Does writing a novel in English makes it an English literature?

[caddy_caddy]

I had a debate with my friends about the authors who write novels in English.
For example, Ahdaf Souif from Egypt and Arundhati Roy from India.
A Novel, particularly is an English form; Arabs for instance had only poetry; the form is borrowed from the West.
So what do u call their novels ? Egyptian and Indian novels or English novels ?

[Clovis]

I had a debate with my friends about the authors who write novels in English.
For example, Ahdaf Souif from Egypt and Arundhati Roy from India.
A Novel, particularly is an English form; Arabs for instance had only poetry; the form is borrowed from the West.
So what do u call their novels ? Egyptian and Indian novels or English novels ?

I suppose so, some English might disagree.

[Charles Darnay]

When you refer to (x) novels, the (x) is generally country of origin. You could say novels written in English, but English novels tend to refer to ones produced in England. So even if an Egyptian wrote in English, I would think it is an Egyptian novel.

[blazeofglory]

I had a debate with my friends about the authors who write novels in English.
For example, Ahdaf Souif from Egypt and Arundhati Roy from India.
A Novel, particularly is an English form; Arabs for instance had only poetry; the form is borrowed from the West.
So what do u call their novels ? Egyptian and Indian novels or English novels ?

Caddy, your question is germane to my context in Nepal too. Novel writing is not the product of the Nepalese literary genre. We too have a tradition of poetry and our great writers a couple of centuries ago were not novelists. Novels invaded the Nepalese literary domain only 100 years ago and prior to that we had epics, dramas and the like. Today novels are written
within the western mold and though it is a borrowed genre of writing we call it ours culturally, socially and nationally. Today, particularly with the colonization of eastern countries, in fact both middle-east, southern east and far east nations, English is spreading like a wildfire and even if we loathe it there is no option. As a small boy I learned English in my early babyhood but could never master it though I have been reading English books for decades. Today globalization has furthered the use of English on a global scale. If I do write novels in English, in fact I have been planning, it would be absolutely Nepali. The spirit is Nepali; the theme is Nepali; the subject is Nepali; the background is Nepali; the characterization is Nepali; the writer is Nepali but the language is an imported one used by a Nepali keeping a larger community in mind.

[Clovis]

Translations are also English lit. in a mammoth artistic sense, at least imo. Garnett's link to Dostoevsky, Rosner's link to Hesse, etc. etc.

[PeterL]

I had a debate with my friends about the authors who write novels in English.
For example, Ahdaf Souif from Egypt and Arundhati Roy from India.
A Novel, particularly is an English form; Arabs for instance had only poetry; the form is borrowed from the West.
So what do u call their novels ? Egyptian and Indian novels or English novels ?

Yes, literature is anything which is written, and English simply tells what language it is in. Everything written in English is English literature.

[ralfyman]

They are usually seen as literature in English.

[Clovis]

They are usually seen as literature in English.
Really!? How about that!

[caddy_caddy]

well, let's collect the criteria you mentionned in your posts:
The nationality of the author
the place of production
the subject matter of the novel itself
the language written in it

I subscribe to the nationality of the author and the subject matter of the novel itself.
For instance , Jibran khalil Jibran lived in the states , produced there and wrote in English .yet " they say " in the Congress Library they don't label his books under American Literature.

As Harold says , it's the spirit of the novel itself. The English novel was first known as the genre that propagates the ideology of the English bourgeoisie. So , following the same logic , Ahdaf Souif and Roy's novels would be Egyptian and Indian .

[Charles Darnay]

Yes, literature is anything which is written, and English simply tells what language it is in. Everything written in English is English literature.





Find me one person who refers to The Great Gatsby as the "Great English novel." It has been called one of the greatest novels written in English, but not an English novel.

[caddy_caddy]

They are usually seen as literature in English.

yeh literature in English not English literature.

[Charles Darnay]

The English novel was first known as the genre that propagates the ideology of the English bourgeoisie...

