British Literature vs. American Literature

Marlowe
Chaucer
Milton
Orwell
Maugham
Eliot
Bronte sister
Austen
Dickens
Robert Louis Stevenson
Alexander Pope


And that is without mentioning the plethora of great poets from the British isles like Kipling, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth and great playwrights like Harold Pinter.

G.L. Wilson- As I said, hopeless.

While I'm not likely to embrace Vonny's notion that America is somehow lacking in culture and major contributions to the arts... you'd have to be somewhat clueless... if not hopeless... regarding literature to suggest that the British contributions to literature are hopeless without Shakespeare. There are few authors from any nation that might be seen as clearly superior to Chaucer, Spenser, Donne, Milton, Defoe, Sterne, Swift, Johnson, Marlowe, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Keats, Shelley, Blake, Byron, Tennyson, Browning, Wilde, Dickens, Austen, Thomas Hardy, Scott, Robert Burns, Yeats, Joyce, Beckett, etc... If British literature is "hopeless" where does that leave the rest of the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Orwell was a more versatile writer and probably one of the greatest essayist in the English language.

Edit: And frankly, the only author on that list who is debatable is Maugham, but I say that mostly because I think of him as more of a "2nd tier" writer along with people Forster, good writers who never did anything particularly ground breaking.

Edit2: Emil, I'm not sure what political bias you could be referring to though, since both Wells and Orwell were socialist. I could maybe see what you mean if Wells were some sort of conservative writer.

---

I do not think that Orwell was more versatile than Wells as virtually all of Orwell's writing was political whereas Wells, apart from writing non-scientific novels, was also an early writer of science fiction, an area in which he was very influential. Wells's sociological novels, which in my view are his best, are written from a socialist standpoint but not as markedly as those of Orwell and as he grew older his socialism weakened. I have read all of Orwell's published work and a good deal of Wells and, to my mind, apart from Animal Farm, 1984, and Homage to Catalonia only the essays are noteworthy. His other work is enjoyable but not of the same standard. This also applies to Wells where books such as The War in the Air and The New Machiavelli are not as readable and informative as his other work.
When it come to Maugham, whose work I have also read in total, it is true that he has been kept at arms length by the literati who, with some justification, look askance at best sellers but Orwell is on record as praising Maugham's work and few would deny his craftsmanship. If we were to limit authors to those who are groundbreaking, English literature would be greatly diminished and many fine writers would have remained unread.
E. M. Forster's liberalism permeates the political establishment in the UK even to this day and his influence is especially strong in the media even though, unlike Orwell, he isn't considered groundbreaking in literary circles.
Orwell is usually on the curriculum whereas Wells is not and I believe that it is because Orwell's overt socialism goes down well with what is often mistakenly referred to as the intelligentsia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

On a personal level it is a matter of opinion, but an objective assessment by critics versed in literature would probably be the obverse of your own.
H G Wells is a very good writer and like Orwell his output has been noticeably patchy but his influence has faded while Orwell's remains. I suspect that a tendency to political bias in educational establishments may be the reason, but on a purely authorial level, I wouldn't like to choose between them.

---

Well, I do not know how much Wells goes right or wrong, (Orwell starts with the disvantage of Huxley's dystopia being more accurate than Orwell ,which still works more as representation of all past and repetition) but how much Wells influence has vanished if genetic mutation experience going wrong still a catchy theme? When Alien invasions still everywhere (heck, even crap independece day stops aliens using a virus! How original).

The problem is that people reduce Wells to a genre writer, forgot a considerable amount of fantastic writing he wrote which had nothing to do with science fiction - a genre that was more likely labeled after him and Verne. It is like how people do not even mention Chesterton there, probally thinking "that silly fat dude who wrote detective stories".

{edit}

Literature is the domain of the bourgeoisie in the UK and has suffered accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G L Wilson

Literature is the domain of the bourgeoisie in the UK and has suffered accordingly.

---

Has this been true for a thousand years - and if so, is it as true for every other European literature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G L Wilson

Literature is the domain of the bourgeoisie in the UK and has suffered accordingly.

---

One of the few things that is known of Shakespeare is that he came from the petit bourgeoisie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

One of the few things that is known of Shakespeare is that he came from the petit bourgeoisie.

---

The theatre in the UK nowadays is a bourgeois squat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan Madley

Which has provided great work? Britain: Shakespeare, Dickens, Doyle, Eliot, Hardy etc. or The United States: Steinbeck, Twain, Melville, Fitzgerald etc. I know many will say British and so would I, but I want to hear your opinions.

---

I suppose that is impossible to oppose these authors. question is incorrect. in my opinion. the first time I wanted to say, that the British, but decided that both the literary equivalent.

You know, this whole thread is a tad juvenile. First, it is a mistake to consider US culture and "British" culture as two entirely distinct entities, rather than as divergent strains of the same culture. That English is the primary language over so much of the Earth owes not to the admittedly great literary legacy of Britain, but to the imperialistic/colonial ambitions of that same nation/kingdom. Just in case you have forgotten, let me remind you that the US was essentially founded by British citizens. Even at the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the US founding fathers swore allegiance to King George. My point is that Shakespeare is hardly the exclusive property of those living across the English Channel. You see, our ancestors brought his work over when they left.

