Which COUNTRY has produced the greatest literature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiculík

And which coutries do you mean?

There are many small and neglected countries and nations. When I was in USA, nobody I met didn't even know where Slovakia is. In Paris, I stayed with one family for two weeks and French woman tried to explain to me how the toilet works. She thought that Slovakia was in Africa (though I'm white) and that I never saw it before. In Italy, people were shocked that in our capital there are "normal, painted buildings". Again, they probably thought we lived in trees... but no, Slovakia is beautiful, but not Lothlorien, I'm afraid. :D

My country (and almost all other countries in Central, East or South Europe) is almost invisible for people in other parts of the world. People in West Europe and USA don't even know we exist. So how could they possibly know our literature?

But that doesn't mean that we (and all those other countries as well) don't have good literature!!!

It means that today, "world literature" means American and British. With some others like Russian authors of 19th century (as if Russian literature ceased to exist after Tolstoy), and few authors from French, German and Italian literature. Occassionally (but that's very rare) authors from other countries.

That's so narrow-minded... :(

---

Good point.
My Geography and education in all are excellent; actually I've been in Bratislava before 4 years, nice town(don't ask me anything, I was my buddies and booze so I don't remeber too much:D ) but except Kundera and Hašek I can't name any Central Europe writers:( Also I'm aware that probably nobody here have ever heard for Šenoa, Krleža, Andrić(Nobel prize), Gundulić or Mažuranić, but that's how it is. I have heard for Pamuk 6 monts ago, for Marquez 1 year ago( I was asking an advice from a friend of my for another friend; firstly I asked:''Who? Is he a relative of Barca's Rafa Marquez? Is he dead? Never heard of him...'' She was shocked!), and I still don't know any African or Canadian author, Murabaki is only Asian...
Now I'm feeling dumb, actually!:bawling:
And yes, Pasternak, Nabokov, Solzhenycin and others are well respected post-Tolstoy's writers.

When we are talking about English literature then I would say the winner is Great Britain. When we're talking about world literature then I think it's harder to determine. The vast majority of educational systems (school, curriculum etc) was influenced/created by colonizers so the education in India, Pakistan, Middle East is very Euro-centric. While Anglo-Saxons have perfected the novel, the vast majority of cultures produced great works of Poetry and poetry was the primary means of expression and indeed it is still considered the highest form. Try Omar Khayam or Alama Iqbal. Then we begin to see the influence the "Orient" had on Western works of literature.

My country most definately. D<

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiculík

And which coutries do you mean?

There are many small and neglected countries and nations. When I was in USA, nobody I met didn't even know where Slovakia is. In Paris, I stayed with one family for two weeks and French woman tried to explain to me how the toilet works. She thought that Slovakia was in Africa (though I'm white) and that I never saw it before. In Italy, people were shocked that in our capital there are "normal, painted buildings". Again, they probably thought we lived in trees... but no, Slovakia is beautiful, but not Lothlorien, I'm afraid. :D

My country (and almost all other countries in Central, East or South Europe) is almost invisible for people in other parts of the world. People in West Europe and USA don't even know we exist. So how could they possibly know our literature?

But that doesn't mean that we (and all those other countries as well) don't have good literature!!!

It means that today, "world literature" means American and British. With some others like Russian authors of 19th century (as if Russian literature ceased to exist after Tolstoy), and few authors from Frech, German and Italian literature. Occassionally (but that's very rare) authors from other countries.

That's so narrow-minded... :(

---

I've heard of Slovakia! I could even show you where it is! -pats back-

((PS: there are a lot of white people in Africa.))

Many nations become associated with particular characteristics. It originates from a basis of truth. Then, eventually it becomes stereotyped, then hyped, which causes, in some cases, an over-exaggeration. This does not mean that there does not, generally, remain an element of truth.

One also finds that when a nation is in dominance, economically, and militarily, it exerts its influence way beyond its borders both directly and indirectly. I mean that we all like to 'ape' that which is viewed as representing 'success', and power.

In the past it has been, in the main, Greece, Rome, Britain, and today it is the USA. Tomorrow.....?

However, history has moved in a way that permitted the English language, which itself evolved from many languages, to become the language most widely spread throughout the world. It is now understood, if only in basic form, by most reasonably educated people under the age of say 40.

