Ok! just thought i'd make it aware. I mean you get my point right?Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
Printable View
Ok! just thought i'd make it aware. I mean you get my point right?Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
Ok then, I counter AND have actually given some reasons which I CAN back up, contary to many of your beliefs. And since I have given some reasons, albiet shallow but sufficent to met what was being discussed at the time, why don't you counter and tell me why America is so much better? In addition, namewise America cannot compare. Shakespeare (need I say more - the man is the greatest writer in the English language without a doubt), Dickens, Austen, Chaucher, Doyle, Hardy, Trollope, Eliot. Their names alone speak for themselves; their reputation preceeds them and exceeds any that can be given to an American author. Why would they have these reputations? Because their works are taken by critics (and I mean proper critics who publish in a magazine and newspaper and are qualified through some university degree to write about them - not you and me) and the general public as being masterpieces of prose and mind. No American author, though I admit there are some good ones, can demand such a reputation in the world and perhaps even America. Why? Because their works do not compare. And to those who say this discussion has become an argument; it hasn't really, merely a discussion where several people with different opinions are voicing their cases through long blogs. So tell me how America's author's reputations compare; a good sign of quality, I'll have you know.
At the time which I wrote my mammoth blog, people hadn't come back and poked holes all throughout it and hadn't had a time to respond, due to it being night here and all while it's day over there. Please refer to people's actual reply before making comment; I think you'll find I can go quite far in backing up my statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niamh
Another reason is because American literature is still realitively new and the british have been writing since the dawn of time. It seems to me that Brit lit has more flavors to choose from than American. With American novels (esp. classic) it is either all about society/reality or sex. British you can get romances, political commentary that is noteworthy throughout British history, and not so much harsh violence like American novels (with a few exceptions).:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan Madley
I did not say America is so much better, neither did I say American Literature is much better than British one. Instead the point I am trying to make is that both are being read in this world widely, and it can not be judged which one over-powers other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan Madley
If you think so, then your opinion doesn't count. :)Quote:
In addition, namewise America cannot compare. Shakespeare (need I say more - the man is the greatest writer in the English language without a doubt), Dickens, Austen, Chaucher, Doyle, Hardy, Trollope, Eliot. Their names alone speak for themselves; their reputation preceeds them and exceeds any that can be given to an American author. Why would they have these reputations? Because their works are taken by critics (and I mean proper critics who publish in a magazine and newspaper and are qualified through some university degree to write about them - not you and me)
And my point is that America has authors whose (of course I am talking about those I have read), works do matter and even are better than some of the British authors you have mentioned over here. My reasons for that are:Quote:
and the general public as being masterpieces of prose and mind. No American author, though I admit there are some good ones, can demand such a reputation in the world and perhaps even America. Why? Because their works do not compare. And to those who say this discussion has become an argument; it hasn't really, merely a discussion where several people with different opinions are voicing their cases through long blogs. So tell me how America's author's reputations compare; a good sign of quality, I'll have you know.
*Steinbeck's narrative was wonderful. Overpowers Hardy, in my opinion.
*None of the short story writer has produced stories such as that of Edgar Allan Poe. There has never been a poem like "Annabel Lee" and "The Raven".
*Ray Bradbury has been a great novelist. Hasn't he been? And please, read any of his work before answering.
*I read Call of Cthullu by Lovecraft and it was just amazing.
*Stephen King's works are popularly read and admired by people. I too liked the two books which I read written by this writer.
After reading this author, if you still think that British Literature is much better than American, then there is nothing I can really do, except to think everyone has his own taste in the matter of books.
