What does the rest of the world think of American Literature?

[waryan]

Being in and of the United States I have no real conception of what the world thinks of contemporary literature beyond what the Pulitzer community or New Yorker Crowd deems superior and was very curious to host a discussion for those members not in the United States to introduce me to how they see Current American Literature- is the Pulitzer Prize of any worth in other countries? are the big names in American literature like Roth, Cheever, McCarthy, Franzen, etc. etc. also big names overseas?

Like I said, being from America it's quite hard to gauge how say those in France take current American Literature - is it revered or reviled?

thank you all in advance for your wonderful input!

[grechzoo]

I'm in the UK, but still I'm very biased, because I love American modern fiction, much more then modern European fiction. I dont know why. Probably mainly because I love America so much (and my surname is Hussain...who knew :p)

Seriously though, my favourite authors are Cormac Mccarthy, Phillip Roth, Toni Morrison. I care about the stories they have to tell more than authors like Coetzee, or Amis right now.

Albeit My to read list is letting me delve into the classics, instead of lingering within the past 50 years. So we will see if it changes as i get to know authors like Tolstoy, Nabokov, Kawabata etc.

My general understanding though is that American writing is looked upon like anything else American over here. Its American not British. So only a few names will spring out and be well known over here, because they don't really care to make any effort and look into some of these authors. Philip Roth and Toni Morrison aren't very well-known, whereas McCarthy has achieved more fame mainly with the help of the Coen Brothers and Oprah.

Of course the "classic" American writers fare better, Faulkner, Hawthorne, Hemingway etc.

[Kyriakos]

Not much of a reader of american lit, although i do like Poe and Lovecraft. I also liked some short stories by other american writers, but haven't gone out of my way to read them.

[manolia]

I like american literature very much and i believe that for the last two years i have been reading american lit mostly (both classics and recent works). I can only speak for myself of course, since i do not have a proper idea of what is being read in greece in general (athough the last time i checked some local authors and Hislop, Yalom, Saramango and Larsson were very high on the list of sales).

I do not think that most of the readers here in litnet are representative of their countries (as to what is being read in their countries i mean). I may be wrong of course :D

[mal4mac]

I'm in the UK, but still I'm very biased, because I love American modern fiction, much more then modern European fiction. I dont know why. Probably mainly because I love America so much (and my surname is Hussain...who knew :p)

I'm also from the UK, but I'm very ambivalent about America. Racism, guns, genocide of the native population... there's a lot not too like... This makes for great fiction though! Where would Cormac Mccarthy, Phillip Roth, Toni Morrison, et. al., be without them.

US Fiction is greatly admired in the UK, maybe because the US has taken over from UK as the major player on the world stage - Roth, Bellow, McCarthy. Big authors dealing with big subjects, just like Dickens, Hardy, Eliot... and no modern UK authors...

I disagree about what you say about Philip Roth and Toni Morrison. They are very well-known in literary circles sin the UK, watch any serious review programme (e.g. Newsnight Review) and they are mentioned at least as often as Amis and gang. I think Roth, Updike & Bellow are up there with McCarthy - who watches or cares about Oprah in the UK?

I only encountered Coen + McCarthy in recent months when "No Country for Old men" popped up on the box - an amazing film!

I don't think "classic" American writers fare that well, the competition from Brits in the 19th & early 20th century tends to put them in the shade... in the UK.

[grechzoo]

Well I was mainly talking about the mainstream readers, no doubt people who know about literature will be in the know in terms of authors like Roth and Morrison.

And while they don't watch Oprah as much as America, the Oprah book club choices usually have good shelf space in the major book stores here. (at least in my experience) so that's why I mentioned her.

You are right about classic American fiction not standing up too well to the classic British authors, however again, I mentioned Hemingway and others because they are well known. Whether they are well respected compared to Dickens et. al is a different matter.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Racism, guns, genocide of the native population... there's a lot not too like...


As opposed to the UK's sterling past? And, you do realize much of that genocide took place because of settlers from the UK, no?

Anyways, I think America gets a lot of attention, negative and positive, for literature, as with all of its art. Though, it definitely is not as popular anywhere else as it is here in America, where we tend to see American literature as the end-all, be-all of the greatest literature ever written.

JBI, StLukes, and JCamilo need to chime in on this, they're much more knowledgeable than me on how the world sees American lit.

[OrphanPip]

I think American popular fiction fairs fairly well, it's essentially true that American fantasy/sci-fi, romance, crime, etc. writers are pretty much dominant internationally.

The couple of current world-class American writers probably fair better in the English speaking world, for obvious reasons. I'm not sure McCarthy is being read as much as Saramago. I think that the English speaking bubble of around 500 million people worldwide allows American authors a bit of an edge because publishing in English can be relatively self-sustaining, you can ignore other languages without lacking a steady flow of decent writing. You still miss out on a lot though.

Personally, most of my contemporary reading does tend to jump between Canada and the US.

Edit: China is equally massive, and has an even bigger potential readership though, I'm sure they have their own popular writing that would eclipse American stuff over there.

[mortalterror]

As opposed to the UK's sterling past? And, you do realize much of that genocide took place because of settlers from the UK, no?
No, no, he's right. Racism, guns, and genocide; that's all we do here. Just like the Catholic church is just a bunch of dudes having sex with boys.

[JCamilo]

JBI? Saying what he thinks of American literature? :D

Everything depends, the prizes are just propaganda. Not just the american prizes, but any other. American imperialism of course make easier to all best-sellers come here and top names are often published.
The elite writers too and of course, the relation with hollywood helps (for example, granted a good exposition of McCarthy here). American market is a master of best-seller, so for the average reader or genre reader, it is a great source.
Critic wise, the top names receive their praise, there is not in-deepth analyse of american production.