Language is essential to good communication. It is this sophistication of communication that separated homo sapiens from the rest of the animal kingdom. As communication has advanced, so has mankind.

Most nations of great influence declined as their economies declined, and/or suffered conquest.

In Britain's case, its power and language were extended by building an entirely new nation. The American colonists built their new nation while the mother country remained in power, and was extending its power.

Even though, eventually, a break was almost inevitable, there always remained a strong attachment to their motherland. Many of its institutions like the basis of law, even some of the national songs, and the language,
were retained.

There has therefore been a continuity of the 'Anglo' influence. And, because of the supreme importance of language, this has extended the influence of 'English' literature.

I have tried to keep this as concise as possible so have avoided adding too much supportive material.

However, I will add something which I have included in another post, but I feel is relevant here.

Writing is painting a picture with words. The clearer we can paint that picture, the better the communication.

As the English language has evolved, at the same time as the nation's power was at its height it brought in the Industrial Revolution. This extended education - more people could write, more people could read. Printing the written word became easier, and cheaper.

To cut a very long story short, everything moved together to make the English language, the language of choice and which is still continuing to grow by natural means. Some foreign authors chose to write in English rather than their native language, and did a darn good job. One that immediately springs to mind is Joseph Conrad, whom I believe was Polish.

The English language has now considerably more words than any other. This gives the writer great choice in fine tuning his/her meaning. Or, if we accept that writing is painting a picture with words, then it offers far more shades of colour than any other 'paintbox'.

Footnote:

There is a constant danger with these types of questions for the emotions to blind reason, especially that inspired by nationalism. If we suppress these emotions, and think more clearly and take a broad view of history, we will see the interrelationship of nations.

Media, and the way history is taught, tends to inflame, and keep alive these
old conflicts, because it suits their agenda to do so. Sport also plays its part
by using 'national' rivalry to excite, and attract, crowds.

We are moving more than ever today, and settling in each other's country. Nation's that were involved in bloody wars a few years ago, are now together
as one in the EU.

It is time we kept 'nationalism' in its place. It has brought far too much death and destruction upon mankind. But, if conflict, death and destruction, is what you want, then keep it up - your wishes, I'm sure, will be answered.

I don't know if anyone out there has the answer. I find that when I post strange things happen such as

(1) Some sentences break up and move to a lower line before they need to do so.

(2) Even though I am 'logged in', when I click the submit button, it takes me to having to log in again. It does not appear to be any different if a short time, or long time, is involved. And it still shows 'logged in' at the top.

Any constructive answers will be appreciated.

There are some others, but those will do for now.

I cannot answer this question without realising that there is so much literature I am ignorant of, and that the only way I could answer the question would be relying far more on my personal preferences and experiences than on the 'ability' to objectively try to estimate which countris had produced the greatest literature.

I am 17 years old, I can read in barely a couple of languages, what the hell do I know about literature anyway?:crash: I certainly enjoy it and find great aesthetic pleasure in reading, I certainly intend to study it at university after I finish the damned last year of lycee, but there is no way to pretend I am able to discuss this.

Certainly, I can be culturally and nationally biased and go for Russian or Croatian literature, that would be the easiest, I can speak those languages natively and was educated in them, and have the full access to the literature written in those languages, not only to a selected few works I would be able to know through various translations, I am also culturally connected to those authors and their works because what they write about are not to me unknown cities, unknown themes, unknown socities I have never been to, so I can feel even more tied to them and thus allow myself the freedom to speak how those literatures must be the greatest in absolute...:D

That is basically what are most of us doing here. We speak out of cultural preferences and what is known to us, neglecting that there is much greater field of that which we do not know, and neglecting the delicate issue of translation and how the 'flavour' of the work is altered through it (Dostoevsky is Dostoevsky only in Russian, and no matter how good translations you might have - I read Dostoevsky also in English, Italian, Serbian and Croatian - those are just interpretations and other-Slavic ones are the closest one can go to Russian I suppose, still, those are tries to convey the original thought in the spirit of another language and culture, which gives automatically a different nuance to a work; each language is, in its essence, intranslatable, be it Russian or Croatian or Dutch or something else).