Of course i get your point. It does no harm at all to set people straight about your own country. Nothing - nothing - is more irratating to me than people calling Britain "England". It's as if Scotland (and Wales and N Ireland) don't exsist to some of these people!Quote:
Originally Posted by Niamh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niamh
And I just have to add my .02 cents CDN... just as irritating to most Canadians that we get lumped in with/as 'Americans' from the United States, when we are from different county and the continent North America :pQuote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
...must confess to having upset the occasional Canadian over just this. Not so much the geography, more the accent...apologies!Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
I have never disagreed with you in saying that people do have their own taste in literature, but was merely pointing out to you the fact that the reputations of the authors of British Literature cannot be surpassed or cannot be obtained lightly. I have never hated American Literature and in regard to your comment that my opinion cannot count, I was not voicing an opinion but pointing out to you the reputation of British authors over American authors, so your comment has no relevance. We must agree to disagree I'm afraid, but with the literature I have read, there is no one else like Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen, Chaucher, Trollope, Eliot, Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling, Acher, Doyle, Kipling, Woolf, Golding, Hardy etc and certaintly nobody who can surpass them from America or the world. But I have never tried to make people believe British Literature was better, merely presented my own side of the case and let them make up their own mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan Madley
You said that the opinion of people like me and you doesn't count, what else could I interpret from such a comment other than that you were trying to say your opinion did not count?
If you are so sure about the reputation of British and American writers, then why did you start this thread? I thought you started it so we could voice our own opinions.
I have to say that I have read a lot of American Literature as well as a lot of British Literature, and I really prefer British Literature. Mostly from an historical perspective, British Literature is goes back so much farther (obviously because America is practically a baby in comparison). I love history, and learning of a time which is totally alien to me. Books such as the writings of Jane Austen, Shakespear, Bram Stoker, Geoffrey Chaucer, etc. paint a portrait of times I wish I could have experienced myself. American Literature has some wonderful authors that I simply adore like Mark Twain, Jack London, Lousia May Allcott, and so many others. In all however, I have to still lean towards the eloquence and poetry of British writing. There is something very stark and choppy about how American authors write. They use words to simply make a snapshot, whereas British authors on a whole seem to use words as brush strokes in a painting. I hope that makes sense, I can't really explain it any better than that.
I only said this in regard to us talking about their international reputations. Obviously it is impractical to form an opinion after reading all British and American Literature, and to that end I stated that in this case we must regard an established critic's view; I am of the opinion that they are better qualified than us having university degrees etc. in critical Literature; this is why I say our opinion cannot count in that regard. I apologise if you took any offence at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive
I started this thread so we could all voice our opinions, note all. While it say I am convinced of the superiority of British Literature, does that make me unable to voice my views and state my case? No, I certaintly wouldn't think so.
In addition, as I said before, it is impractical to read all the Literature of both countries, hence we must rely on established critics and author's universal reputation to make up for this and give us a universal view of their greatness, not an individual's. America has not had a Shakespeare, Dickens, Chaucher, Austen, Bronte Sisters etc. They are singular entities of literature genius and as somebody said before, take America's 12 best works and match them against Shakespeare's, they wouldn't compare; I feel this is a very strong sign that America's literature might cannot stand alone against Shakespeare. He is acknowledged as the greatest in the English-language. Reputation wise, America simply cannot compare against such British geniuses. People such as Twain, Melville and James do not command such universal popularity or acclaim; their reputations do not hold up against the likes of Dickens, Shakespeare. We may have our individual likings, but universally, and please agree with me here, reputation and established critism are brilliant judges of global acclaim.
I agree with Adudaewen; to me American Literature is choppily written while British Literature is smooth and calculating, working towards an end while, as he brilliantly put it, brushing strokes, not merely using just words to escribe what is happening at that very moment. I know, my opinion, but mine nonetheless.
First of all, I don't think that an established critic would have read all American and British works too. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan Madley
Secondly, I think our opinion matters as much as a critic's opinion, especially in this forum. Anyone who has got weight in his points - his opinion should matter. No wonder how many university degress he has or he has not.
But your statement above is merely suggesting something else as it stresses on this thing that our opinion doesn't count in front of established critics.Quote:
I started this thread so we could all voice our opinions, note all. While it say I am convinced of the superiority of British Literature, does that make me unable to voice my views and state my case? No, I certaintly wouldn't think so.