Historically, names like Faulkner, Poe and Whitman are head to head with others big names of europe and fundamental for XX century literature. Poe perhaps the strongest. Their influence is similar as those of Lord Byron, Baudelaire, Flaubert, Kafka. However, names like T.S.Eliot is considerable minor. Even his criticism is just secundary (albeit, Borges and him got in the same path by their own legs). Wallace Stevens, Mariane Moore for example, not well-read. Political names as Emerson or Thoreau as expected, are in the limbo.

[callmeMrTibbs]

I try to read literature from all corners of the globe, though I'll readily admit I'm often lazy and don't persevere with a novel that requires too strong a knowledge of its own local culture or is written in a style that I can't get to grips with. As far as American literature goes, I really enjoy it - Franzen at the moment, no big surprise there! - with Roth, Hemingway and Fitzgerald also amongst my favourites. Of course in many ways it's galling that there is such a divide between countries - book programmes and review sections in the U.K. will often focus on purely British writers whilst totally ignoring a major release in the States, and I'm sure the reverse is true too.

But then the flip-side of that is that it leaves the reader to hunt down what he or she most wants to read. And when it's not handed to you on a plate the satisfaction of finding a terrific writer or book is all the more satisfying. Which is also why I value forums like this so highly....

[B. Laumness]

Here, in France, the American writers – good or bad, authentic artists or sellers of crap – are known. The average French reader indifferently reads McCarthy as well as Dan Brown. For him, if a book is a best-seller, it’s obviously a must-read, otherwise he’s not in the hype. The American culture is highly influential in every field: detective, thrillers, horror, science-fiction, heroic-fantasy… so that every apprentice or almost tries to write like his American models. The only genre in which the average French reader prefers the products of his country is the sentimental novel: we are very strong to make beautiful crap sold by ton.

Since the Twenties or Thirties, the American novelists had caught the attention of the Europeans by the novelties they brought to this genre (actually, they developed and improved what already existed in European novels): neutrality of the narrator, presentation of the events without any psychology, multiplicity of the points of view, broken narrative, the work as a manifestation of a lost generation… Dos Passos, Hemingway, and Faulkner were highly praised by the French intellectuals. Europe having committed suicide, they thought that the center of culture and innovation had changed. Modernism and what is called post-modernism were symbolized by the American artists, who indeed continued their experimentations with people like Nabokov, Burroughs, Pynchon, DeLillo…

Nevertheless, the American writers are not much studied in the universities. The scholars still focus on the European tradition. It’s true that the Europeans have produced themselves experimentations in the 20th century.

Personally, even if I like the American literature (which I now try to read in English, but acquire a language is so long…), I feel too rooted in the European tradition and I guess that those American writers have not a deep impact upon me. I could be nasty and say that the most interesting with them is that they write in English. But in fifty years, it’s probable that the main language of the European writers will be English. It’s the logical process of a standardized world. We’re already in. I have spent many years in mastering French and now I try to stammer in a foreign tongue.

[kelby_lake]

I really like American Literature. It seems to have a bigger scope than British Literature does. American Theatre is brilliant also.

[Drkshadow03]

As opposed to the UK's sterling past? And, you do realize much of that genocide took place because of settlers from the UK, no?


Yeah, I was kind of scratching my head too. The first people to dispossess the native population were settlers from European nations. I think it's a bit disingenuous to simply wash ones hands over in Europe and say, "Yep, it's those Americans, nothing to see here over seas, don't blame us."

If we're talking specifically after American independence that would be one thing (such as the stories by James Fenimore Cooper such as the Prairie).

[Bastable]

there is a lot of american literature i like, but i think there might be a tendency of those in the american literary establishment to give undue praise to writers who, while not being bad per se, just aren't that amazing. Jonathan Franzen, philip roth, don delillo, john updike come to mind.

But i could just be generalising here.

[jocky]

American Literature has had a huge influence in the Western World. Poe was a superstar long before Doyle. Ambrose Bierce has always been a legend, F Scott Fitzgerald is a literary lcon. Obviously it is a sad thing for our American buddies to feel inferior to our authors, Shakespeare, Diderot, Dickens, the list is endless. Come on brilliant literature is universal, no need to feel inferior. Pip, Pip old chap. :)

[JuniperWoolf]

I couldn't tell you anything about modern American literature. The only modern stuff that I read seems to be Canadian. I read a lot of the older stuff though, Steinbeck most of all.

[jocky]

I couldn't tell you anything about modern American literature. The only modern stuff that I read seems to be Canadian. I read a lot of the older stuff though, Steinbeck most of all.

My Aunty Helen comes from Ottowa and she tells me everything. Why once she told me about an ice storm that paralysed the whole nation. You have got to remember she is getting on a bit. Never once did she mention Steinbeck. Though she did recall Ray Mears saving her from El Ninio. :D

[aboad]

Aside from the obvious (Roth, McCarthy etc), recently there have been Portuguese editions of some great American writers-- and they have been quite well received! Pynchon, for instance. A translation of William Gaddis Agapê Agape gathered consensual approval. (The fact that the cover (http://bibliotecariodebabel.com/ficheiros/agape1-200x300.jpg) was brilliant helped a bit.)

[mal4mac]

American Literature has had a huge influence in the Western World. Poe was a superstar long before Doyle. Ambrose Bierce has always been a legend, F Scott Fitzgerald is a literary lcon. Obviously it is a sad thing for our American buddies to feel inferior to our authors, Shakespeare, Diderot, Dickens, the list is endless. Come on brilliant literature is universal, no need to feel inferior. Pip, Pip old chap. :)

Diderot? Doyle? Can you name a serious critic who puts any American author above Shakespeare, Dickens, Montaigne, Cervantes, Dante, Homer, Tolstoy or Goethe? American literature has had *an* influence. But a great influence? Looks like a moderate influence to me. Maybe about the same as Sweden?


