and check into the living standards and standard of life in countries like Iceland, Norway Sweden, or France.

Most countries today seem to be pushing towards a centre between capitalism and socialism. It isn't such a black and white argument as you suggest. People may like to pay lower taxes, but people also like to not have to pay medical bills, or to rely on the goodwill of insurance companies.

Capitalism hasn't been without its critics - neither has socialism for that matter. The point is, the concept of capitalism good, socialism bad is rather close minded and silly.

[Etienne]

Ahem, how many have you seen? I live here and I've only met one in person. How many times have you been here and seen one? And frankly what does that have to do with anything? I'm talking economics not politics.

Do I really need to see them? Economics is not about seeing people, commentaries by people are much more instructive about it than a sight of them... And how can you not realize that economical ideology goes though politics? Do you think politics and economy are two separate animals? they're siamese twins at best.


None of your counties are socialist. Obviously there is a reason for that.

And was it the same reason for half the world being communist a few years ago? This is just base rhetoric. If everyone jumped off a bridge, then there would probably be a good reason for it?

[Virgil]

Do I really need to see them? Economics is not about seeing people, commentaries by people are much more instructive about it than a sight of them... And how can you not realize that economical ideology goes though politics? Do you think politics and economy are two separate animals? they're siamese twins at best.


No they are not. What any politican says in a campaign is absolutely meaningless. And how can you measure anyone from a 20 second news clip. You're not even in this country to see all the news. Are you saying you see more news of Americans than Americans? I find it completely odd that people from outside the US think they know more about the US than Americans. Very odd.


And was it the same reason for half the world being communist a few years ago? This is just base rhetoric. If everyone jumped off a bridge, then there would probably be a good reason for it?
There are currently ten coutries world wide that claim to be socialist, and one of them is China that is moving away from socialism as fast as it can. Perhaps the economic consensus is wrong, but that's the economic consensus today of goverments that are on the right and on the left.

[Dr. Hill]

Capitalism grants an economic crash every 40 years, with a promise of it bouncing back and a promise of the money the corporations have trickling down to us. So what if I'm seventeen? I make income, I hold a job.

[JBI]

Countries don't fall into one category or another so easy. For instance, Canada traditionally has had a rather central economy. We have 4 political parties, with a minority government, each with its own platform. By the American standard, 3/4 of our parties are "left leaning", with one being pushing towards the center, whereas by the European standard the leftest party is just a little left of the center, whereas the rest are central, or towards the right.

But lets get beyond that. You guys have income tax, you guys have just planned a stimulus package greater than half of our economies annual GDP. You guys take money out of your economy and into your governments. How Capitalist is that? Or perhaps the American government isn't the best budgeter?

American capitalism is capitalism for suckers by my reckoning. Perhaps in the beginning it was true capitalism, but it hasn't been since the New Plan in the depression. It is a Keynesian economy, that in recent years has headed to a more right wing stance, but has none-the-less kept up its taxation.

[Virgil]

Let's get beyond this nonsense. I don't come to lit net to talk about economics.

[Etienne]

No they are not. What any politican says in a campaign is absolutely meaningless. And how can you measure anyone from a 20 second news clip.

I don't watch clips, I prefer to read, what politicians say, and what analysts say. Although for the last year I haven't been following it half as much...


You're not even in this country to see all the news. Are you saying you see more news of Americans than Americans?

Well, believe me, we have plenty of news from America here, and I like to think that I'm better informed that the average American. And being informed is not only about interior politics, but also of the general picture of the world, as, as astonishing as it might sound, America is in the world.


I find it completely odd that people from outside the US think they know more about the US than Americans. Very odd.

First, I don't see anything wrong about the notion that someone from outside the USA can know more than the majority of Americans (American could be here replaced by many other nations or concepts). Secondly, I have not argued that I know more than American, and your so-called superior knowledge that you've been pushing sophistically since the beginning has been nothing else than that - sophisms, and poor ones too. Did you have any economic classes? You're ignorant! I know better! How can you think you know better than Americans?, etc. A bit of substance please.


There are currently ten coutries world wide that claim to be socialist, and one of them is China that is moving away from socialism as fast as it can. Perhaps the economic consensus is wrong, but that's the economic consensus today of goverments that are on the right and on the left.

Yes, so? You just repeated what I previously said was nonsense as an argument. Do I need to repeat it again, so you can repeat it again, etc.?