Yes, yes. You have mentioned all this before. And I tell you: you can't really form a universal exact answer to this question of yours. People haven't read every American and British work, so it would be better if you ask for an individual opinion - that's what I think we come on this forum for. :)Quote:
In addition, as I said before, it is impractical to read all the Literature of both countries, hence we must rely on established critics and author's universal reputation to make up for this and give us a universal view of their greatness, not an individual's.
They do stand up against Shakespeare. And they can compare him. Who really cares abour reputation? If that is so - then Harry Potter is the best book ever. Isn't it very popular? Perhaps, the most popular series now a days. Though I am addicted to this book myself, but I would prefer East of Eden over it. Why? Because it is great writing, and no one can deny it.Quote:
America has not had a Shakespeare, Dickens, Chaucher, Austen, Bronte Sisters etc. They are singular entities of literature genius and as somebody said before, take America's 12 best works and match them against Shakespeare's, they wouldn't compare; I feel this is a very strong sign that America's literature might cannot stand alone against Shakespeare. He is acknowledged as the greatest in the English-language. Reputation wise, America simply cannot compare against such British geniuses. People such as Twain, Melville and James do not command such universal popularity or acclaim; their reputations do not hold up against the likes of Dickens, Shakespeare.
Established criticism does work sometimes, but not always. Universal popularity matters, but something popular amongst "critics" or other people is not necessarily the best. For instance: look at the practice of violence against women. Most of the countries in this world are poor, and especially in poor countries, this thing is common. It used to be extremely popular a few decades back, but you would get a hard kick from a feminist by saying this thing in front of a feminist that women are just for household world or a man's pleasure, and you deserve that kick if you say so. No matter how popular what you say is. :pQuote:
We may have our individual likings, but universally, and please agree with me here, reputation and established critism are brilliant judges of global acclaim.
I am sorry for being a bit off-topic, but couldn't help it.
You can always put it in the other way:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan Madley
American Literature is not boring, unlike some of the writers of British Literature you have put in the post above this one. American Literature is precise unlike British Literature where long sentences are used to describe a small thing: wastage of words if you ask me. And here I especially mean Shakespeare.
American Literature is written more in a free style. American Literature (at least the books I have read) are more secular than the British ones. Of course, here I am talking about the books which I have read.
In reply, firstly when I speak of critics there, I mean them judging individual works, so hence wouldn't have to have read all literature. With them, it is there critisism that adds up, not what merely one critic thinks of a nation's literature. Secondly, I believe a critic is relevant as they have gone through university etc. learning and getting degrees in constructive critisism. You are right to think on this it is our own opinion, but I am trying to paint a picture in your mind of British Literature's reputation, in which critics come into play. Thirdly, I agree that it is sort of impossible to gauge which one is better, but only to a degree; what I am trying to show you is that Britain's reptation is far greater than America's and I think this can be gauged through people like Shakespeare and Dickens having such a name for themselves and such great reputations; they would only have got these through brilliance of work. In addition, Shakespeare is the best selling author of all time, over 2 billion copies. Second is Agatha Christie, 2 billion, British. Third is Dannielle Steel, 550 million, American. This gauges popularity, as you say in regard to Harry Potter not neccessarily the best judge of brilliance, but a judge nonetheless of an audience they can accumulate. Although Dickens isn't there, none of his novels have ever gone out of prit, something few authors can claim.
Fourthly, it is suicidal to try to compare people like Twain and Steinbeck to Shakespeare. He is the giant, the man, hailed by many as the GREATEST writer in the ENGLISH-SPEAKING WORLD and quite possibly the WORLD. Others like Dickens; their reputation too is quite untouchable. You may say it is impractical to try and get a measure of which country has better literature; it is true to a degree in the sense that both have produced so much literature, but I do feel strongly that no matter what, in answering this question a nation's reputation comes into play as a practical means of solving it. People like Steinbeck and Twain and Melville, great as they may be, simply cannot compare name-wise and in popularity. Of course our individual preferences may have it differently, but reputation wise, it is ridiculous to try and fell Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen etc. Finally, I have had the problem of all too often reading boring American Literature; opinions, I know, but my 2 cents on the mini-topic.