As opposed to the UK's sterling past? And, you do realize much of that genocide took place because of settlers from the UK, no?.

Yes. I wasn't trying to defend the UK's record!

[JCamilo]

Diderot? Doyle? Can you name a serious critic who puts any American author above Shakespeare, Dickens, Montaigne, Cervantes, Dante, Homer, Tolstoy or Goethe? American literature has had *an* influence. But a great influence? Looks like a moderate influence to me. Maybe about the same as Sweden?

hmmm...many will say that Poe, Melville, Emily Dickinson, Walt Whitman, Faulkner, T.S.Eliot are shoulders to shoulders with those guys. Many will point, Moby Dick is a serious contender for greatest novel ever, and really... talking about influence, Poe is a serious, much serious contender.

[callmeMrTibbs]

Is literature a contest? Surely simply discovering more great writers and novels, no matter where from, is the goal?

[Drkshadow03]

hmmm...many will say that Poe, Melville, Emily Dickinson, Walt Whitman, Faulkner, T.S.Eliot are shoulders to shoulders with those guys. Many will point, Moby Dick is a serious contender for greatest novel ever, and really... talking about influence, Poe is a serious, much serious contender.

And then there is the issue of influence within one's cultural traditions. Most American authors will have had slightly more influence on other American authors. Certainly Hemingway influenced more American writers writing today than Goethe. An exception to this rule would be Shakespeare and Homer.

[stlukesguild]

Diderot? Doyle? Can you name a serious critic who puts any American author above Shakespeare, Dickens, Montaigne, Cervantes, Dante, Homer, Tolstoy or Goethe? American literature has had *an* influence. But a great influence? Looks like a moderate influence to me. Maybe about the same as Sweden?

Now that's just nonsense. Certainly America has not produced a rival to Shakespeare or Dante... but neither has any other nation over the last 100 years. It would be difficult to find a nation that has produced a stronger and more influential body of literature over the last century than the US: T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Robert Frost, Wallace Stevens, Hart Crane, Sherwood Anderson, Marianne Moore, e.e. cummings, Eugene O'Niel, F. Scott Fitzgerald, William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, Nathaniel West, Saul Bellow, Flannery O'Connor, Vladimir Nabokov, Gore Vidal, Norman Mailer, Arthur Miller, Cormac McCarthy, Thomas Pynchon, etc... I doubt that Sweden or the whole of Scandinavia can quite match this output over the last 100 years.

The German (and to a far lesser extent, the Italians) absolutely dominated the achievements in classical music for much of the recorded history of music to an extent that far outstrips the English/French dominance in literature, but even there it would be ridiculous to downplay the American contributions and impact upon the last 100 years of music.

The reality, for better or worse, is that artistic achievement and influence has always followed wealth and power. This is not simply because those with power have the ability to promote what speaks in their behalf (as revisionist theory would have it). Rather, this is because art is dependent upon wealth and wealth attracts the strongest artists... and in most instances, the great economic/military powers are open to outside influence as a result of trade, military conquest, and immigration. The Renaissance flourished in central Italy among great trading states (Florence, Venice, Milan) and not in hermetic England or Russia.

I state this in spite of the fact that yes, I agree that the US has not produced anyone to rival Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, Tolstoy, Michelangelo, Rubens, Rembrandt, Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart. I also state this in spite of the fact that I am an ardent reader of world literature and would include Rilke, Hermann Hesse, Thomas Mann, Eugenio Montale, Italo Calvino, Yeats, Proust, Garcia-Lorca, Neruda, Pessoa, J.L. Borges, and many others among my favorite writers of the last century... I also say this while admitting that the America contributions to the arts may be far more profound in music, architecture, and certainly film than it has been in literature... and yet downplaying America as a minor player in the realm of literature is ridiculous... albeit something is used to hearing from JBI, our great representative of anti-American resentment.:hand:

[Virgil]

I really like American Literature. It seems to have a bigger scope than British Literature does.

I think you're right on that distinction, though I wouldn't say either approach is better, just different. Because American lit aims for a large scope, it's usually more hit and miss than British.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I guess JBI is having a lot of fun in Beijing, at the moment. was really looking forward to one of his anti-American tirades.

And, to add a bit of a more practical reason to why wealth attracts art: You can't really spend a lot of time writing/composing/painting if you're trying to feed your family.

[JCamilo]

I think you're right on that distinction, though I wouldn't say either approach is better, just different. Because American lit aims for a large scope, it's usually more hit and miss than British.

High scope seems too vague.

[Virgil]

High scope seems too vague.

You mean like Homer, Dante, Milton, Cervantes, or Shakespeare?

Actually I'm not sure I know what you mean.

[JCamilo]

That high scope is too vague, does americans really are those trying to aimd high scopes? Milton trying to reach an epical tradition with 2000 years qualify as what?

Chaucer bringing the italians to england as what?

While... Poe aiming to short stories?

[kelby_lake]

Geographically and politically America is bigger than Britain so it's more likely that its literature will have a larger scope.

Bigger scope refers to the themes and ambition of the novel. Grand national concepts like the American Dream don't exist in Britain. A concept like The Great American Novel wouldn't work in Britain.

The epic tradition has nothing to do with this greater scope. Milton being British has nothing to do with Paradise Lost.

If we're talking about British Literature, we talk about writers who have written great works and luckily for us are British. If we talk about American Literature, the nationality of the writer is prominent. American Literature has an identity, common themes. British Literature doesn't have this nationalism and so as a collective, its scope is smaller than that of American Literature.