Where did you get this from?

[caddy_caddy]

from books

[Charles Darnay]

It is very misleading. In fact, two of the authors who are instrumental in the rise of the novel as a literary form - Defoe and Fielding - are highly critical of this ideology.

[PeterL]

Find me one person who refers to The Great Gatsby as the "Great English novel." It has been called one of the greatest novels written in English, but not an English novel.

Why would anyone want to find such a person?

This thread is not about whether the Great Gatsby is great literature, but about whether literature in English is English literature, which is a tautology.

[Clovis]

^ Thank you, yes I believe everyone has realized the senselessness of this thread, none-the-less there's a point still, be it subjective, ambiguous, and abstract. The language is the language, nationality is unimportant, or at least should be.

I find translation every bit as keen an art, many might disagree, arguing almost any points in any and all arts is nonsensical, so I'll leave it there, being no where.

[caddy_caddy]

It is very misleading. In fact, two of the authors who are instrumental in the rise of the novel as a literary form - Defoe and Fielding - are highly critical of this ideology.
It's a matter of reading the text , from which angle are u looking at it.
For instance, the South African author Coetzee wrote his novel Foe as a response to Robinson Cruso which silenced both women and slaves . wasn't this the ideology of the British at that period?

[Charles Darnay]

Why would anyone want to find such a person?

This thread is not about whether the Great Gatsby is great literature, but about whether literature in English is English literature, which is a tautology.

I should have underlined the words English and American - that was my point.

[caddy_caddy]

^ Thank you, yes I believe everyone has realized the senselessness of this thread, none-the-less there's a point still, be it subjective, ambiguous, and abstract. The language is the language, nationality is unimportant, or at least should be.

I find translation every bit as keen an art, many might disagree, arguing almost any points in any and all arts is nonsensical, so I'll leave it there, being no where.

No, not senseless . In the academy , in libraries when u do a research they differentiate between the two. You won't find Ahdaf Souif under English Literature . She's Egyptian my dear . And when they gave Roy the booker prize , they gave it for an indian novel cz she's an indian writer.

[Clovis]

^A far point; but I try not to make such things matter, and there is great point to be made in not giving a hoot.

Literature is so subjective, fun to find some like minded people, beyond that, it becomes...

[caddy_caddy]

Reading literature is subjective but labeling literature and writers is more ideological and political. For instance, we didn't call those who translated and wrote in Arabic , Arab writers : we call them Orientalist . This is political too:)

[Clovis]

No, not senseless . In the academy , in libraries when u do a research they differentiate between the two. You won't find Ahdaf Souif under English Literature . She's Egyptian my dear . And when they gave Roy the booker prize , they gave it for an indian novel cz she's an indian writer.

You obviously didn't understand what I said, my dear. I was agree with what you said and the person I was responding to also; and I also implied that pretty much everyone agrees, even the person who posted the thread most probably, and therefore the thread itself is silly, of course there is nationality. My point was, it is all, on the whole literature foremost, and shouldn't really matter.


Reading literature is subjective but labeling literature and writers is more ideological and political. For instance, we didn't call those who translated and wrote in Arabic , Arab writers : we call them Orientalist . This is political too:)

and silly as well.

[miyako73]

I thought it would only be English if there was something in the book or about its author that was closely related to England.

The first Filipino novel was written in Spanish and in Spain in 1885. To call it a Spanish novel is negating the intent of its author who wrote anti-colonial and anti-Spain sentiments.

[Clovis]

Reading literature is subjective but labeling literature and writers is more ideological and political. For instance, we didn't call those who translated and wrote in Arabic , Arab writers : we call them Orientalist . This is political too:)

and silly as well.

