British Literature vs. American Literature

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illuminatus

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.:D

---

I'm not sure that "Ye Olde English" is the right term to use here. British writing is not all formal and old-fashioned; although there are the great and famous writers like Austen and Shakespeare, modern writers deserve to be recognised too. There is some amazing modern British writing out there at the moment. The American style is different, but it would be unfair to class it as 'more modern'. British writing reflects Britain, which is different from America, but we're not completely out of touch over here! I don't think that either is better or worse: just different.

Virgil;

I certainly can't dispute your thoughts upon 20th century American poetry. There are certain poets from other countries who are unquestionably giants... and some of whom I prefer over almost any American contemporary (Rilke and Montale for example) but as you suggest, in most cases its one or two central figures or top-tier poets. The Germans have Rilke, Paul Celan (OK... he wasn't German, but he wrote almost all that he is known for in German), and maybe Ingebourg Bachmann. The Italians have Eugenio Montale and perhaps Salvatore Quasimodo and Giuseppe Ungaretti. I might acknowledge 3 or four Russian giants: Anna Akhmontova, Marina Tsvetaeva, Osip Mandelshtam, and Boris Pasternak. The French...? Eluard? Valery? Apollonaire? Do any of these attain the first rank? And the Brits: Yeats, Hardy, D.H. Lawrence, Auden, Seamus Heaney, and Geoffrey Hill... and a great body of smaller (yet still wonderful) poets: Dylan Thomas, Walter de la Mare, Owen, Robert Graves, etc... perhaps the Spanish offer the best competition: Lorca, Antonio Machado, Vincente Aleixandre, Rafael Alberti, Miguel Hernandez, etc... But you are correct about the Americans: T.S Eliot, Ezra Pound, W.C. Williams, Wallace Stevens, Robert Frost, Hart Crane, e.e. cummings, Marianne Moore, Ammons, John Ashberry, Richard Wilbur, Mark Strand, Anthony Hecht, etc...

I'm not certain I'd give the award for greatest novelist to Faulkner... although I wouldn't find him to be a bad choice or one easy to dispute either. Joyce certainly can't be ignored, although for the single epic achievement I think I'd go with Proust. But then... what of Thomas Mann? Or Hardy? Woolf, or Lawrence? I'd also ask you about short stories... or rather about those writers who challenged the accepted forms of literature: Kafka first and foremost... was not the 20th century often referred to as "Kafkaesque"? And what of Beckett, Borges, and Calvino? While the 20th century may have been "The American Century", when it comes to literature it might have just as much been the century of multiculturalism. Several older European cultures produced literary figures of a greatly renewed vigor: Italy (Montale, Landolfi, Ungaretti, calvino, etc...), Greece (Cavafy, Kazantzakis), Portugal (Pessoa and Sarmago), and Spain. We also find the Latin American literature comes of age with Octavio Paz, J.L. Borges, Pablo Neruda, Alejo Carpentier, Julio Cortazar, Marquez, etc... and we start to discover major new writers in India, Africa, Asia, Australia, etc... perhaps one of the reasons I hate the this country vs that country competition when it comes to the arts is that such competitions often lead to the sort of chauvanism that ignores the very real contributions of other cultures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

perhaps one of the reasons I hate the this country vs that country competition when it comes to the arts is that such competitions often lead to the sort of chauvanism that ignores the very real contributions of other cultures.

---

I agree and I've said so in an earlier post in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I agree and I've said so in an earlier post in this thread.

---

I agree. It seems unfair to me to compare the two countries literature this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I agree. It seems unfair to me to compare the two countries literature this way.

---

What's unfair about it? We are just having some literary fun, comparing two seperate things in a never ending competition, as it will never be resolved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McGrain

Or, many would say, the Greeks. Why don't you start a new thread...Russians v Greeks;) . Bet that one would have some legs!

---

Russia v. France, Dostoyevski on Dumas, Tolstoy against Hugo. This weekend at Madison Square Garden.

Someboyd may have pointed this out already, I would just like to put in that T.S. Eliot is way cooler than George Eliot. But then T.S. wrote his best stuff while living in London.