I agree Shakespeare is perhaps the most popular writer ever, but I stick to that belief of mine most popular is not necessarily the best. So, as you said before, we would have to agree with disagree over here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan Madley
I agree with that. I love reading books by American and British authors, but in general I prefer British books. That could be because I am English, so the language and style of British writing is more familiar to me than that of American writing. Also, British writing seems more imminently 'real' somehow than American books do - it could be because I am able to identify more with the descriptions. Having said that, I love Steinbeck's writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adudaewen
I think that it is difficult to compare the two, because people will always respond with their own bias. But both are good in similar and different ways.
Ooh, I've just had another thought, on the Shakespeare theme. He is one of my favourite writers ever. His manipulation of language allows great emotion to come across, which I think can sometimes be missing in American writing (not all, obviously). Even though there is this image of Britain being all formal and emotionally repressed, I think that British literature conveys great passion that can sometimes be lacking in American literature, which can sometimes seem quite sterile.
But mostly it's just fun! (Especially hearing the American's explain why their VERY talented writers have contributed as much as Shakespeare, Rushdie, Chaucer, Joyce etc., etc.) I like what you have to say but maybe lighten up a wee bit?
Said by Mcgrain
We should compare the actual quality of the work, rather than who has had more influence. You can't compare Chaucer to, say, Twain, because Chaucer is much more influential, yes, but that was because he came six centuries before Twain. On actual quality Twain beats Chaucer. Shakespeare is quite unlike anything that exists in American literature (I must confess that we are shamefully low on tragedies), but his sonnets are not especially good; they have very lovely figurative language, but they are all about him afraid of losing his edge. As I haven't even heard of Rushdie, and have never read anything of Joyce's, I can't really comment on them. I do like the output of both countries, however.
I agree that people should lighten up a bit.
Hello. Rushdie is arguably (i want to say "probably" but am worried about the hammering I might get) Britain's most pre-eminant and talented author since...well, forever some people think. He won the Booker of Booker's for his novel "Midnight's Children", and courted real controversy with the Satanic Verses - i think (and straying, as i am, into the realm of politics, i welcome correction on both spelling and facts) the fatwah that was issued came from no less an authority than the Shah of Iran. He lives in New York now, and every novel he's ever written (excluding his rather clumsy debut "Grimus") has made the New York Times best seller. His real contribution has been to thrust Magic Realism from the rear to the fore, which probably makes him responsible for the re-ignition of the fantasy literature genre, but easily and readily crossed over into film and television - this is the sign of a really massive cultural impact by an author I feel. I love, and have re-read all of his novels - i'd especially point you towards "The Moor's Last Sigh" (actually as beautiful as it sounds) and "The Satanic Verses" (only novel i've read that made me laugh out loud for no other reason than the cleverness of it's language, only novel i've re-read straight away upon finishing), assuming you're interested - with the exception of Rage, his most recent but one, "Shalimar The Clown". This is an exceptional novel, infuriating and wonderful in equal measures. Hard to read for all the right reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
Got a bit carried away then.
Anyway, can't agree with you about Chaucer, there are many that rank him absolutely alongside Shakespeare, and one of my old lecturers had him as number one. But he wore sneakers with his suit.
I also don't agree with you about American literature lacking tragic greatness, i'd say Miller is only pegged by Shakespeare in that department (though i'm sure anyone with a knowledge of ancient Greek work would take my head of for that).
I also don't agree with you that Shakespeare's sonnets are anything less than perfect. In all poetry only Coleridge at his best, and Ovid at his mischevious worst ,get near him for me.
Hey Dante, i just had a peek at your public profile and see that you love Life Of Pi. If you like that novel take a look at Rushdie, Pi winks at the audience a bit more, but basically you can draw a straight line through from one to the other, i think you'll enjoy him. Maybe start with Shame.