[caddy_caddy]

and silly as well.
why are u wasting ur time on silly things then ?!!! u come here often and read ?!!:crazy:

[Clovis]

I suppose as I already said, like minded people. Academic scrutiny isn't the only thing here, then again maybe I'm mistaken. You shouldn't take things personally, like hearted jokes in particular, that weren't even aimed at you directly. lightn' thy loadeth. :smilewinkgrin:

[caddy_caddy]

:blush2:ok , sorry I misunderstood you

[Clovis]

oops, it'd be thou, wouldn't it? :Yawn:

That's cool, no sweat. Chances are, I haven't a clue anywho.

[julian94]

From the discussion and the title itself, the thread seems as if it were derived from a lack of vocabulary...

English literature =/= literature in English

Translation= literature translated in [language]


But really the identification of literature as coming from an ethnicity is slowly vanishing today, with the event of globalism and given importance to speculative fiction. It is and will always be important to preserve ethnic cultures and such, so to say that a novel is part of the English literature because it is English is irresponsible, given that there are many novels written in English which have a purpose of being a porte-parole of an ethnic group.

I think what defines whether a literary work is coming from an ethnic group is the perspective under which it was written, how this perspective was written and the themes prevalent to the conception of the plot. I mean; if someone had written a novel under an Afro-American perspective and that the writer characterised this character in the most racially-offensive way possible, I wouldn't call it Afro-American literature.


But again there is the concept of overlap.

[Clovis]

^What a clever and informative remark! I had absolutely no idea that when Garnett translated Dostoevsky, still somehow, against all odds, continued the existence of the original Russian, thanks for clarifying that! Live and learn, LIVE AND LEARN....

[julian94]

^What a clever and informative remark! I had absolutely no idea that when Garnett translated Dostoevsky, still somehow, against all odds, continued the existence of the original Russian, thanks for clarifying that! Live and learn, LIVE AND LEARN....

I have no idea on how this post relates to mine, but ok.

[Clovis]

^ I suppose I thought you were being dismissive of my view that translations are a serious art form. As far as my being a little off topic, you are right there, but what a thread topic it is? Being a little off topic is almost inevitable.

[julian94]

No, I wasn't dismissing any of your views--I'm agreeing to it, in fact, lol. I'm studying translation. Disagreeing with your view of it as an art form would endanger my future potential for revenue. Why would I want that in a capitalist society? That's just plain nutty!


Seriously, I consider translation as art. That's why I hate most English translators who try to make the translated text more foreign in tone than English when they're translating it into English. That aspect of sacrificing prosody for perceived literal concreteness always tickles me on the wrong sides, because the charismatic idiosyncrasy of a language becomes awkward if tried to put into another language. I mean; try translating Kafka's works literally. It's ghastly.

[Clovis]

I missed your gist, sorry.

[ralfyman]

Really!? How about that!

Needed if there's specialization involving literature from England.

[Clovis]

^ I'll try and say things which are more productive, less uselessly sarcastic and spur of the moment.

[ralfyman]

yeh literature in English not English literature.

That's right. In cases where there is specialization on literature from England, then literature in English is used to refer to works from different parts of the world that are written in English.

[kelby_lake]

Don't get me started on Poscolonialism.

[PeterL]

Don't get me started on Poscolonialism.

Are you an enthusiast?

[blackbird_9]

Obviously, valid arguments could be (and have been) made either way. In my opinion, however, I do thing that there is substantial ground for regionally/ culturally classifying literature when studying lit history. Firstly, it's a convenient and logical way to track the development of a culture's evolution in writing styles and themes. England's literary development is different than that of America's, and therefor, there is value to assigning the cultural labeling to the writing. I also think, though, that this value diminishes when it comes to more contemporary writing as the overlap of cultures, access to world wide information, and themes relating to global concerns as opposed to just regional have created something new in the literary wold which cannot be bound by geographical labels. In the end, it's all context. Quite frankly, I makeup answers to these kind of things that only make sense in my own logic. For example, I say Hemingway is a French American author, T.S. Eliot is an Europeanish poet, and Rushdie is an Indian author even though he's technically British.... Lesson being, when no one knows, make it up!

[kelby_lake]

Are you an enthusiast?

The opposite actually.