Which COUNTRY has produced the greatest literature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

No, because we are somewhat ethnocentric here on this board, and pretty much limited to only Western Literature. Quick name 20 Chinese authors worth mentioning. I reckon you will have a far easier time naming 20 American ones.

---

Exactly! You call it ethnocentric, I call it anglocentric. Same thing. How many read Faulkner, compare it with the number of people who read Anita Desai or Rabindranath Tagore or Arundhutti Roy or Gao Xingjian (a French, yes French, Nobel Prize winner who writes in Chinese!) We are talking about big countries here. India has the second largest publishing industry after the US. It caters entirely for the gigantic domestic market whereas a large chunk of American books are printed for export. What do these billions of people read?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kafka's Crow

Exactly! You call it ethnocentric, I call it anglocentric. Same thing. How many read Faulkner, compare it with the number of people who read Anita Desai or Rabindranath Tagore or Arundhutti Roy or Gao Xingjian (a French, yes French, Nobel Prize winner who writes in Chinese!) We are talking about big countries here. India has the second largest publishing industry after the US. It caters entirely for the gigantic domestic market whereas a large chunk of American books are printed for export. What do these billions of people read?

---

Still Chinese is one of the hardest languages to be able to read, and perhaps the hardest to write in (I can't even create legible Latin Characters). Unless you specifically go to school to study these languages, it is rather unlikely that you will come across the literature written in them.

I know that a new poetic translation of the Mahabharata is underway, but still, no one really has time to read a 12000 page epic. I think it is fair to say that the easiest languages to learn by a European are other European languages, simply because they have the same root. To even begin to conquer the other side of the Canon is to undertake a feet for a lifetime. I can't think of anyone who has conquered both to such a degree that they became an authority on both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

but this all grows tiring, does it not... and proves, if anything, that the decision is certainly not a clear hands-down choice of France over Britain... or vis-versa. Personally... I am glad to have both... and all the rest.

---

Then we might agree I believe, my point is very much the futility of such judgments.

Quote:

---

French Modernism should be forever damned thanks to the contribution of Duchamp who is almost single-handedly responsible for the plethora of Conceptual crap that now infests the art scene.

---

Duchamp is not so much responsible, as he did great works, and his "ready-made" was more meant as a joke, "take something and declare it a work of art". Some people just took it too seriously...

However that reminded me a funny quote of Dali about Picasso: "Picasso is responsible for the generalized ugliness of contemporary art." Haha, I do like Picasso in general however, just not his stupid pottery paintings... ugh..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Yes but did she have any argument? I mean I can enumerate a lot of great authors in many languages and from many cultures too.

---

No, she didn't. What I enclosed in my previous post was all she had to say on the topic, though I'm sure she could have said more if she felt the need to (the information was supplied as a side note, separated from the main text).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kafka's Crow

... and don't forget Stone-cold Steve Austen!

---

:lol: I failed to mention him! :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

No, because we are somewhat ethnocentric here on this board, and pretty much limited to only Western Literature. Quick name 20 Chinese authors worth mentioning. I reckon you will have a far easier time naming 20 American ones.

---

You're right. After Sun Tzu, I don't think I could name even one Chinese author (whether (s)he was worth reading or not!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kafka's Crow

Exactly! You call it ethnocentric, I call it anglocentric. Same thing.

---

Is that necessarily a bad thing? I feel pretty connected to American writers because mostly they're talking about the world that I know. You call it anglocentric, I call it having a sense of identity with your countrymen.

A side by side comparison of mostly European literature

Greece, Rome, Italy, England, France, Germany, Russia, Other
Epic
The Odyssey, The Aenead, Jerusalem Delivered, Paradise Lost, The Franciad, ? , ?, The Lusiads
Short story anthologies
Aesops Fables, The Metamorphoses, The Decameron, Canterbury Tales, La Fontane's Fables, Grimm's Fairytales, Anderson's stories
Comic novel
?, Satyricon, Orlando Furioso, Catch-22, Gargantua and Pantagruel, ?, ?, Don Quixote
Comic play
Lysistrata, The Pot of Gold, Love For Three Oranges, The Importance of Being Ernest, Tartuffe, Leonce and Lena, The Inspector General,
Tragic play
Oedipus Rex, Thyestes, ?, Hamlet, Phaedra, Faust, ?, The Doll House, Fuente Ovejuna
Novel
?, ?, The Betrothed, Tom Jones, Madame Bovary, Sorrows of Young Werther, War and Peace, Dream of the Red Chamber, Tale of Genji,

I don't know what I'd compare The Divine Comedy to, and yes I know Tom Jones probably belongs under the comic novel heading. But as you can see, most cultures labor in the same fields, and each produce miraculous fruits.

If you want to compare golden eras, then England and Spain had theirs around the reign of Queen Elizabeth. France had a similar period of prominence during the reign of Louis XIV. Germany was strongest during Goethe's time, and Russia came into it's own in the nineteenth century. However, the French and English weren't much behind the Russians in the nineteenth century either. Italy had it's big period in the thirteen hundreds. Greece and Rome were biggest in the clasical period. They all tend to pass the torch and no one stays on top of the heap for long.