Let's get beyond this nonsense. I don't come to lit net to talk about economics.

As you wish, but you've been repeating this, but continued to argue at the same time, it's one or the other.

[mortalterror]

Keynes replaced Smith, and in the American view Freedman seems to have replaced Keynes. Who is to say that someone won't come along and replace Freedman in the American view?

JBI, that's the most accurate and insightful thing I've ever seen you write regarding America. That comment is well informed and intelligently expressed. Normally, you just spout anti-American propaganda, but that was excellently put. I have just one correction to make. The man's name is spelled Milton Friedman, with an i. He is an exceptionally bright gentleman, but his theories are not without their own flaws. I've been able to spot a few errors in the things he says without being a professional economist. For instance, his stance in support of school vouchers illustrates either an ignorance of educational practices or an ideological blindness to the facts. Either way, we've had Friedman for several decades now and it's time for him to be updated.

Forgive my lack of familiarity with Canadian politics, but hasn't your soon to be ex-Prime Minister Stephen Harper said similar things (to what is said in the States) about the Liberal Party and the secessionists having strong socialist/communist tendencies? What I heard, or thought I heard from him, was strongly negative in that regard. From what I can tell, Canada's largest party is the Conservative Party which shares a number of platform issues with our own Republican Party in the United States. I'm hesitant to speak without a surer grasp of your political history, but I'm confident that most of the evils and abuses you attribute to my country are the fraternal twins of your own. Also, any outliers or dissimilarities could possibly be attributed more to a lack of opportunity than a difference of national character. You yourself seem to be a proud liberal socialist, but I wonder how indicative you are of the general population. Does your experience generalize, or are you exceptional? I have the feeling, just a feeling, that there are some very patriotic Canadians for whom capitalism is a revered totem and liberal is still a dirty word.

[Etienne]

Well, the conservative party as we know it now, is a rather recent addition to the political scene (the previous conservative party was different, the current one is mostly formed with the most conservative basis of the first one). Now the main party has been for years the Liberal party, but they've been going through some troubles and scandals recently which led to huge losses in popularity (coupled with a current leader that is not very popular). Notice that the political ideology spectrum in Canada shifts a lot from west to east. West is more conservative, going more and more liberal to the east, and Quebec generally voting firstly Bloc Quebecois and then Liberals. Quebec is generally more to the left than the rest of Canada too but slowly getting back to the "Canadian center", which is something like Ontario. You could say that there's Ontario which is center (the Canadian average, in a way), the to it's left it's right, and to it's right it's left hehe.

[JBI]

The rhetoric that has been tossed around in Parliament this past week is actually regarded by academics covering it as showing the influence of American culture and media on the Canadian public. The current prime minister's arguments actually fit closer with American politics, which by means of having the same television networks more or less, Canadians are exposed to at such a high amount. So when he says "You didn't elect this guy to be prime minister" people don't realize that Canadians don't actually elect Prime ministers, but elect regional candidates, as is common with Westminster Parliamentary Systems. But of course, as conflict theory goes, The Right Wing party has more money, and reaches wider audiences, and has the power of big business backing them. As a result, we get a large amount of coverage and advertisement exposure to the bull****, and it transfers out into an altering of the perceptions of the uneducated, or of the greedy, who take this opportunity as a way to preach Agenda.

And what it really comes down it, is an anti-left sentiment, and a very typical anti-French sentiment, which usually attaches itself to these sorts of governments, since confederation (I think if one would accuse John A. MacDonald of being an Anglocentrist, one wouldn't be too far off).

But what it really comes down to is the effect of American political exposure reeducating a population which didn't have the proper exposure to the nature of Canadian politics to begin with (I think more towards the higher age brackets), and seem to not know history.

Either way though, the whole coalition crisis as it is beginning to be called is over, as the governor General acted rather controversially, and prorogued government for two months.

Though I would agree with Etienne's diagram of the political spectrum, though historically Manitoba and Saskatchewan were more left than they seem today. Alberta though, I consider to be the Texas of Canada (take that however you want). And French Canada has been more left leaning, though provincially they have elected for two majority government terms, and are projected to re-elect a more central government.

The history of Canada though makes politics rather strange to someone who doesn't really know it - especially the politics of Quebec. Recent politics are also obscured by the American influences that have seeped into our culture, and into our government, by means of free-trade and television broadcasting.

[Logos]

oops! this has gone waay off topic, and some people forgot that discussion of current politricks is not allowed :)