Which COUNTRY has produced the greatest literature?

That isn't the argument, and you know it. None of the authors you mentioned have written epics. Epics by definition need to represent societal values, The Lord of the Rings does not. It is simply a novel liked by a generation by accident. Nothing more. There is no epic about it, besides its laborious length. True epics have not been around since Milton (I would argue since before that, but Milton is generally considered the last true Western epic), and the Lord of the Rings doesn't break the trend. Even Wordsworth's Prelude isn't considered to be a true epic, and it was far more significant than the Lord of the Rings. You do not know what epic is, if you believe the rings are an epic. length isn't the only thing in the equation. Scope isn't the only thing, and adventure isn't the only thing.

Tolkien brought nothing beyond a center ground to fantasy literature. Lord Dunsany had already written a removed world romance, the Germanic north had already written most of Tolkien before he even put his pen down. His style is borrowed. His characters are regarded by most serious readers as flat. He may have created something interesting, but he clearly is not a major author. He is merely a cultural phenomenon which has survived by being raised on a cultural pedestal by the inhabitants of many a parents' basement. The ring is almost the same as Star Trek, or Star Wars, except that it evolved from a book, and not a T.V. show. That is the only difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

That isn't the argument, and you know it. None of the authors you mentioned have written epics.

---

And that is the root of the argument, altough they have no writen epics they wrote books that would suit your definition of epic. And even, are you going to say that Balzac novels didn't represent societal values.
The epics are not just what you define as epic, you must include all the definition that was presented here.

Quote:

---

Epics by definition need to represent societal values, The Lord of the Rings does not.

---

As I said several non-epics do present societal values. And it is arguable that LoTR does not apresent any societal value.

Quote:

---

It is simply a novel liked by a generation by accident. Nothing more.

---

Accident have nothing to do with that. Even Dan Brown have a reason to be popular.

Quote:

---

There is no epic about it, besides its laborious length. True epics have not been around since Milton (I would argue since before that, but Milton is generally considered the last true Western epic), and the Lord of the Rings doesn't break the trend.

---

Actually, Gonçalves Dias wrote I-Juca Pirama in the XIX century and this is regarded as an epic. Baudelaire classificated Victor Hugo Les Miserables as an epic (because of the Social scope of his work), Anthony Burgess classificated Ulisses as an epic... I would agree that true epics are in poetic form and not prose.

Quote:

---

Even Wordsworth's Prelude isn't considered to be a true epic, and it was far more significant than the Lord of the Rings.

---

I do not understand it at all. I am not arguing the significance of Tolkien while compared to names like Wordsworth. But you talk as if only epic literature have importance.

Quote:

---

You do not know what epic is, if you believe the rings are an epic. length isn't the only thing in the equation. Scope isn't the only thing, and adventure isn't the only thing.

---

Agree it is not the only thing but you are falling to accept that Tolkien literature was relevant for the society he lived in and dealt with themes that were dear in the after-wars. Anways, if W.H.Auden call it an epic I accept I do not know what an epic is.

Quote:

---

Tolkien brought nothing beyond a center ground to fantasy literature. Lord Dunsany had already written a removed world romance, the Germanic north had already written most of Tolkien before he even put his pen down.

---

Agree, but that is irrelevant. Borges is one of the most inovative writers of XX century and he lists Carlyle, Kafka, Macedonio Rodrigues, Chesterton, etc as people who did all that he did (and with truth) before him. It is the how it was done that matters. (I Agree, Tolkien was nowhere as great as other names but nowhere as bad to be labeled as just a copy-and-paste)

Quote:

---

His style is borrowed. His characters are regarded by most serious readers as flat.

---

I think that is irrelevant. It is not like Sherazade, one of the most important female characters of all literature is deep and it is not like Voltaire created deep characters altough he still a great writer.

Quote:

---

He may have created something interesting, but he clearly is not a major author.

---

Yes, he is not a major author. I would say he is in the limit where a few other authors inhabit such as Conan Doyle, Dumas, Anatole France or Lovecraft.

