British Literature vs. American Literature

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

I agree. Why should we compare literature. Wherever there are human beings
there is good literature and artistic creation. Besides if you insist to compare them you can't because it is pointless to compare dissimilar things (meaning that every nation has its way to express itself-or even better every individual has a different way to express himself not to mention grand personages like Poe or Dickens) Moreover some of the authors mentioned here have lived in different eras and write about different genres of literature. I like both american and british literature.

---

I don't think anyone here would say they dislike either American or literature from the British Isles;) , what's to dislike about King Lear or Catcher In The Rye? But it's quite good fun to compare and contrast the two, to answer your first question, and it certainly is possible. Obviously, perspective is crucial, but if you can say Dean Koontz isn't as good as Dostoyevsky (which i think is a given...?) why can't you say that American lit is better than British? Just because two people come from different eras or places doesn't mean they one can't be more talented, gifted, hard-working than another, and that those differences can't manifest themselves as a slight edge in quality of one's work over the other's. Because we're talking about the greatest men and women ever to have written, the creations of these individuals is really all we're talking about at the moment.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan Madley

In the public consciousness and for very good reason

---

The term public consciousness always interests me. Who opinions are included in the "public consciousness" you refer to?

The world as a whole? I think there is enough in this thread already to show this is not the case.

Perhaps you mean the British public? I know where I grew up the majority of people would have no idea about the subject and any opinion they held would be the result of bias.

Maybe you mean the "educated" British public (at which point it really stops being the "public" and is a more private group)? Then of course there is the question of level of education, probably to have enough knowledge on American literature it would require to have read more of it than appears on the high school curriculum which is dominated by the works of writers from the UK. Again this public group is getting smaller.

Do you mean by the school boards that decide what texts should be studied in schools in the UK? A private group if ever there was one.

I have my worries that by public you really mean "little Englanders"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

I have my worries that by public you really mean "little Englanders"

---

Easy tiger!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan Madley

And I would like to state that, yes, I mean by Britain the British Isles, and I hope I am not offending any Irishmen. From now on please regard the "Britain" of the thread title as the British Isles, which were collectively Britain once anyway.

---

I being an Irishwoman would like to state that the term 'british isles' in reference to the south of ireland was politically debated and called polictically incorrect last year and was therefore abolished in the eyes of the Irish and European goverment. Therefore the inclusion of writers for the republic are no longer incuded in the british isle. Where, yes, many of our famous writers were born during british occupation, they are not nessesarilly included in a british grouping. W.B.Yeats did not win a noble prize for literature for britain but Ireland as a country in its own right. Even when we were occupied by britain they didn't even call us british. We were always Irish.

*jesting*besides our writers would overseed britain anyday!:p

(sorry everyone...but you all know what i'm like when it comes to Ireland. I get a bit defensive!)

Yes, I agree Niamh and do not mean to cause dismay, but for the purposes of this forum, as grotesque as it may seem Irish literature to be put up against the literature of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, please consider British literature as England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (not trying to create controversy and hatred)

Also, Pensive, when I said that the notion that America had not been around long enough to write literature matching Britain's, I was saying it in general and not neccessarily to you so sorry for that.

And finally, in general and to add to what I was saying before, people like Dickens, Doyle, Archer, Austen, Trollope, Hardy, Woolf, the War Poets, Byron, Tolkien etc. that have been around since the birth of America ARE ACTUALLY, in the general mind of the world and critics, considered BETTER than what America has produced. We could sit here for years and argue about the opinions of the millions of people who have read books from that time, but in general the only effective way to determine it is to see what the world's mind thinks in general and you could say to me, how do I know? I answer you with the fact that English speaking countries and countries in the world that are affiliated with the English speaking world, look back to the source (England, UK, British Isles, whatever) and they see that that literature is the epitome of what is considered a classic in the English-SPEAKING world; they do not look at the latest Clive Cussler and count that among the greatest ever, with no offence intended to Mr. Cussler. I grant you, books like Moby-Dick, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and the works of James are very good, but when you consider over time and even since 1776 the output of literature from the British Isles and America, the British is seen by the world to be greater in terms of literature, more consistent and more written works. America isn't bad, but they can't stand up to Britain in that regard. Go to a film forum and debate that and you will come out in America's favour (though perhaps not for the most consistent) but literature is Britain's domain and what I have said about people like Shakespeare and now for British authors since 1776 when America began it's output; the authors cannot simply be matched, I'm sorry, for that is the world's general opinion and I don't mean to sound mean to America for saying so; as consolation I admit they whip Britain in films.

And in general I don't think me be the starter of this post doesn't give me the right to defend my own opinion. Thank you for reading this mammoth post.

P.S. A reason why they see Britain as being better, the general people of the world, is that English is England and they discover people like Shakespeare, Dickens etc. and then read Amercian literature. English-speaking literature is seen as being better British than American in part because people see that Britain is the home of the language. This doesn't mean, however, they are in any way bias when they mainly think Britain's is better.