[JCamilo]

No? But the great British Empire of Kipling, Stevenson, Haggard and cia.? The hero of Carlyle?

The great kings, from the Shakespeares Henries and cia., to the Arthurian themes, Elizabethean allegories, even a victorian age? The chivalirty of Walter Scott?

The great American Novel is the attempt of America find his "founding" epic on novel form, it does not work in english because their have it already. They have Milton and his great christian Epic and Chaucer and his pilgrims.

And really? Because Shakespeare and his kings are typically english. Chaucer and his pilgrism too. Milton reading of christian themes is not exactly italian or roman catholic. Pope humor is completely Monty Phytish. Jane Austen irony?Lord Byron nobility and rebelion? Kipling? The good morality of Steveson? The adventurer Richard Burton? The victorians Brownings and Tennyson?

I am sorry, but England is filled with writers typically english which take us back to england all the time. As an Empire it is world wide, it did had influence all over the world, but still imposed its own culture.

Meanwhile, you have americans writting about Spanish Civil wars, you have Poe (not so american), the gothic and germanism in Washington Irving, Henry James that is almost british, Mark Twain writing about Joana D'arc, Ezra Pound... well, even Melville and his ubber democratic Pequod, is universal as it gets. Luckly Faulkner is american, he could be from anywhere, the same can be said about Hemingway.

[lowradiation]

I'm and English Literature and History student at Northumbria uni, I have an option next year for a module entitled 'reading the american man', and i cannot wait to do it.

Reading list includes: Fitzgerald's Gatsby, Morrison's Song of Soloman, Talented Mr Ripley, Yates' Revolutionary Road, Fight Club, Cormac mccarthy all the way up to the recent Generation A.

The last few years I have become more and more fascinated by American 20th Century lit, having read Gtasby, On The Road, The Road and a few basics. Give me a dark, twisted vision of American culture or a non-conforming, dysfunctional American character any day of the week over Dickens. I'm leaning my degree towards contemporary and modern lit, alos become obssessed with American 20th C politics having studied Vietnam, Atomic Diplomacy etc. So much so I'm undecided whether I want to do postrad studies in either American lit or American history! I have a good decision to make I guess.

So guess the answer is yes, American lit is fairly prominent over the pond, my reading list for next summer includes: Roth, Mccarthy, Franzen, Foster-Wallace, Pynchon, DeLilo, as well as Moby Dick of course.

[Drkshadow03]

Yeah! America!!!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI)

[LuggageFan]

I'm in the UK, but still I'm very biased, because I love American modern fiction, much more then modern European fiction. I dont know why. Probably mainly because I love America so much (and my surname is Hussain...who knew :p)

This is a funny topic to me, because as an American, I find British and other European authors much more enjoyable to read, with some exceptions. Terry Pratchett, Stieg Larssen, James Herbert, Wilbur Smith, Agatha Christie - less literature and more genre, perhaps, but still...

[kelby_lake]

No? But the great British Empire of Kipling, Stevenson, Haggard and cia.? Colonialism is an interesting influence and probably one of the characteristics of English Literature The hero of Carlyle?

The great kings, from the Shakespeares Henries and cia., to the Arthurian themes, Elizabethean allegories, even a victorian age? The chivalirty of Walter Scott?

The great American Novel is the attempt of America find his "founding" epic on novel form, it does not work in english because their have it already. They have Milton and his great christian Epic and Chaucer and his pilgrims. But do they speak for their country in the way that American Literature does? Great Literature and Great National Literature are different things


And really? Because Shakespeare and his kings are typically english But he set quite a few of his plays in Italy, two in France, one in Vienna, although everybody's name sounds Italian.. Chaucer and his pilgrism too. Milton reading of christian themes is not exactly italian or roman catholic. Pope humor is completely Monty Phytish. Jane Austen irony?Lord Byron nobility and rebelion? Kipling? The good morality of Steveson? The adventurer Richard Burton? The victorians Brownings and Tennyson?

I am sorry, but England is filled with writers typically english which take us back to england all the time. As an Empire it is world wide, it did had influence all over the world, but still imposed its own culture.

Meanwhile, you have americans writting about Spanish Civil wars Ah, there's a discussion on that in this thread:http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56543&highlight=hemingway. War is the perfect setting to look at national values , you have Poe (not so american), the gothic and germanism in Washington Irving, Henry James that is almost british A lot of his novels were about the American/British clash, coming from the experience of an American in Britain, Mark Twain writing about Joana D'arc, Ezra Pound... well, even Melville and his ubber democratic Pequod, is universal as it gets. Luckly Faulkner is american, he could be from anywhere, the same can be said about Hemingway Not sure about this.

My thoughts :)

It's not so much a question of quality. It's about having that nationalist quality.

[JuniperWoolf]

Yeah! America!!!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI)

Haha, that's the song that goes through my head every time I witness that unique brand of excessive American patriotism at a global sporting event.

"U! S! A! U! S! A! U! S! A!"

It's one of the reasons why I love the olympics. Other countries don't really do that...

*edit* Except for China.

"Chi-na!" clap clap clap! "Chi-na!" clap clap clap!

After the taekwondo worlds, that's going to be stuck in my head for the rest of my life.

[JCamilo]

Kelby, it got confusing :D

Anyways, Colonialism is just another name for speak for their country or spreading the national culture. I am sure when africans point for european voices imposing their vallues in Africa, one of the fingers is pointing to England. Same with Asians. Lawrence was playing with Arabs, right?

I fail to see how Richard Burton does not speak for his country while Mark Twain does. Goethe speaks less about German than Chaucer who focused his pilgrame in a fact only relevant for the relation between church and crown in England, something rather unique that we find in Milton too.