Another thing, classical Roman and Greek literature... As one of my classics professors told us in the class: "Imagine the entire, huge field of our literature; and now imagine that something happens, civilisation falls, and that out of the entire Russian literature what you have got left are selected works of Dostoevsky, one or two Tolstoy's works in fragments, a couple of novels of unimportant contemporary authors, selection of Esenin's poetry, one or two history of Russian literature which might include some excerpts from other authors, and a couple of poems by Zhukovsky and Tyutchev, and that one is to judge the entire Russian literature, centuries of Russian culture and lifestyle solely by those literary pieces. No Lermontov, no Pushkin, no dozens of important authors, very limited picture of what Russian literature was. That is what we have out of classical literature today."
Perhaps it is not the best comparison in the world, but the point it represents is still valid, and can be compared to the translation thing as well - the access you have got to other literatures is extremely limited, be it by the obstacle of language and huge fields of untranslated literature, be it by the fact that many works were simply swollen by the time and are not saved, as the case is with classical Roman/Greek literature.

So of course we can speculate, show off with the snippets of Latin and Greek we were taught at lycees, but the point is that we know so little about that lost world, that it is almost useless. Certainly, most of you have got to know Roman and Greek literature - but you have got to know Homer, Sophocles or Plautus, the very best-known representatives out of those. How many of you - who are not classical philologists - are acquainted with the works of Petronius, Apuleius, Callimachus or Menandar, or other of not-so-known classics, how many of you when I begin to recite "fainetai moi kenos isos theoisin" know what I speak, what meter was that written in (how many of you know how to read classical Roman/Greek literature which is not written in hexameter?) and whose verses are those? And how many of you could go on? That is my point, because if the answers to previous questions are no, you are simply not entitled to discuss how classical Roman/Greek literature is wonderful, greatest and whatnot, based on a couple of things you have read. I mean, neither am I, and I have been "blessed" by the wonders of solid old-fashioned classical education, and the more I know about it, the more I realise how I do not know the first thing about the world of thousands of years ago, and how what I have got to know from this world are just what remained, nothing more.:(

Same goes for pretty much any literature of any country in the world, bygone or contemporary. I do not know the first thing about German literature by having read 20ish works, in translations because I was never taught German, of the most known representatives of those, and I cannot name you five contemporary German authors off the top of my head. I just do not know German literature, end of story, regardless having read what I consider to be a decent number of it - the field is just so incredibly huge that, on the scale large enough, what I know of it boarders zero.

To conclude, the question assumes the knowledge greater than any of us here can have, and it is basically useless to pretend we know something or to try to answer it, by doing which we only demonstrate that we do not know what we speak of.
The only question we could debate would be which countries' literatures do we personally know and enjoy the most ;)

Russia and France.

Personally, I think that every country has produced something that is really great and stands out in literature. I haven't read literature from every single country, but I have from a few and so far they are all really great. They each have something to offer. Russia has come up with some of the best pieces of literature known to man. I also think that the Europe in general has some of the best works ever. The USA has some spectacular works as does the rest of the Americas. I have read anything really from Asia...a few from the Middle East which were very good. I also think we have to look to Greece and Italy and the Middle East for establishing the foundation for a lot of great pieces of literature.