Niamh (or anyone else with an opinion on this)--I understand your point completely, but was wondering if there is some sort of neutral term one might use to refer collectively to the literatures of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales etc.? I ask this because I'm going into university teaching and, while I would naturally refer to a course on Yeats as "Irish Literature," here in the states at least a survey that includes a mixture of Irish, English and so on is generally titled a course on "British Literature." If I were teaching a course on literatures from the seperate nations of Italy, France, and Spain, I would refer to it as a course on "Continental European Lit." I had thought perhaps "Literature of the British Isles" might serve a similar purpose for including Ireland, but it seems from your post that this might not be the right term. Is there some more appropriate term that won't get my Irish colleagues upset, or would it be best to just title such a course "Literature of Britain and Ireland"? Just Curious. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Niamh
Well I'd probably go with literature of britain and Ireland. But technically both should go under the heading of European Literature as we are both European countries and Ireland more so because we are more involved in the European Union and also share the same currency as the majority of Europe. I mean when people use the term American literature they generally mean the united states of America, and every state in America is included eventhough they are more or less like countries in there own way. To me Irish literature should not go under the term British literature etc because as the title suggests it is the Literature of the 'British' and the Irish are not British. It would be like calling a Canadian Writer American if you get me.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
But yeah if you have a separate course for continental Europe I'd go with calling the course the literature of Britain and Ireland.
Don't you think that what matters is the way that each wrtiter,poet or playwright presents his thoughts and feelings? To me, any piece of writing whether English or American has value in itself.
I must agree with Virgil's earlier comments about the competition between artists. I am always made vaguely uncomfortable by this. Still, I do agree with T.S. Eliot's notion of something of an existing order of the totality of literature... art... which is shifted, however slightly, each time a truly new original work of art is created. As an artist myself, albeit a visual artist, I am more than aware that whatever I achieve will be compared with the achievements of those before me and after me. As such, I will say that on the issue of American Literature vs the Literature of the British Isles there is absolutely no comparison. Its like comparing the musical achievements of America with those of the German/Austrians. Obviously, the compettion is unfair from the start. Many among the greatest British authors were active before the United States existed as an independent nation... let alone before the populace became wealthy enough and educated enough to support original artistic endeavors. Certainly, there are some American "giants". Whitman was clearly a poetic giant as was Dickinson... equal to many of the best in Britain of the era (Tennyson, Browning, Rossetti, etc...) or any era. Poe, Hawthorne, Melville, William James, Henry James, Ambrose Bierce, and Twain are clear proof that late American literature in the mid/late 19th century was a force to be reconned with. Looking to 20th century literature we find that the Americans take an even more central position. Among the giants in poetry of this time T.S. Eliot, Hart Crane, Wallace Stevens, Robert Frost, Richard Wilbur, Anthony Hecht, and John Ashberry hold secure positions. William Faulkner, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Saul Bellow, John Barth, Thomas Pynchon, Philip Roth, Cormac McCarthy, and Flannery O'Connor may be even more secure among the giants of prose.