Yes, Shakespeare is not so british, but which american is so american? Mark Twain sets stories in France and Camelot.... Hemingway in Spain... Melville in some islands... Bradbury in Mars (joking of course)... Poe in Paris, North Pole... And what is good of Haggard set stories in Africa? Or in Egypt? Just like, of course, Hemingway is an american talking about spanish war, Shakespeare still an english... the humor, the plot twists... So typical of him.

And James? By the simple fact he is focusing on English-american conflicts we already have an american looking beyond Manhattan. And look at Faulkner, many of his stories could happen anywhere who had those long plains, the isolation, the small cities minds, that is why he entered so well in South America while Virginia Woolf and Borges did not.

And think about philosophy, the entire Newton vs. Leibniz charada, the british liberal ideal... England is certainly an identidity in their literature, cann't see how not perceibe it, the nation talking with their voices like everyone else.

[stlukesguild]

"U! S! A! U! S! A! U! S! A!"

It's one of the reasons why I love the olympics. Other countries don't really do that...

*edit* Except for China.

"Chi-na!" clap clap clap! "Chi-na!" clap clap clap!

Oh yes, of course. Those civilized English would never act like such rude barbarians:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR2zXbg5fP0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtOXiQToz64

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GcpxjejhfU

Nor those Germans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyZ-tGa1uMY

Or even those Canadians:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJLGMMBuzhQ

Oh those horrible, brutish Americans with their "USA... USA..." chants.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

AMERICA! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M) (explicit content :nod:)

[JuniperWoolf]

Oh those horrible, brutish Americans with their "USA... USA..." chants.

The only nation who's chant most people have heard more often than literally any pop song is America's. I say while being completely objective: when it comes to narcassism, America takes the cake. You can't even say the word "America" in front of an American crowd without being interrupted by ecstatic cheers. It's frickin' hilarious. Everyone jokes about it, you should totally watch Team America: World Police.

[Emmy Castrol]

I usually prefer British literature to American (the British seem to be able to laugh at themselves a bit better) but there some American writers who I've liked - H.P. Lovecraft (until my husband forbid me to read anymore of his work), F. Scott Fitzgerald (for Gatsby only, his other works are terrible), Harper Lee, Carol Shields and for a contemporary, Curtis Sittenfield.

I like America for its sense of humanity, passion, its big ideas and its fearless love of freedom.

[mortalterror]

It would be difficult to find a nation that has produced a stronger and more influential body of literature over the last century than the US

We are agreed. There have been no new Dante's or Shakespeare's from any quarter for some time now, and in recent history America has had a very good run. I'd place our sweet spot between 1850 and 1950, and although the 20th century is much too varied and full of masterpieces for any one nation to be dominant, I believe that the United States was at least prominent among many good contenders of this period.

[OrphanPip]

Oh those horrible, brutish Americans with their "USA... USA..." chants.

I think you missed the point, none of that has to do with expression of nationalism at sporting events. There is certainly a distinctive way of expressing patriotism in the USA.

Besides, riots are a sporting event within and of themselves in Montreal. :p

[kelby_lake]

I like America for its sense of humanity, passion, its big ideas and its fearless love of freedom.

Literature-wise, I agree :D

[Drkshadow03]

AMERICA! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M) (explicit content :nod:)

Did you just copy my post (6 posts above yours)?!

[JCamilo]

We are agreed. There have been no new Dante's or Shakespeare's from any quarter for some time now, and in recent history America has had a very good run. I'd place our sweet spot between 1850 and 1950, and although the 20th century is much too varied and full of masterpieces for any one nation to be dominant, I believe that the United States was at least prominent among many good contenders of this period.

Well, XX century saw the fall of Russian literature, German faced the post war havoc, spanish and portuguese moving to south america, and english taking over french in west. I still think America great representative is Poe, a writer to be considered influential (more) must be compared to him in the XIX century. He already turned the table, english writers were already copying him.

[Drkshadow03]

I think you missed the point, none of that has to do with expression of nationalism at sporting events. There is certainly a distinctive way of expressing patriotism in the USA.

Besides, riots are a sporting event within and of themselves in Montreal. :p

I agree with St. Luke. American patriotism isn't really very different than other country's patriotism at sporting events. Just for some reason most other countries like to pretend it is.

If you don't feel hooliganism and post-game riots is representative of other countries nationalism during sporting events it isn't difficult to find other expressions:

Canada Versus Russia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RfI-ge3kPY)

Canada street chanting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiK3f-fEDdY).

[JCamilo]

People are people everywhere, the difference is of course the context of America and how sport is used for political propaganda. Which is of course only different because America is a top power. The day Tibet became a world wide empire, they will do the same.

[Scheherazade]

From the OP:
Like I said, being from America it's quite hard to gauge how say those in France take current American Literature - is it revered or reviled? Further off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.

Those who insist on indulging in immature country bashing will receive infraction points.

~

[Sancho]

Geographically and politically America is bigger than Britain so it's more likely that its literature will have a larger scope.

Bigger scope refers to the themes and ambition of the novel. Grand national concepts like the American Dream don't exist in Britain. A concept like The Great American Novel wouldn't work in Britain.

The epic tradition has nothing to do with this greater scope. Milton being British has nothing to do with Paradise Lost.

If we're talking about British Literature, we talk about writers who have written great works and luckily for us are British. If we talk about American Literature, the nationality of the writer is prominent. American Literature has an identity, common themes. British Literature doesn't have this nationalism and so as a collective, its scope is smaller than that of American Literature.

Indeed, America is a big place. Some would say it encompasses practically an entire hemisphere. That is to say, America is not just the United States, but rather the entirety of North America, Central America, and South America. One sure-fire way to piss off Latin Americans is to exclude their particular land mass when referring to ‘America.’