Russian XIX, French XIX, English XIX
War and Peace, The Red and the Black, A Tale of Two Cities
Anna Karenina, Madame Bovary, The Scarlet Letter
Crime and Punishment, Les Miserables, Moby Dick
Dead Souls, ? , Huckleberry Finn
The Brothers Karamazov, Chartrehouse of Parma, Middlemarch
Chekhov's short stories, Maupassant's short stories, Poe's Short Stories
Fathers and Sons, Old Goriot, Barchester Towers?
the analogy starts to break down here but...
Eugene Onegin , Germinal , Ivanhoe
Oblomov ,Notre Dame de Paris ,Great Expectations
A Hero For Our Time, ?, Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights, and Jude the Obscure

Even if you believe that Russia gets the better of this fight, that's because we're mostly just comparing novels and short stories. If you include the poetry and drama of the period, then Russian begins to shrink in the face of the English and French powerhouses. However, I am not well versed either in poetry, or the Eastern literatures so I can't make further comparisons. I've heard that China's Tang dynasty was something special. I've read Tu Fu, Li Po, Wang Wei, and Po Chu-i who were all excellent, but beyond that I couldn't say. What I've read of Iran's Shahnama was pretty good too and probably deserves a place beside the Odyssey or the Mahaberata. Would you rank the Faery Queen with them? Should we include history, philosophy, and essays? From what I can tell, literature and high culture in general tends to be the history of people having enough economic prosperity to feed and house themselves so they want other things and turn to luxuries. The better educated they are, the more prosperity there is, with this comes more leisure to read and write and so better books.

Then there's the problem of which leisure pursuits get emphasized in wealthy societies. During the centuries when Italian and German literature is weaker than France and England's their music was much better, so things have a way of evening out, especially in the long term.

Probably England or maybe America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cioe

Is that necessarily a bad thing? I feel pretty connected to American writers because mostly they're talking about the world that I know. You call it anglocentric, I call it having a sense of identity with your countrymen.

---

Canadians primarily read English and American novels, with the French Canadians reading French literature primarily, with some native works mixed in.

Despite this however, Canada is one of the most multi-cultural countries in the world. It would make sense that at least works written in Canada should be read, if not works showing the heritage and traditions of other nations, whose immigrants make up a vast amount of the Canadian population.

In Europe there are similar things occurring, thanks to the easing of boarders because of the E.U, there are more immigrant workers in non-native countries. With this, there should be the opening up of all European literature, not just the native one. Considering so many Europeans decide to take on another language, it would make sense that they would expand that way at least.

The point I'm trying to make is that, we can't with Chinese literature. Chinese doesn't translate, and is extremely difficult to learn. Most people will never know Chinese, but most people will learn English. Therefore, when piling, everyone knows English, it being the second language of most of the world, and very few who post here know Chinese. None of us will be able to defend that canon, therefore it is inevitable that the discussion is between European countries, primarily Russia England Germany and France. France, of course, gets thrown around, since too much is lost in translation. Russia gets over represented because of people's fascination with Dostoevsky, and German generally gets unmentioned, despite a major contribution, and perhaps the greatest contribution in non-fiction.

England, and the United States end with the most exposure because everyone here speaks English. We can all agree on the greatness of certain English authors, but we all don't know many of the French, or German ones. Russia is no where close to these, since their only mentionable literature begins with Pushkin, and they seem to have ebbed under Soviet rule. Either way, when piling a list, everyone will know the great American authors, and great English poets and play-writes, and even novelists, but none will know the Chinese ones better than these, and none will even mention India. The fact that you believe anglocentricism is good has nothing to do with the outcome.

I think that Italy and France have both produced great literature and I don't think Britain has produced the best literary work; it surely has produced a lot, but the literary tradition of Italy can certainly rival it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

The point I'm trying to make is that, we can't with Chinese literature. Chinese doesn't translate, and is extremely difficult to learn. Most people will never know Chinese, but most people will learn English. Therefore, when piling, everyone knows English, it being the second language of most of the world, and very few who post here know Chinese. None of us will be able to defend that canon, therefore it is inevitable that the discussion is between European countries, primarily Russia England Germany and France. France, of course, gets thrown around, since too much is lost in translation. Russia gets over represented because of people's fascination with Dostoevsky, and German generally gets unmentioned, despite a major contribution, and perhaps the greatest contribution in non-fiction.

---

Too true (especially the part on Russian and German lit, spot on!). And, like you, I also think that it's both inevitable and harmless that we are somewhat Western-Literature centered. Okay, it's the globalization era, but do we have to be intimate with the literature from every country in the face of this planet? I think it's kind of hypocritical to say that you know literature from this and that continent and that one too, unless, of course, you have a deep understanding of the culture the literature's inserted in. I'm only well acquainted with portuguese, english, american and german culture, therefore I read the literature from these countries. Sure, I like to expand my horizons every once in a while, but if I read a book from the Phillipines now, without having a clue about the Phillipines whatsoever (I'm not even sure I spelled the blessed country's name right), can I really say I've read it like I would have read, say, an English novel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kandaurov

Too true (especially the part on Russian and German lit, spot on!). And, like you, I also think that it's both inevitable and harmless that we are somewhat Western-Literature centered. Okay, it's the globalization era, but do we have to be intimate with the literature from every country in the face of this planet? I think it's kind of hypocritical to say that you know literature from this and that continent and that one too, unless, of course, you have a deep understanding of the culture the literature's inserted in. I'm only well acquainted with portuguese, english, american and german culture, therefore I read the literature from these countries. Sure, I like to expand my horizons every once in a while, but if I read a book from the Phillipines now, without having a clue about the Phillipines whatsoever (I'm not even sure I spelled the blessed country's name right), can I really say I've read it like I would have read, say, an English novel?

---

I agree with most of what you and JBI said. Translation is certainly an issue, especially where poetry is concerned. But with prose it's a bit easier.

And I do not think that you have to have a deep insight into a culture before you can read its literature. Perhaps it's the other way round - literature might get you interested in a culture, might give you a better understanding of a country and its people.