But then again... I cannot help but recognize that the sheer scale and breadth of late 19th century British literature is something of another order: Beyond the poets listed above (Tennyson, Browning, Rossetti) we also have Matthew Arnold, Arthur Clough, Thomas Love Peacock, William Morris, Houseman... to say nothing of the great giants of Romanticism: Blake, Byron, Shelley, Keats, Coleridge, Wordsworth, Robert Burns and John Clare. Only Whitman and Dickinson... and perhaps T.S. Eliot might withstand comparison in this company. By many accounts Wordworth alone might stand as the most important poet in any county of this era... the first "modern" poet. The writers in prose of this era are no less important: Jane Austen, Sir Walter Scott, Mary Shelley, Charles Dickens, Anthony Trollope, the Brontes, Lewis Carroll, Thackery, Wilkie Collins, Samuel Butler, Oscar Wilde, George Eliot, Stevenson, Kipling and A.C. Doyle among them. The 18th/19th centuries were an era of great essayists and the United States was not without a few worthies: Emerson, Thoreau, and William James foremost... yet the British produced Carlysle, William Morris, John Ruskin, Walter Pater, Oscar Wilde, DeQuincy, William Hazlitt, etc... In spite of the fact that the American publishing industry (to say nothing of the economic might and population of the US) far outstripped that of Britain by the 20th century, British literay contributions in this time are certainly not lacking: W.B. Yeats, James Joyce, Thomas Hardy, Joseph Conrad, H.G Wells, Samuel Beckett, D.H. Lawrence, Virginia Woolf, Henry Green, Aldous Huxley, William Golding, Auden, Philip Larkin, Dylan Thomas, George Orwell, Geoffrey Hill, Peter Ackroyd, etc...
All of this ignores the literature before the establishment of the US as an independent entity. Malory, Sir Thomas More, Chaucer, Marlowe, Shakespeare, Thomas Browne, Ben Jonson, Jonathan Swift, Samuel Johnson, James Boswell, Daniel DeFoe, Samuel Richardson, Henry Fielding, Lawrence Sterne... and many more. These are literary figures who invented many of the literary forms and genres upon which most English-language literature (including that of the US) is founded. Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Milton alone tower over almost any other literary figures outside of Dante, Tolstoy, Homer, Montaigne, Cervantes, and perhaps a few others. Milton's Paradise Lost is probably the greatest long poem in the English Language (and maybe the greatest in any language bar the Commedia... although I do have a soft spot for Spencer's Faerie Queene;). As for Shakespeare... simply put, the best American writers do not stack up to him... but then again the best of any culture do not measure up with the possible exception of Dante (and as James Joyce noted even Dante would fall in the comparison as Shakespeare is that much "richer".) To suggest that British literature is boring and less precise than American litearture... that it has too many long sentences and wastes words (especially Shakespeare) is a complete absurdity. Shakespeare has "too many words?" I am immediately reminded of that line from Amadeus in which Mozart, replying to an equally absurd criticism, asks "which notes exactly, would you suggest that I cut?" There are certainly American writers of great economy and precision; Hemingway would be the immediate and obvious example. On the other hand, there is no lack of British writers who have equally mastered a very precice and crystalline prose. I personally admire Joseph Conrad, Henry Greene, Virginia Woolf, and certainly Samuel Beckett. On the other hand, some of the greatest American writers utilize a quite "baroque" manner of writing (Melville, Emerson, James, McCarthy). To reject such more ornate writing outright is nothing but a personal preference... no different from declaring that "I prefer Minimalism over the Baroque or the Renaissance". Such personal preferences have nothing to do with a comparison of the actual achievements of the individual artists of Minimalism vs the Baroque or the Renaissance. I personally love the prose manner of Faulkner, Italo Calvino, Kafka, and J.L. Borges... but I have no problem be equally enamored of the almost Shakespearean language of Melville and McCarthy at their finest... to say nothing of James.
In the end, I judge works of art upon an individual basis and I am grateful for the truly original work of art whatever its source may be. The British Isles simply produced far more literature of such quality than anywhere else, but this does not stop me from reading Goethe, Holderlin, Rilke, Cervantes, Borges, Tolstoy, Homer, Dante, Faulkner, Sarmago, etc... any more than the fact that the German-speaking countries dominated music to an even greater extent (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Wagner, Haydn, Handel, Brahms, Bruckner, Schumann, Richard Strauss, etc...) stops me from enjoying Ravel, Rachmaninoff, Faure, or Miles Davis. Nor should the fact that Faure or Miles Davis are not equal to Bach as composers dissuade me from enjoying their work anymore than I can enjoy Faulkner without worrying that he is not equal to Shakespeare. :)
Don't you think that what matters is the way that each wrtiter,poet or playwright presents his thoughts and feelings? To me, any piece of writing whether English or American has value in itself.