That reminds me of something that has become somewhat concerning to me. Something I was trying to sort out in mind the other day. I’m not sure when ‘Latino’ became a racial identity in the United States, but it is now, and it’s gaining momentum. It’s concerning to me because the last thing we need in the States is more racial tension – another category, an excuse for people to throw up a new us-versus-them barrier.

The idea of ‘race’ already lacks scientific rigor and assigning Latinos a unique race, it seems to me, makes the science even softer. The Americas are generally the meeting of, or collision of, three different peoples: Native Americans, who got here first (probably by way of Asia); Europeans, by way of exploration and colonization; and Africans, by way of the slave trade. Now, we’re all mixed up over here – a glorious trifecta of race – a genetic hat trick.

Yours truly, El Sancho, has a little of all three in him, but mostly Sancho’s genes came to America by way of a backward little island in the British Isles, an island that was suffering a potato blight at the time. Incidentally, potatoes found their way to Ireland from South America. So how is ‘Latino’ a race and what defines it? The word Latino refers to a language so perhaps the defining characteristic of the Latino race is the Spanish Language. But then there’s the problem of Portuguese-speaking Brazil. Well, okay, maybe Latino can be defined as those people living in the Americas who speak a Romance language as their native tongue. Then, I suppose, we’d have to put French-speaking Quebec under the Latino umbrella and I’m pretty sure French-Canadians don’t think of themselves as Latinos, but the thought is giving me a pretty funny picture in head…

Anyway, the whole thing is highly confusing to me. In Latin American Spanish, they have words to describe the mixing of peoples: A Mestizo is a person of Native American and European ancestry; A Mulatto is a person of African and European ancestry; and a Zambo is a person of African and Native American ancestry. Zambo is probably the origin of Sambo as a racial epithet in North America.

Speaking of racial slurs and racial tension, it seems to me that of all the countries in the Americas, the one that got the race question right was Brazil. Here in the USA, we just completed a census and on the census form I filled out, I had to decide on a race: Black, White, Asian, Pacific Islander, or Latino. I couldn’t bubble-in more than one. In Brazil they’ve always acknowledged the mixing of peoples, and consequently, I think, Brazilians identify themselves more strongly as Brazilians than as Black, White, or Native. Perhaps Latino is the USA’s acknowledgement of racial mixing. I don’t know.

Alright then, I’ve wandered way off topic in this extraordinarily long post, but my whole point is to argue that all the people living in the Americas are Americans. Therefore, a list of American writers would include: Pablo Neruda, Gabriel García Márquez, Laura Esquivel, Mickey Spillane, and Alice Munro.

And yes, according to Sancho’s theory of the Americas, that makes JBI an American too.

[JCamilo]

Hmmm, ony recently brazilians have been correctly identifying themselves as black. The amount of africans here is much bigger than what america received, the mixing much bigger, yet, it was not commun the linking. But then, helps when you are victim of eugenics and the "slum" of europe, Portugal, to not think as white either.

There is clear distinctions (Latino is not just for americans), Argies do not put them together with others, there is more native mixed people, and brazilians. In Brazil, the states play as identification... plus footballing culture.

[Sancho]

Interesting, J. I’ve only been a visitor to Brazil, so my perceptions are probably superficial. You, clearly, will have a much more nuanced understanding of the place. And, of course, Brazil is a huge country. The cities I’ve been lucky enough to visit so far are: Sao Paulo, Rio, Recife, Fortaleza, and Brasilia. Each place had a distinct flavor (Brasilia was sort of weird) but they all gave me a sense for the warmth of the people. I’d like to see Manaus, but it’ll be a while.

Also, I agree with you about Argentina. Going to Buenos Aires seemed like going to Europe. Boca Juniors are exciting, though.

[JCamilo]

Interesting, J. I’ve only been a visitor to Brazil, so my perceptions are probably superficial. You, clearly, will have a much more nuanced understanding of the place. And, of course, Brazil is a huge country. The cities I’ve been lucky enough to visit so far are: Sao Paulo, Rio, Recife, Fortaleza, and Brasilia. Each place had a distinct flavor (Brasilia was sort of weird) but they all gave me a sense for the warmth of the people. I’d like to see Manaus, but it’ll be a while.

Even the literature or music is different. Refice and Fortaleza belongs to the north literature, usually focused on great empty spaces, hunger, dryness, political conflicts. São Paulo is a big city, you have the pauliceia of Mario de Andrade, urban poets and the big farms of campside. Rio is the metropolis, culture mix, Machado de Assis. Brasilia is a board, all cultures building a city from nothing...

[stlukesguild]

I agree with St. Luke. American patriotism isn't really very different than other country's patriotism at sporting events. Just for some reason most other countries like to pretend it is.

Building upon this in a manner dealing with the discussion at hand, I will also say that I don't buy the notion that American literature has this distinctly American nature where other literary traditions do not

(If we're talking about British Literature, we talk about writers who have written great works and luckily for us are British. If we talk about American Literature, the nationality of the writer is prominent. American Literature has an identity, common themes. British Literature doesn't have this nationalism...)

I think the inability to see just as much of a common national character to British literature or French literature or German literature is simply a sort of blindness as a result of being too close. I can listen to someone from London or Ireland of New York or Texas speak and I am struck by their accent... but I assume that I have no accent... because I am not listening to my voice from another perspective... as an outsider. By the same token I imagine that a Brit or a Frenchman might look at American writing and immediately think, "How typically American!" without recognizing that the writing of the British or the French are just as typically British or French viewed from an outsiders point of view.