Quote:

---

He is merely a cultural phenomenon which has survived by being raised on a cultural pedestal by the inhabitants of many a parents' basement. The ring is almost the same as Star Trek, or Star Wars, except that it evolved from a book, and not a T.V. show. That is the only difference.

---

Now, here is the exageration. Analyse the style of Tolkien, dense and confuse, losing his time in the geography rather the action. He is sometimes old-dated and in his book he used a few characters (Tom Bombadill for example) that are not "sympathic" at all, the excess of music in his book and some chapters (Such the last one) clearly anti-climatic ending.(Not to mention in Silmarilion, writen in such style that the listing of names and dates abound). He became popular despite writing without using the formula for a best-seller - if tolkien deliever the script of Lord of the Rings to any publishing house today they would never put it ahead. It is much more authoral and unlike the other two, hardly writen to be a marketing success. If he managed to get such fanatism , years before those two mass media sucess, you must seek in his book the reason not in the market.

[QUOTE=cuppajoe_9;324052]I'd say the largest volume of great literature has come from the British Isles, but that might just be because I'm an anglophone.

For consistency of great literature, it's hard to beat Russia. (Quick, name five lousy Russian authors. See?)

Isn't that because lousy authors aren't so famous, because they're lousy...

comes from The United States. I refer you to the American Declaration od Independence and the United States Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan Madley

Conrad

---

Conrad's native tongue was not english; he learned english in his early 20's.

I would say that it is unfair to say that any particular country has written the best literature - maybe if one were to narrow it down a bit and say best novelists or best poets or best essayists or best playwrights, et cetera, then one might begin to be able to make a decent decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

That really has to be taken into consideration when deciding what is and is not a classic. Does the work have merit, and can it even be read without too much difficulty? Those are possibly the two most important questions when determining artistic worth. However much scholars and writers push to have his work enshrined, the common readers will have none of him and that will be that. When a book ceases to be read by the public at large, it loses it's vitality, and ceases to be a true classic. It becomes an eccentricity of a peculiar sect, a cultish icon that has no bearing on the society at large.

---

Is that not what is gradually happening with literature (& even reading) in general? The number of people who actively read, let alone read literature, have dwindled (outside of classrooms - at least in the U.S.). Therefore people who do read, especially literature, are more accurately described as "Literature Aficionados" or some such eccentricity (peculiar sect) rather than the common man/woman of society at large.

What then of the classics? Would you say that Homer is still read by the public at large? Is this a sign that what we consider as classics no longer speak to the average 21st century person? Or are people becoming indifferent to or too distracted to care about the art & wisdom contained within literature? Perhaps I am only viewing the times in which I live & breathe, failing to see a larger pattern that has been repeated since history began? Or do they retain their vitality, regardless of the public's reading appetite, if taught in schools?

I apologize for the late post & not adhering to the topic, but it seems this thread has covered lesser discussions.

Determining which nation has produced the best literature is difficult, because in order to do that one must have read every book, poem, essay, play, and sacred book of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Mongolian, Vietnamese, Malay, Thai, Hakka, Dravidian, Hindi, Bengali, Bihari, Oriya, Punjabi, Gujarati, Sindhi, Nepali, Kashmiri, Dogri, Tibetan, Mizo, Meitei, Kayah, Karen, Jingpho, Burmese, Bodo, Tamil, Hmong, Sundanese, Javanese, Cham, Tagalog, Formosan, Nicobarese, Kuy, Mon, Arabic, Khmer, Khasi, Persian, Uralic, Ainu, Uzbek, Uyghur, Tatar, Turkish, Kyrgyz, Azeri, Afrikaans, Xhosa, Zulu, Zwazi, Venda, Tsonga, Pedi, Shona, Malagasy, Sango, Kinyarwanda, Tigrinya, Somali, Swahili, Arabic, Nahuatl, Albanian, Armenian, Spanish, Portuguese, Lithuanian, Latvian, Welsh, Breton, Cornish, Gaelic, English, Manx, German, Swedish, Finnish, Danish, Dutch, Icelandic, Norwegian, Kurdish, Ossetian, Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, Slovakian, Slovenian, Aragonese, Corsican, French, Galician, Italian, Leonese, Norman, Occitan, Romanian, Sardinian, Silesian, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Serbian, Estonian, Hungarian, Basque, and several others.