I'm not certain that I (or anyone) can fairly answer this question with a limited mastery of languages. My own library is quite voluminous (around 3000 books) and quite "multi-cultural", but certainly the collection is skewed. Non-Western literature is small in size due largely to the limited access to good translations of Arabic, Chinese, Indian, and other non-Western lit. China, especially, has a culture that predates most if not all of the Western literary powerhouses. My focus is largely upon Western literature and certainly I have a goodly number of works from Greece, the Roman Empire, Italy, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, The United States and Latin America. There are also a good number of works from other countries (Poland, the Scandinavian nations, Portugal, Holland and Belgium, etc... In spite of all of this I find that over 1/4th of my entire collection is taken up by British literature... a far larger percentage than any other nation. One reason seems obvious: Britain's literary history is longer and more consistent than almost any other nation. While the contributions of the Greeks cannot be discounted, they virtually disappear from literary history by the time of the Roman Empire. If we count the efforts of the Roman Empire and the Italians as a single entity they certainly are quite formidable, but even they disappear with a few exceptions (Leopardi) until the 20th century resurgence (Pavese, Saba, Ungaretti, Lampedusa, Montale, Calvino). The much-vaunted Russians are limited (with few exceptions) to their contributions during the 19th and 20th centuries only. That places them somewhat as latecomers on the scene. Outside of Britain, the French probably make the best case for a nation with a long and consistent history of literary excellence. French literature is a major player from the middle ages (The Romance of the Rose, The Song of Roland, Francois Villion) until the present. Among the giants of French literature we find Rabelais, Corneille, Racine, Moliere, Voltaire, Rousseau, Daudet, Hugo, Zola, Montaigne, Gautier, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Proust, Verlaine, Genet, Camus, etc... But Britain... Britain's major contributions to world (or Western) literature begin's with Beowulf and then pick's up again with Chaucer, Bacon, Sir Thomas More, the great Renaissance poets (Spencer, Campion, Sidney, Daniel, etc...) Modern theater certainly begins with the British (Marlowe, Jonson, Kyd, Wycherly, Webster, and obviously Shakespeare. While there are several claimants to the position of "first novel" (Cervantes, Rabelais, etc...) the british are surely the most important in developing that art form during it's infancy: Richardson, Andrews, DeFoe, Smollet, Sterne, etc... The English Romantics are absolute giants among poetic history (Keats, Byron, Shelley, Coleridge, Blake, Wordsworth) and even the much-misrepresented Victorians produced Tennyson, Pater, Dickins, Stevenson, Hardy, Browning, etc... etc... And we haven't even touched on some of the absolute pinnacles: Milton, Johnson, Yeats, Joyce, etc...

Again, I find the idea of "the best of..." to be slightly absurd to a certain extent, although I also realize that the comparisons of country to country or culture to culture are merely an extension of the sort of comparisons from book to book or writer to writer. Nevertheless, my own personal favorites are from throughout the cultural spectrum: Dante, Shakespeare, Montaigne, Rousseau, Verlaine, Blake, Keats, Holderlin, Rilke, Proust, Kafka, Borges, Calvino, Milton, Hesse, Homer, Sterne, Baudelaire, Yeats, Emerson, T.S. Eliot, etc...

British literature,
then Russian, all in all.

I admit I'm a big Russian fan,but America has produced alot of quality literature.

Faulkner,Steinbeck,Vonnegut,Fitzgerald,Hemingway,T wain,etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ex ponto

British literature,
then Russian, all in all.

---

Name me 10 French and 10 German authors you've read, for example.

Honestly, I believe only people who are ignorant about the matter can think about having an answer to the question.

That can't be a serious question. I think that if literature has taught us anything is that Nationalism is one of the greatest tragedies that has been inflicted upon Mankind. I'd rather think of the greatest writers that have ever lived and still I'd be doing a disservice to a lot of truly great writers. But, of the top of my head, I'd include:
Homer
Sophocles
Sapho
Virgil
Horace
Seneca
Dante
The writer of Beowulf
Petrarca
Cervantes
Quevedo
Lope de Vega
Calderon de la Barca
Shakespeare
Donne
Milton
Blake
Keats
Balzac
Flaubert
Tolstoi
Dostoievksi
Chejov
Ibsen
Joyce
Faulkner
Hemingway
Eliot
Becket
Proust
Kafka
Gide
Lowry
Borges
Neruda
García Márquez
Larkin

As you can see, in my list there are writers from many nationalities, and who'd argue they aren't great writers? Do you see my point?;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Name me 10 French and 10 German authors you've read, for example.

Honestly, I believe only people who are ignorant about the matter can think about having an answer to the question.

---

That's only my judgement based on my own knowledge. My judgement, my taste etc

All countries all over the world have produced masterpieces, and all masterpieces are indispensable!

Most of the above German authors weren't German. Germany is a new country. Besides which, the only fair way to judge this is to say England, since Shakespeare outstrips everything before or after his time that I have yet come across. But he, of course, would find that a terrible answer, since he is a universal being, for all time and place, as Jonson put it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Most of the above German authors weren't German. Germany is a new country.

---

German as in German-speaking, and no Germany is not a new country, where did you get that notion? Which author that person mentioned under Germany were not German exactly?

Quote:

---

Besides which, the only fair way to judge this is to say England, since Shakespeare outstrips everything before or after his time that I have yet come across.

---

You call that fair? Basically you judge a national literary achievement based on a single author, and based on what you (and especially have not) read.