This question has been provocative... but one just as well have asked "What does the rest of the world think of ______________ literature? And we might add the word French or Russian or British or Spanish or Latin-American and in every instance I imagine that the given national/linguistic tradition would not be as important/understood/appreciated as one moved beyond the native-speaking population. I make a concerted effort to read foreign-language literature... but I'll admit that I have but a passing grasp of most non-English-language literary traditions. In spite of the strengths of such literary traditions as that of France I admittedly have at least 10 times the books by English language writers. By the same token, I would almost guess that I have a greater collection of Spanish-language literature than most Canadians, British, Germans, Russians, Italians... and maybe even French for the simple reason that Spanish has played such an important role in American culture due to our history with Spanish settlers, our border with Mexico, our large number of Latin-American immigrants, etc... A good deal of Spanish-language literature is available in translation in the US... perhaps even more so than German or Russian or other languages with at least an equal literary tradition.

[Jozanny]

From the OP: Further off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.

Those who insist on indulging in immature country bashing will receive infraction points.

~

"Infraction points for denigrating nation states..." added to notes :D "Pulling Sche's leg..." noted as mild risk taking... :wave:

[Sancho]

Even the literature or music is different. Refice and Fortaleza belongs to the north literature, usually focused on great empty spaces, hunger, dryness, political conflicts. São Paulo is a big city, you have the pauliceia of Mario de Andrade, urban poets and the big farms of campside. Rio is the metropolis, culture mix, Machado de Assis. Brasilia is a board, all cultures building a city from nothing...

There’s no doubt about it – Brasilia is a beautiful city. It’s well laid out, has a splendid climate, has a wonderfully modern feel to it, and tries hard to represent the whole of Brazil, but it lacks the grittiness of a regular city. That’s what I meant by ‘weird.’

East L.A. has its barrios, East St. Louis has its ghettos, Southside Chicago has a skid-row, Sao Paulo has its favelas, and Atlanta has the area South-O-Ponce, but Brasilia is still too new to have developed a vibrant, down-and-out subculture. But they’re working on it.

The last time I was in Brasilia, I was talking about this to a lady in a shoe store. (By the way folks, if you like shoes – Brazil is the place to be) She was from Rio and she said she missed it. She said she missed the ocean. I said, “Yeah, but there’s sharks in the ocean. You’ve got all these beautiful lakes around here to swim in.” She said, “There’re sharks in the ocean, but there’re crocodiles in these lakes.” I said, “Hmmm, that’s worse.”

One thing I love about Brazil is Brazilian Portuguese. I don’t know how to speak it, but I love the way it sounds. Italian may require hand gestures to be spoken correctly, but Brazilian Portuguese is a language that requires full-face involvement to be properly expressed.

So anyway, J. Thanks for the rundown on the regional literary traditions of Brazil. I’m afraid most North Americans have probably only ever read Paulo Coelho. And even though The Alchemist has been the object of ridicule on this website, I enjoyed it. (BTW, I had to add this paragraph to my post so that Scher wouldn’t edit me for straying off-topic)

[JCamilo]

Well, either we are the rest of the world or we are american literature, so we are on topic :D

I think the lady must be joking with you, I mean, not only she never saw a shark attack on her life as she probally know our alligators are too small and shy for it...

Anyways, depends also where are you. Portuguese in litoral (Salvador, Recife) is more close to regular portuguese, south has strong spanish influence, Minas Gerais is the more unique, mixing all, bringing it close to orality, eating vowels and, believe of not, killing the second person of verbs and pronoums.

[Sancho]

Absolutely, and all pedantic snobbery aside, language is a living, breathing thing. I suppose it would stand to reason that the Portuguese spoken in Recife is closer to that of Portugal because Recife is geographically closer to Lisbon that is, say, Rio de Janeiro. Recife is also closer to Senegal, which would explain the higher percentage of people there of African descent.

My hometown, Atlanta, certainly has its linguistic quirks. One word in particular is much maligned by the rest of the English-speaking world. I’m talking about the word, y’all, which is a contraction of you and all. It’s a versatile word and can be used as a singular or plural pronoun, although strictly speaking, the plural of y’all is: all y’all. I also believe that here in Atlanta, we rival Recife in swarthiness of skin tone. Inside of loop I-285 anyway.

[JCamilo]

The closeness explains a bit, Recife and Salvador were the first "colonies". The african descent less. (I am not sure if they have more). But they also received the early settlements of slaves, but unlike, Minas-Rio-São Paulo, less settlements of portuguese, spanish and latter waves of europeans (Italians, germans).

Minas is more "Lively" because it is a road in them middle of brazil, having contact and dynamics of all country (but extreme south and north).

[JBI]

I guess JBI is having a lot of fun in Beijing, at the moment. was really looking forward to one of his anti-American tirades.

And, to add a bit of a more practical reason to why wealth attracts art: You can't really spend a lot of time writing/composing/painting if you're trying to feed your family.

No longer in Beijing, I am on a 2 month long odyssey backpacking around China, and as of now am at 张家界，Zhangjiajie, the famed national park that is tragically becoming associated too much with the movie Avatar, from which the floating mountains seem to have been taken.


As for American literature, and American culture in general, I would put it into three categories, more or less dismissing the early runners, who, though influential, did not solidify as well as their 19th century counterparts.

1) the innocent coming of age narrative, where the US is this "new" idea (a literary construct surely) and is earning its place as "the shot heard around the world." I would put that up until the first world war, but it seems to die out before that. I think Longfellow, Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman, as well as early novelists like Poe and Hawthorne.

2) the modern engine - American ideas and identity in a sort of crisis and limbo, as it has joined the rest of the world - this seems to be the attitude between and after the wars, which ended up solidifying rather in a sort of narcissist obsession with itself after the war, when the cold war broke out, and then carried over until the 80s, when it exploded. This generally was one of the most creative segments of world literature as I see it, as it took the fire of the 19th century forerunners, but brought it more into an international, explosive perspective. I think of the great Modernist poets, Faulkner, and beyond, basically everything people really thinks of with the exception of Whitman and Melville. I would put an early figure of this as Poe, though he is quite idiosyncratic.