Fortunately, I have done this and know these languages inside and out. Thus, based upon my expertise, I can definitely say that the greatest literature is that written in Malagasy. Second, Silesian. Third, Italian. Fourth, Zulu. And fifth, Ukrainian.

Greatest literature? are you speaking in terms of quality or quantity? for one country can produce lesser publications containing a magnitude that can beat the literature of rest of the world, or the depth and heart-touching words of some countries cannot equal the humungous quantity produced by one place.
Besides the greatest literature, subjectively, would be the one that appeals to us the most, to which we return again and again for our pleasure and which complies with our fancies and individual tastes. Objectively, it would be unfair to accredit one nation as the producer of 'greatest literature', for every country has a differing history that situated authors accordingly to the sociopolitical scenarios, giving them thoughts they put to words. Influences vary, so if all the authors from the all ages, were experimented to be in one same condition, then I would pick one to the greatest. Its the versatility of many cultures, languages and history that makes literature Great as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nayyarsarah

Greatest literature? are you speaking in terms of quality or quantity? for one country can produce lesser publications containing a magnitude that can beat the literature of rest of the world, or the depth and heart-touching words of some countries cannot equal the humungous quantity produced by one place.
Besides the greatest literature, subjectively, would be the one that appeals to us the most, to which we return again and again for our pleasure and which complies with our fancies and individual tastes. Objectively, it would be unfair to accredit one nation as the producer of 'greatest literature', for every country has a differing history that situated authors accordingly to the sociopolitical scenarios, giving them thoughts they put to words. Influences vary, so if all the authors from the all ages, were experimented to be in one same condition, then I would pick one to the greatest. Its the versatility of many cultures, languages and history that makes literature Great as a whole.

---

Agree. Partiality in this context cannot be but absolutely subjective and worse, merely because of ignorance.

I do not think western literature is superior to eastern. India was a country of great literature. Take for example the Mahabharata. I am versed with both western and eastern literature. I do not find any book of literature more advanced in terms of its narrative style interweaved with philosophy. The Mahabharata is the greatest epic ever written and no creations of even Homer and Virgil can match the grandeur and splendor of the Mahabharata. The sanskrit language is indeed the mother of many languages and of course English, French and many other languages come from Sanskrit.

Of course modern literature comes from America and Europe and this is mainly due to the fact that modern civilizations is steered by European explorers. But as far as ancient literature is concerned it is indeed through India and China that just birthed much better literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nayyarsarah

Greatest literature? are you speaking in terms of quality or quantity? for one country can produce lesser publications containing a magnitude that can beat the literature of rest of the world, or the depth and heart-touching words of some countries cannot equal the humungous quantity produced by one place.
Besides the greatest literature, subjectively, would be the one that appeals to us the most, to which we return again and again for our pleasure and which complies with our fancies and individual tastes. Objectively, it would be unfair to accredit one nation as the producer of 'greatest literature', for every country has a differing history that situated authors accordingly to the sociopolitical scenarios, giving them thoughts they put to words. Influences vary, so if all the authors from the all ages, were experimented to be in one same condition, then I would pick one to the greatest. Its the versatility of many cultures, languages and history that makes literature Great as a whole.

---

I second your thought. Quantity is what matters today. Western literature is intrinsically poorer than the literature of ancient Indian literature.