The German Empire didn't really finish taking shape until 1871. Language isn't the deciding factor here, otherwise England, The U.S. And every other English speaking country, and English writer would be under the same category. Do we consider pre-War of Independence Authors to be British? What about pre-confederation authors for the rest of the commonwealth? Either way, like stated before, by country is one of the worst ways to categorize literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

The German Empire didn't really finish taking shape until 1871.

---

Huh... almost every European country didn't take definite shape until the end of WW2... that doesn't mean the country didn't exist...

So basically you are trying to say that Goethe wasn't German? :lol: I think that tu t'es mis les pieds dans les plats.

Quote:

---

Language isn't the deciding factor here, otherwise England, The U.S. And every other English speaking country, and English writer would be under the same category.

---

Ok, so what would you call a polish-writing author under Russian or German occupation? I personally would call him a Polish author. And how do you call an Ukrainian author when Ukraine was part of Russia, and wrote in Russian? I call him a Russian author. Had he written in Ukrainian, I would have called him an Ukrainian author. It is a matter of language and culture, not a matter of where the boundary is set by the politics of the time.

Isn't Nabokov an American writer when he wrote in English in America? When Joyce wrote all across Europe - but not in Ireland - wasn't he still not a Irish author? It all comes down to language and culture.

Quote:

---

Do we consider pre-War of Independence Authors to be British? What about pre-confederation authors for the rest of the commonwealth? Either way, like stated before, by country is one of the worst ways to categorize literature.

---

We're talking about a colony here, which is something completely different.

OK, then is Scotland part of England in this category? what about expats, do they count?

Because I live in the Anglosphere, I'd have to agree with England (and hey, for its population, little Ireland has produced even more!). When you have Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Keats, etc. to your credit as a country... well, nobody can really challenge you.

To be honest, though, that's only for verse. I am partial to verse, but among prose writers I can't say anyone outside of Joyce among my favourites wrote in English. The best prose writers are the Russians (Tolstoy and Dostoevsky cement it!) and the South Americans (Borges and Garcia Marquez, especially).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

OK, then is Scotland part of England in this category? what about expats, do they count?

---

:lol: It's not a precise science I'm trying to tell you, but you can count Scotland in or out, whatever you like. :lol:

About Expats, I gave the example of Nabokov, if Nabokov had written in Russian, he wouldn't have been an American writer, but since he also wrote in Russian when he was in Russia, then we could say he has two literary nationalities.

But why are we even going into precise points like this, there is no rule, just common sense... Goethe not German... The Pope is not Catholic, I am not me... whatever you want.

JBI- If we follow your measure of what constitutes a nation, which is certainly correct, then there is no real Greek literature as Greece as a united nation was not a reality. Instead we should speak of Spartan, Athenian, and Corinthian literature. The same would hold true of Italian literature. Dante would not be Italian, but rather Florentine. Other writers would be Roman, Milanese, Venetian, etc... The usual standard is to place each writer (or other artist) under the culture of his or her language. Austrian writers/composers/artists are usually listed as "German". Language is probably the best standard of division for placing artists within a certain culture because the political divisions of Nations are always subject to change. What was German one day (Lorraine and Alsace) is French the next. The composer, Jacques Offenbach, born in Cologne is considered a French composer due to the fact that he was French speaking, worked mostly in France and was clearly influenced exclusively by French musical culture. The painter, Matthias Grunwald worked for much of his career in Colmar, Alsace, but as a German-Speaking artist working in province that was largely German-Speaking and influenced mostly by German artistic conventions he is listed as a German painter. Joseph Conrad is rarely imagined as a Polish writer in spite of the fact that he did not speak English fluently until he was already in his twenties. His writing, however, was in English and influenced by (and influenced) British literature more than anything else.

The United States, Australia, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil are commonly considered as separate from their parent culture due to the vast physical separation, the fact that they were established as independent nations well into and past the era of Nationalism, and also thanks to great difference in history and culture. Ireland's history in inextricably intertwined with that of England as part of Great Britain as is Austria and even the German-speaking parts of the former Czechoslovakia in ways that are not true of the US and Britain. The culture in the United States has been greatly impacted by the contributions of sources (Spanish/Hispanic, African, French, East-European, Jewish) that make for a culture quite removed from that of the original parent country. A writer in Brazil or Argentina is part of a culture that includes influenced quite foreign to that of their parent cultures of Spain and Portugal.