And then finally stage 3) the nation caught between revulsion, obsession and guilt, love, hate, and still devout patriotism. I think here of the last modern authors, and the preoccupation with politics in literature and film. I think of all those mediocre poems that have been making textbooks recently, and those protest like writings that seem to only matter if you hate the US, or are American.


As a general tradition, it has faired quite well, though there are noticeable complaints - first of all, it is self-obsessed, which is not restricted to the US mind you, and can be leveled as a complaint on other traditions, like the modern Chinese tradition.

Second of all, it loves the sound of its own voice. The whole tradition as founded on the "shot that was heard around the world." is a bit egocentric, and has been so since the beginning. The tradition has liked to think of itself as the new, better, and higher tradition since its foundations, and has tried to separate itself. It is isolationist, and ironically, dependent on other traditions at the same time, and, a great developer in translation and in cultural appropriation.


The third complaint, it promotes itself too much internationally. As an English speaker, I am fed the American cultural doctrine daily - Americans have also, since NAFTA taken over various segments of Canadian media, and restricted the possibility of artistic development outside of the American sphere. Basically, American presses print in China and in huge factories, and dump their books, and their advertisements in our markets. In literature Canada has recently been able to push out, but in other markets, it is short of impossible unless the content is being played on Canadian only stations - of which, Americans will never buy into anyway, which gives them another advantage over us, they ignore us, yet dump onto us. IT ignores the world, but wishes the world to know it - it's that aspect which bothers me most - its self obsessed self promotion self love that ignores all other traditions, and insists it aught to be heard.

The same way, my fifth complaint is regarded in its cross between its own repression, guilt, and pride. It's the idea that because the US finally elected an African American, it has accomplished something great, and the world should marvel. In reality, culturally it should be ashamed that it took so long to elect someone who didn't fit into a cultural mold - the same way it praises authors who detail its previously unspoken hatred - hatred is praised, in that it is "overcome" whereas the rest of the world is ashamed of their past, that the US has overcome it (much later than lets say Canada, who, though not perfect, is still not even close in comparison) and therefore the rest of the world should marvel at it. This is more in keeping with the third movement I perceive in American literature, and is in many ways rather repulsive.

Instead of a literature of scarring and healing, rather it ignores its past in favor of "praising its overcoming". It is much easier to celebrate Martin Luther King JR then to face the fact of racism - if that is not enough though, it wants the rest of the world to celebrate it too. To use a very vulgar metaphor, it is like a child jumping for joy and showing its mother than it can wipe its own bum. Unfortunately, flushing is another matter.

Overall the tradition has produced many great authors, though as for the amount promoted in the English world as classics - not quite all of them make the cut. Perhaps 1/5 of the now promoted books, as is the case with other traditions.

I still think it takes itself seriously - there are a great many excellent authors, but there are also a great many excellent authors from elsewhere in the world. It is amazing to see people who read in only one language, or even people who just read narrowly, or read in a few trying to say that on a "per capita" basis, the US has faired better. Perhaps, perhaps not, the fact that one can make a claim is rather ridiculous in itself.

Note: not all these complaints are restricted to the American tradition itself, but in my experience are apparent to the tradition at hand.

Note: I am an avid reader of American texts, but that does not put me above being able to criticize them, or see through them. I like the tradition, but also try to compare it, rather than just absorb it.

Note: one should still read American literature, it has many excellent authors, and many examples also that are excellent, while including elements mentioned, or while excluding - this is just a general sketch of personal understanding.


Still, I'll say flatly, the tradition in question is like a spoiled little kid that needs to be smacked hard on the bum. Much of the posting here seems to confirm that. IT would be better though if some of these great lovers and ridiculous posters posted something perhaps a little bit more personal in what they think, or perhaps started other threads on other traditions, or even on their favorite books.

Likewise, for those who agree the American tradition is a bit obnoxious, it works better to give concrete examples, though I fear, as I know Americans, only a slim fraction will take constructive criticism on anything, whereas the rest will adhere to the tradition "us-versus-them" or "you-are-just-jealous" doctrines promoted by the keepers of American identity, the American media (unlike the pre and post war Japan relationship where the US sought to understand and comprehend Japanese culture and identity, the modern experience has merely sought to "nape" it, to avoid politics and side step them, how much does the average person really know about Afghan, or Iraqi (let alone Middle Eastern identity). Let us bring that by extension, how much about Vietnamese culture? Or even Central American, or South American culture? It would be nice to see some promotion of its understanding, as the US, as a body, has in the past had a great capacity for translating other traditions and beginning to understand them, if only to reject them, or absorb their histories and appropriate them.

[Sancho]

Hunh, I always liked Bob and Doug McKenzie

and the Red Green Show

also I dig plaid flanel

And once, in 1987, I had a deeply philosophic conversation with an equally inebriated traveler, at a road-house in Watson Lake, Yukon. I love Canada, and Canadians, not so much the RCMP.

[mortalterror]

JBI, how can you complain that America promotes itself too much abroad, and then claim that we don't translate enough foreign literature? The answer to both problems is that foreign nations need to translate and promote their own authors more. The onus is on them to get recognition the way America has done. If they won't do for their own, why do they expect us to do it for them? The reason we don't know anything about Chinese culture is because that is how the Chinese want it. They are still a very insular society, which chooses not to participate in a world community. India is another one. There are as many English speaker's living in India as in the United States, so why are we the one's translating the Mahabharata? Because we are actively engaged with the world. We are a curious people in an open society. We are proud of our achievements and want to share our blessings with the globe. Go and do likewise.