I agree... but not to the point of taking a relativist approach to art... assuming that every work of art is of equal value as it represents the unique expression of a given artist at a given time and place. Some art is simply better than other art.
I don't know if "shamefully" is really quite the word here, as several of these tragedies are about really lame English kings (not all, obviously). I think I can generally say, without being reprimanded about politics on the Forum, that America has plenty in the political realm to be ashamed of, but despotic monarchs is not one of them... (I cannot, however, in light of the Forum rules, concede the contemporary connection to Henry V...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
Obviously, this doesn't answer for the Hamlets and MacBeths, but I would venture to say that the liberties one could take in playwriting in Elizabethan England and other cultures - that is to say, the acceptability of making stuff up - belongs to a somewhat different tradition than the artistic conventions (and reactions thereto) that have taken over since. In other words, he got away - and still gets away - with things that writers who followed him (British or American) would not. He kind of had to do this, since his audience was so diverse. Hence, he could effect a somewhat broader range in his subject matter than more recent writers. As I think I've pretty clearly established on this thread, I really do think James comparable (that is, of similar quality, not content) to Shakespeare, even occasionally superior, even though his work is sometimes necessarily relegated to the "intellectual" sphere, and is in this regard a bit narrower than the Bard. In spite of the greatness of some of Shakespeare's plays, it becomes quite clear that, while he was simply a really clever and insightful actor writing plays - really, really fast - for a stage in order to entertain and raise money (this being a time when drama neither paid well nor insured much in the way of a legacy), James demonstrates a commitment to his art and his art alone that only a very, very few people in any recorded history have ever matched. Beethoven might very well be the only one.
Also, I don't know that all of the sonnets are about him "losing his edge". I can think of a couple to which this seems appropriate, but it seems like a pretty huge generalization for a set of 154 incredibly diverse poems. Nor would I say that it is simply the figurative language that keeps these alive; I don't even like figurative language, but still I love the sonnets. No, it is something much more important than that.
I should like some explanation as to why Twain is superior to Chaucer, as well. They are both wildly satirical, and really quite comparable, I think (though I really believe Chaucer's satire has more modern significance than Twain's, interestingly enough); I see nothing that really sets one too far above the other.
Pensive,
You are awesome.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by EAP
In regard to what??Quote:
Originally Posted by EAP
In reading this I'm struck by the embarrassing sense of Anglocentrism (including the Americans in with this) that seems to pervade the whole discussion. :blush: UK vs Yanks, Yanks vs UK. I think we may be comparing apples to apples when trying to evaluate these writers. And neither have a patch on the Russians! :)
Or the Greeks. Start a new thread, Russians v Greeks, that one would have some legs, Mother have Mercy.Quote:
Originally Posted by flor
I think that many American authors write with a sense of utility. By that I mean, not a word wasted. No frills, if I can use the phrase. I'm certainly not saying that like its a bad thing. Just not quite my cup of tea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lioness_Heart
Quote:
Originally Posted by flor
Or, many would say, the Greeks. Why don't you start a new thread...Russians v Greeks;) . Bet that one would have some legs!
He he, now that could become a brawl!Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
....and hark, such blasphemy from Nebraska, the hallowed land of Willa Cather! I may faint! Are you not American?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adudaewen
I certainly agree that the Russians may be offer more than a formiddible competition to American writers... especially considering the 19th century. As much as I love Melville's Moby Dick and a few other major novels I cannot imagine them as surpassing the achievements of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Checkov, Lermontov and Turgenev. Twentieth century Russian literature in certainly quite strong, but I don't imagine it as clearly surpassing that of Britain or the US. I do, however, find modern Russian poetry to be extremely powerful, especially the works of Akhmatova, Mandelshtam, Tsvetaeva, and Pasternak. On the other hand, Russian offers little before the 19th century by the way of world-class literature, and certainly nothing to compete with British Literature. Even Pusking, beloved of the Russians, strikes me as not even an equal to Byron (whom he most certainly was influenced by). As for the Greeks... what have they achieved between the obvious masterful works of the ancients and such twentieth century writers as Cavafy, Seferis, and Kazantzakis? In no way do I see this as being Anglocentric. My library is well over 2/3rds non-Anglo (French, German, Spanish, Greek, Latin, Italian, Latin-American, Arabic, Japanese, etc...). My music collection is largely dominated by German composers and my art books include more than a fair share of Italian artists. Art is not egalitarian. It does not spread itself equally among all cultures. Some cultures have simply achieved more than other in a given art form. I have no doubt that this is certainly true of the British and literature.