To a certain extent this is all semantic. Art should be universal or able to speak to the human experience regardless of culture. On the other hand... I believe that the various cultures... even down to regional... can lend to art a variety that is far more interesting than an ideal Anglo-American Disney/McDonalds Imperial internationalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AwayAloneAlast

When you have Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Keats, etc. to your credit as a country... well, nobody can really challenge you.

---

So you think.

I wonder whether or not the people who are arguing so adamantly for one particular National literature as dominant over all others have actually read those other literatures in their native languages.

...among prose writers I can't say anyone outside of Joyce among my favourites wrote in English. The best prose writers are the Russians

Of course that is, by your own admission, personal preference. I would not be so quick to discount the British/English contributions to prose: Robert Burton, Samuel Richardson, Daniel DeFoe, Lawrence Sterne, Samuel Johnson, Edward Gibbon, James Boswell, Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy, Joseph Conrad, Walter Pater, Robert Louis Stevenson, James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, D.H. Lawrence, Samuel Beckett, etc... Certainly Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and even Checkov are towering figures that may not have been surpassed by any single contribution of prose in English (which is debatable) but to ignore the wealth of the British contribution as a result would not be unlike suggesting that the Spanish contribution to Modernism in art outweighs that of the French on the basis of the fact that no single French Modernist surpasses Picasso.

When you have Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Keats, etc. to your credit as a country... well, nobody can really challenge you.

Of course France has Rabelais, Montaigne, Rousseau, Moliere, Hugo, Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Proust... no slouches there.:lol: And the Germans have Goethe, Holderlin, Novalis, Nietzsche, Kafka, Rilke, Hesse, Mann... again, not without some real genius. And what do we really even know of Chinese literature considering that little of its vast body of literature has even been translated... to say nothing of the level of the translation... into most Western languages?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Huh... almost every European country didn't take definite shape until the end of WW2... that doesn't mean the country didn't exist...

So basically you are trying to say that Goethe wasn't German? :lol: I think that tu t'es mis les pieds dans les plats.



Ok, so what would you call a polish-writing author under Russian or German occupation? I personally would call him a Polish author. And how do you call an Ukrainian author when Ukraine was part of Russia, and wrote in Russian? I call him a Russian author. Had he written in Ukrainian, I would have called him an Ukrainian author. It is a matter of language and culture, not a matter of where the boundary is set by the politics of the time.

Isn't Nabokov an American writer when he wrote in English in America? When Joyce wrote all across Europe - but not in Ireland - wasn't he still not a Irish author? It all comes down to language and culture.



We're talking about a colony here, which is something completely different.

---

I'm unsure whether we are agreeing or disagreeing here. You just prove my point that you cannot go by country, since countries didn't take definite shapes until later. If Germany didn't exist in Goethe's time, and the German culture wasn't the same when he lived, as it was in 1871, and we are unsure of whether he would have approved of it or not (seeing as that sort of answer is impossible), than how can we label him as such.

The way I see it, we can only categorize him based on his movement. Thereby, we can compare movements, his being Weimar Classicism, and Shakespeare's being the English Renaissance. Otherwise we won't ever agree.

Either way it is pointless; as stated above, this thread makes no real sense, seeing as these authors didn't even categorize themselves as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

I'm unsure whether we are agreeing or disagreeing here. You just prove my point that you cannot go by country, since countries didn't take definite shapes until later. If Germany didn't exist in Goethe's time, and the German culture wasn't the same when he lived, as it was in 1871, and we are unsure of whether he would have approved of it or not (seeing as that sort of answer is impossible), than how can we label him as such.

---

Germany DID exist in Goethe's time, that's what you don't understand. You keep bringing that 1871 and talk about a "definitive" shape, which is completely unrelated, and which was not definitive at all, just like England's shape was not definitive in Shakespeare time, and like Russia's shape was not (and far from it) definitive in the times of Pushkin, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Basically, your argument makes no sense. 1871 was only the unification, or reunification of German "states", unification that existed before 1814 under the name of Holy Roman Empire, as an official name, but still Germany - what's in a name?

By your logic, what nationality does Gogol fit into?