Can people stop bumping old threads? Especially when they are not adding anything new to an already dead thread? We had these conversations years ago. IF someone wishes to revisit them, would it not be better to start a new thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

That isn't the argument, and you know it. None of the authors you mentioned have written epics. Epics by definition need to represent societal values, The Lord of the Rings does not. It is simply a novel liked by a generation by accident. Nothing more. There is no epic about it, besides its laborious length. True epics have not been around since Milton (I would argue since before that, but Milton is generally considered the last true Western epic), and the Lord of the Rings doesn't break the trend. Even Wordsworth's Prelude isn't considered to be a true epic, and it was far more significant than the Lord of the Rings. You do not know what epic is, if you believe the rings are an epic. length isn't the only thing in the equation. Scope isn't the only thing, and adventure isn't the only thing.

Tolkien brought nothing beyond a center ground to fantasy literature. Lord Dunsany had already written a removed world romance, the Germanic north had already written most of Tolkien before he even put his pen down. His style is borrowed. His characters are regarded by most serious readers as flat. He may have created something interesting, but he clearly is not a major author. He is merely a cultural phenomenon which has survived by being raised on a cultural pedestal by the inhabitants of many a parents' basement. The ring is almost the same as Star Trek, or Star Wars, except that it evolved from a book, and not a T.V. show. That is the only difference.

---

Let’s see: if JBI likes a novel (or an “epic”) it is because of his refined good taste. If anyone likes Lord of the Rings it is “by accident”. That appears to be JBI’s suggestion, at least. What’s wrong with LOTR? For one thing, it isn’t at “true epic”.

There have (of course) been “true epics” (long poems celebrating a culture hero’s deeds) that have little literary merit. Only the best of them remain in our literary canon. So whether a work is a “true epic” has little to do with whether it has literary merit.
In addition, a great many “epic heroes” are “flat” as characters. Literary fiction (as JBI and every high school English teacher have long made teenage fantasy fans painfully aware) revolves around “character development”. Fantasy – and many epics – do not. The character of the hero is established from the start – the tale describes how that character will react to situations.

Phillip Larkin, one of Tolkien’s students, complained about the master’s “Beowulf” lectures: “I can just about stand learning the filthy lingo it’s written in. What gets me down is being expected to admire the bloody stuff.” To each his own.

Tolkien’s innovation in fantasy was twofold: he begins Lord of the Rings with a Birthday party for hobbits. As Adam Gopnik said in the New Yorker, the book represents a marriage between the “Elder Eddas” and “Wind in the Willows”.

In addition, Tolkien created a pre-modern, religious world-view in which the past is inevitably more glorious and advanced than the present, and in which the future will fade even further. Literary fiction concentrates on “character development” and moral dilemma, but fantasy concentrates on knowledge, which is equally important to teenagers being initiated into adulthood. The rings were forged by the wise, and their power can both create (look at the elven rings) and corrupt. Control of this magical technology is a form of power, as is knowledge of the past. The teenager must learn to control magical technology to become an adult (learning to drive a car, for example, is one rite of passage). He must also learn the lore of the land to possess adult power (that’s why he goes to school for all those years).

T.H. White in “Once and Future King” tried to tell an epic in the terms of literary fiction – character development and moral dilemmas abound. Tolkien (with a few exceptions, like Gollum) eschews both character development and moral dilemmas to concentrate on lore. Becoming an adult involves maturation in terms of character development and moral development. It also involves mastering a culture’s knowledge and technology.

Finally, JBI’s snarky and supercilious attitude (“(Tolkien) is merely a cultural phenomenon which has survived by being raised on a cultural pedestal by the inhabitants of many a parents' basement.”) is ridiculous. He is entitled to his preference for literary fiction over fantasy (or other forms genre fiction), and he is correct that fantasy appeals to teenagers. However, many literary critics (including the previously cited Gopnik) admire Tolkien, and parents’ basements are perfectly comfortable domiciles, that do not detract from their residents’ taste in literature. On the other hand, silly ad hominem arguments like JBI's SHOULD detract from his credibility on this board.

ETA: Whoops -- didn't see that JBI's post was several years old. Oh, well, I still had fun writing my critique of it.