Well if you look about the rest of this forum you will discover that irish literature is generally discussed as just that, Irish literature. You cannot demand everyone to think the way you do on this matter and it is the fact that you are demanding that everyone should that i find offensive. The fact that you have called it the worlds opinion is rediculous. you will find that in this forum everyone is from a different part of the world and probably not all of the will agree with you. It is therefore wrong to say that your opinion is the 'worlds' opinion. And i think that some people will find offense to that. I think you will also find that Irish literature has more of a unique feel to the writing than that of britain and what today is seen as the british isles.(as previously stated in last post)

I think this thread has lost it. What started off as a discussion has become an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

I being an IrishwomanW.B.Yeats did not win a noble prize for literature for britain but Ireland as a country in its own right. Even when we were occupied by britain they didn't even call us british. We were always Irish.)

---

True as can be. Please correct me if i'm wrong, but when we say British Isles, isn't Ireland included? I mean, UK, Britain, i know Ireland is not included when we use these terms, but British Isles is different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan Madley

And finally, in general and to add to what I was saying before, people like Dickens, Doyle, Archer, Austen, Trollope, Hardy, Woolf, the War Poets, Byron, Tolkien etc. that have been around since the birth of America ARE ACTUALLY, in the general mind of the world and critics, considered BETTER than what America has produced. We could sit here for years and argue about the opinions of the millions of people who have read books from that time, but in general the only effective way to determine it is to see what the world's mind thinks in general and you could say to me, how do I know? I answer you with the fact that English speaking countries and countries in the world that are affiliated with the English speaking world, look back to the source (England, UK, British Isles, whatever) and they see that that literature is the epitome of what is considered a classic in the English-SPEAKING world; they do not look at the latest Clive Cussler and count that among the greatest ever, with no offence intended to Mr. Cussler. I grant you, books like Moby-Dick, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and the works of James are very good, but when you consider over time and even since 1776 the output of literature from the British Isles and America, the British is seen by the world to be greater in terms of literature, more consistent and more written works. America isn't bad, but they can't stand up to Britain in that regard. Go to a film forum and debate that and you will come out in America's favour (though perhaps not for the most consistent) but literature is Britain's domain and what I have said about people like Shakespeare and now for British authors since 1776 when America began it's output; the authors cannot simply be matched, I'm sorry, for that is the world's general opinion and I don't mean to sound mean to America for saying so; as consolation I admit they whip Britain in films.

---

You don't necessarily have to go by the judgement of critics. I am also a critic at the moment, but you don't have to agree with me if you don't want to. Only those are not critics who have their critisism published in a magazine. In fact, you will find people on roads - many of them anonymous - giving their opinions about books. Will you agree with all of them?Even if American Literature has been critisized more than British Literature (which I doubt) by most people in this world, this is not enough to change my opinion about it. Because, I believe every individual has her/his own opinion. That's another thing some people choose to go by what oh-so-famous-personalies' opinions were about the matter.

If you really want to prove that British Literature is far above American than why not provide a valid point than that? Why not state the reasons to why you think writers like Steinbeck don't hold as good of a position as Hardy? Why not list the problems you see with American Literature which are not in British Literature? After all, you have been the one making this statement that British Literature is far ahead of American Literature. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McGrain

True as can be. Please correct me if i'm wrong, but when we say British Isles, isn't Ireland included? I mean, UK, Britain, i know Ireland is not included when we use these terms, but British Isles is different?

---

It was but isnt anymore. It is mainly because we are not british and havent been a part of the british empire in a long time that the term was ceased by the European government.

You might as well be classing the writers from any country that was once a part of Russia(ussr) as Russian. I'm sure our friends from Poland, Latvia, Estonia etc would agree that countries that are nolonger part of an empire would prefer not to be continually associated with their former oppressor politcally and literarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

If you really want to prove that British Literature is far above American than why not provide a valid point than that? Why not state the reasons to why you think writers like Steinbeck don't hold as good of a position as Hardy? Why not list the problems you see with American Literature which are not in British Literature? After all, you have been the one making this statement that British Literature is far ahead of American Literature. :)

---

I agree with pensive. Dont make statements if you cant back them up properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

It was but isnt anymore. It is mainly because we are not british and havent been a part of the british empire in a long time that the term was ceased by the European government.

You might as well be classing the writers from any country that was once a part of Russia(ussr) as Russian. I'm sure our friends from Poland, Latvia, Estonia etc would agree that countries that are nolonger part of an empire would prefer not to be continually associated with their former oppressor politcally and literarily.

---

OK, cool, thanks for putting me straight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McGrain

OK, cool, thanks for putting me straight.

---

Ok! just thought i'd make it aware. I mean you get my point right?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

I agree with pensive. Dont make statements if you cant back them up properly.

---

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.

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

P.S. A reason why they see Britain as being better, the general people of the world, is that English is England and they discover people like Shakespeare, Dickens etc. and then read Amercian literature. English-speaking literature is seen as being better British than American in part because people see that Britain is the home of the language. This doesn't mean, however, they are in any way bias when they mainly think Britain's is better.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan Madley

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?

---

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:

---

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)

---

If you think so, then your opinion doesn't count. :)

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.

---

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:

*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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

Ok! just thought i'd make it aware. I mean you get my point right?

---

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!