Quote:

---

Of course that is, by your own admission, personal preference. I would not be so quick to discount the British/English contributions to prose: Robert Burton, Samuel Richardson, Daniel DeFoe, Lawrence Sterne, Samuel Johnson, Edward Gibbon, James Boswell, Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy, Joseph Conrad, Walter Pater, Robert Louis Stevenson, James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, D.H. Lawrence, Samuel Beckett, etc... Certainly Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and even Checkov are towering figures that may not have been surpassed by any single contribution of prose in English (which is debatable) but to ignore the wealth of the British contribution as a result would not be unlike suggesting that the Spanish contribution to Modernism in art outweighs that of the French on the basis of the fact that no single French Modernist surpasses Picasso.

---

I gotta admit I'm not much of a fan of those guys you listed. Dr. Johnson is awesome, I'll give you that, as are Conrad, Joyce, and Beckett, but I've never been able to get into many of the others. The style just isn't my thing... I prefer the styles of, as I said, the Russians and South Americans.

Quote:

---

Of course France has Rabelais, Montaigne, Rousseau, Moliere, Hugo, Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Proust... no slouches there. And the Germans have Goethe, Holderlin, Novalis, Nietzsche, Kafka, Rilke, Hesse, Mann... again, not without some real genius. And what do we really even know of Chinese literature considering that little of its vast body of literature has even been translated... to say nothing of the level of the translation... into most Western languages?

---

Again, a lot of guys on that list, though commonly considered greats, just aren't my thing. I'll give you Nietzsche and Kafka, though; both are muy bien :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

By your logic, what nationality does Gogol fit into?

---

In a previous I gave an example of him without using his name. It is Russian literature because he wrote in Russian, had he written in Ukrainian, he would have been an Ukrainian writer. One can always consider him an Ukrainian writer if he wants...

But will you admit that saying Goethe is not German (sic!!) was completely talking through your hat?

It's stupid to claim a nation's literature superior to others. Literature is not monolithic, there's always influences that goes criss-crossing across the borders of culture. Without Dickens, we wouldnt have Tolstoy as we know him. Marcel Proust attributed his use of time to George Eliot's techinque. I think its better to judge works individually

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marakatsu

It's stupid to claim a nation's literature superior to others. Literature is not monolithic, there's always influences that goes criss-crossing across the borders of culture:thumbs_up . Without Dickens, we wouldnt have Tolstoy as we know him. Marcel Proust attributed his use of time to George Eliot's techinque. I think its better to judge works individually

---

I do agree with you , but each author's work can be considered with regard to his country ..
Comparing English literature to French literature doesn't mean , in my opinion ,
that Proust never took care of George Eliot's technique :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marakatsu

It's stupid to claim a nation's literature superior to others. Literature is not monolithic, there's always influences that goes criss-crossing across the borders of culture.

---

True, but it's good sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

OK, then is Scotland part of England in this category?

---

Only if we also count:

Canadian as American
All Central & South American (excluding Brazil as Spanish)
Australian as New Zealand


There are I believe subtle differences between Scottish & English literature, which may be difficult to place for outsiders to the countries. For such a small country, Britain has more distinct regional differences than countries many times larger - this comes out in all aspects of culture, including the literature

A book of mine, The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature by Elizabeth Kantor, Ph.D., says "We're in luck: Michelangelo's Pieta and Beethoven's Fifth Symphony don't need any tranlation, and we can read Shakespeare in the original. Nobody can touch the English when it comes to literature, just as nobody beats the Germans in music or the Italians in the visual arts. (Some wit has pointed out that the French are second-best at everything.)"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dori

A book of mine, The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature by Elizabeth Kantor, Ph.D., says "We're in luck: Michelangelo's Pieta and Beethoven's Fifth Symphony don't need any tranlation, and we can read Shakespeare in the original. Nobody can touch the English when it comes to literature, just as nobody beats the Germans in music or the Italians in the visual arts. (Some wit has pointed out that the French are second-best at everything.)"

---

I find it very funny that it's always Shakespeare the justification for such judgment (but never talking about the Victorian era :lol: ). I am in the opinion that if you took away Shakespeare from England, England would become a Black Hole.

Some wit has pointed out that the French are second-best at everything.

Close... but I think I'd almost have to go with the Italians for the second-place in Music.:lol:

I can see two countries at the forefront for me:

Germany. Mann, Goethe, Hesse, and Kant if you're going to include philosophers.

America. Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Steinbeck, Willa Cather, Thoreau, Poe, Melville, Twain, Eliot, James, and some more personal ones for me like Ted Roosevelt, Jim Harrison, and Olaf Swenson.