I also find it bizarre that when persons in this thread talk about the giants of 20th century literature, they talk about Rushdie, Hemingway and Steinbeck. Let's just make a couple things clear. First, that Irish mad hatter called Joyce is largely considered the great technician of 20th Century literature; Kafka, a Czech, is largely considered the great artist; and Nabokov, an American on loan from Russia and educated at Cambridge, is largely considered the great fusion of that art and technique. What this suggests is that considering literature in terms of chauvinism and patriotism is a wholly wrongheaded enterprise.

Although it is true that England/Britain has had a preeminent position in the "literary world," that position was earned not through prose, but poetry and drama. The great English poets are the greats poets of the world; here, I'm referring to that lineage running from Shakespeare to Wordsworth. As far as prose is concerned, Dickens and Austen don't look nearly so impressive when compared to Tolstoy and Chekhov.

Nation states do not, in any way, determine literary genius, which is, after all, a rare deformity that happens by chance. The artistic reader abhors such contests of national aggrandizement, not because they are "politically incorrect," but because they miss the point entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

You know, this whole thread is a tad juvenile. First, it is a mistake to consider US culture and "British" culture as two entirely distinct entities, rather than as divergent strains of the same culture. That English is the primary language over so much of the Earth owes not to the admittedly great literary legacy of Britain, but to the imperialistic/colonial ambitions of that same nation/kingdom. Just in case you have forgotten, let me remind you that the US was essentially founded by British citizens. Even at the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the US founding fathers swore allegiance to King George. My point is that Shakespeare is hardly the exclusive property of those living across the English Channel. You see, our ancestors brought his work over when they left.

I also find it bizarre that when persons in this thread talk about the giants of 20th century literature, they talk about Rushdie, Hemingway and Steinbeck. Let's just make a couple things clear. First, that Irish mad hatter called Joyce is largely considered the great technician of 20th Century literature; Kafka, a Czech, is largely considered the great artist; and Nabokov, an American on loan from Russia and educated at Cambridge, is largely considered the great fusion of that art and technique. What this suggests is that considering literature in terms of chauvinism and patriotism is a wholly wrongheaded enterprise.

Although it is true that England/Britain has had a preeminent position in the "literary world," that position was earned not through prose, but poetry and drama. The great English poets are the greats poets of the world; here, I'm referring to that lineage running from Shakespeare to Wordsworth. As far as prose is concerned, Dickens and Austen don't look nearly so impressive when compared to Tolstoy and Chekhov.

Nation states do not, in any way, determine literary genius, which is, after all, a rare deformity that happens by chance. The artistic reader abhors such contests of national aggrandizement, not because they are "politically incorrect," but because they miss the point entirely.

---

Do you have any relatives that are already members?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Do you have any relatives that are already members?

---

Is that a joke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Is that a joke?

---

No, no. You carry on. I've read all seven of the posts you've made since you joined today, and I have to say I've rarely seen any new member establish a voice so strongly and so quickly.

i plan to enjoy it as long as you're here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

You know, this whole thread is a tad juvenile. First, it is a mistake to consider US culture and "British" culture as two entirely distinct entities, rather than as divergent strains of the same culture. That English is the primary language over so much of the Earth owes not to the admittedly great literary legacy of Britain, but to the imperialistic/colonial ambitions of that same nation/kingdom. Just in case you have forgotten, let me remind you that the US was essentially founded by British citizens. Even at the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the US founding fathers swore allegiance to King George. My point is that Shakespeare is hardly the exclusive property of those living across the English Channel. You see, our ancestors brought his work over when they left.

I also find it bizarre that when persons in this thread talk about the giants of 20th century literature, they talk about Rushdie, Hemingway and Steinbeck. Let's just make a couple things clear. First, that Irish mad hatter called Joyce is largely considered the great technician of 20th Century literature; Kafka, a Czech, is largely considered the great artist; and Nabokov, an American on loan from Russia and educated at Cambridge, is largely considered the great fusion of that art and technique. What this suggests is that considering literature in terms of chauvinism and patriotism is a wholly wrongheaded enterprise.

Although it is true that England/Britain has had a preeminent position in the "literary world," that position was earned not through prose, but poetry and drama. The great English poets are the greats poets of the world; here, I'm referring to that lineage running from Shakespeare to Wordsworth. As far as prose is concerned, Dickens and Austen don't look nearly so impressive when compared to Tolstoy and Chekhov.

Nation states do not, in any way, determine literary genius, which is, after all, a rare deformity that happens by chance. The artistic reader abhors such contests of national aggrandizement, not because they are "politically incorrect," but because they miss the point entirely.

---

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/p...jpg?1307463786

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/p...jpg?1307463786

---

Apparently, the irony of calling me stupid or a troll by pasting an insulting cartoon in a post is lost on you. Perhaps when you advance beyond pictographs we can discuss it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Apparently, the irony of calling me stupid or a troll by pasting an insulting cartoon in a post is lost on you. Perhaps when you advance beyond pictographs we can discuss it.

---

Being completely dumbfounded by the troll/stupid comment, I reread my post and then discovered that I said "at the time of the writing of the Declaration..." when what I meant was just before (meaning mostly Adams's complaint against parliament). Perhaps you mean my use of "citizen" for "subject." Other than that I just don't know what you mean.