Shocking, I know. I am indeed American, thus the blasphemy is my badge of shame to carry. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by flor
I look at 19th century American literature (actually all forms of art) as the building blocks for the future. We were getting our footing, developing a culture, a distinct culture that diverged from our British and European roots. Yes, there were some great works, Emerson's essays, Theraou's (sp?) Walden Pond, Lincoln's speeches, Melville's Moby Dick, Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter, Wlat Whitman, Emily Dickenson, and Twain and Henry James too, but they were our attempt to grow and mature. It was the 20th century that saw the great maturity of American literature where some great individual novels as well as the greatest novelist of the century, William Faulkner. I will admit that while there are some great indivudual novels, only Faulkner stands out as great novelist beyond a single work. So I would say that overall the American novel of the century is not up to par with our British and European friends. But I believe that no single country has excelled in the area of poetry in the 20th century than the US. While some countries have a major poet or two, I can rattle off poet after poet from the US that is among the top tier of the century's poets. Even our second tier poets are as good as many country's top tier. There is something about how the American english stresses and strains the language (perhaps because of all the immigrates from various parts of the world have shaped our language and slang) like no other. And we continue to strive for new poetic forms and diction. Even someone like say Allan Ginsberg, who I consider a second tier poet, creates a startling imaginative work such as "Howl."Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I really have to dispute this. What is it that makes you so sure that Faulkner is a "greater" novelist than James Joyce? Joyce coined modernism and Ulysses, as a work, seems to single handedly hamstring post-modernism. It's a monstrous work, and although Joyce was not one for saturating his market(!) Dubliners and Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man surely qualify as great works also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Fine. That is your opinion. This is my opinion. You don't have to accept it. What makes you such an expert?Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain
I'm not an expert on Faulkner. You certainly seem to be, which is why i asked you to clarify your very firm opinions about him. It's my opinion, as you so rightly point out, that Joyce could be regarded as the greatest novelist of that century, indeed, that Faulkner sprung from Joyce. I've breifly outlined why above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I certainly didn't mean to upset you, and as it is your right to hold your opinion regarding Faulkner it is your right to ignore the questions i've asked you about that opinion.
If I was asked this question two years ago I would have said British literature 'Hands down', howver, that was before my exposure to writers such as James, Poe, Dickenson, Millay, Hemmingway, Millay, Faulkner, Hughes, Emerson, Fuller and of Course...Whitman. Before them I thought the language of British novels and poems so much more superior to American Literature. After them, I find that American writers have a beauty all of their own. I have come to appreciate American litereature more. As to which is better I find it hard to say for sure, although I am 52% sure I still prefer British Literature.
If I was asked this question two years ago I would have said British literature 'Hands down', howver, that was before my exposure to writers such as James, Poe, Dickenson, Millay, Hemmingway, Millay, Faulkner, Hughes, Emerson, Fuller and of Course...Whitman. Before them I thought the language of British novels and poems so much more superior to American Literature. After them, I find that American writers have a beauty all of their own. I have come to appreciate American litereature more. As to which is better I find it hard to say for sure, although I am 52% sure I still prefer British Literature.
Yep. Definitely depends on taste. If you kinda like "Ye Olde English" then Brit's for you, but for a more modern touch one should stick with an All-American approach.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I love both British & American Literature but I think I love British Literature better. I just like the way British authors write.:) :) :)