I am a huge fan of British literature! Of course I love American literature, but I enjoy British literature so much, because I think modern and "classic" authors(Austen, Dickens, Bronte, and their contemporaries and earlier authors, i.e. Shakespeare, Caucer,etc.) from England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland(the UK) are definitely more culturally and mechanically aware of the usage of English language, as it was intended to originally be spoken("the King's English"). I believe many Americans (especially myself, judging by my terrible grammar and syntax) have butchered the English language, which obviously originated in England! Sorry to ramble and rant. Please reply.

America's greastest contenders were trained by the British, but I believe the pupils have succeeded their teachers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan Madley

Ha, Ha. You're joking right. In the public consciousness and for very good reason, Poe, Steinbeck and Irving or any other American author DOES NOT compare to people like: Doyle, DICKENS, Eliot, Archer, Trollope, Hardy, Byron, etc. Please note that I have used British authors that have lived only since the independence of America; I have done so to prove that no American alive ever, which technically speaking is since 1776, can come close to that thank you, which quite throws your "The British Isles has been around longer" off completley now as America had no response to Victorian writers. They, as a select group of Britain's literature history, far surpass anything America had or has today. Thank you.

---

I know I'm commenting on an old post, but the above quote seems to be a bit ridiculous.

How many people here have read "Moby-Dick". The forward of the first edition of the Novel I owned was written by one of the world's foremost literary critics. He called the book, "the best novel of the English Language", and I would have to agree. furthermore, it looks like no one is taking poetry into account here. American poets have been far more innovative and influential than British poets since Whitman and Dickinson. Indeed, an entire movement "The Revival Movement" in 1960's Britain was dedicated to trying to reinvigorate British poetry by looking across the Atlantic to the American Poets.

All this is not to say that American Literature is better than British or visa versa, but that we are missing large swaths of information that should be filled in before we make bold statements in either direction.

First it must be noted that the era that gave us Dracula, The Jungle Book, Treasure Island, Peter Pan, and Trilby in England is the era in America that gave us The Awakening, Pudd'nhead Wilson, Huck Finn, Mcteague, Maggie, and Sister Carrie. I bring up this era because I believe it was when the Americans were beginning to catch up with the British. I think the early works of Norris and Crane were trying to break out of the rut of innocence that American Literature was caught in, and their works lacked subtlety a little bit, but I'd like to think that if either had lived to be sixty (instead of 30 and 32) they would have been among the best authors in the world. Sherwood Anderson, our closest equivalent to a D.H. Lawrence I think did a few things better than Lawrence. His characters, as creations impress me a bit more than Lawrence's. I have a lot of admiration for Sinclair Lewis's novels, especially Elmer Gantry, but as far as I know we didn't have anyone in America doing that kind of work in the mind-nineteenth century when Thackeray was going strong in England.

American Literature didn't really kick off until the latter part of the 19th century and there's a distinct lack of women involved. I'm afraid I have to give it to us Brits :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vavasor

First it must be noted that the era that gave us Dracula, The Jungle Book, Treasure Island, Peter Pan, and Trilby in England is the era in America that gave us The Awakening, Pudd'nhead Wilson, Huck Finn, Mcteague, Maggie, and Sister Carrie. I bring up this era because I believe it was when the Americans were beginning to catch up with the British. I think the early works of Norris and Crane were trying to break out of the rut of innocence that American Literature was caught in, and their works lacked subtlety a little bit, but I'd like to think that if either had lived to be sixty (instead of 30 and 32) they would have been among the best authors in the world. Sherwood Anderson, our closest equivalent to a D.H. Lawrence I think did a few things better than Lawrence. His characters, as creations impress me a bit more than Lawrence's. I have a lot of admiration for Sinclair Lewis's novels, especially Elmer Gantry, but as far as I know we didn't have anyone in America doing that kind of work in the mind-nineteenth century when Thackeray was going strong in England.

---

I guess I wonder by your statements what you intention was in "innocence" and "catchup with the British"? These and your statement regarding "that kind of work" in regard to Thackery seem a bit vague to me. I wonder if you could clarify your point. At this moment I am a bit confounded, as these statements almost seem to reflect a more Eurocentic tone than one from an American literary perspective. Please do elucidate your comments for me.


To clarify my own point, if that helps, I was stating that British poetry stagnated in the 19th century, fixating on formal verse, and creating little innovation in the field for almost a century. You can see it easily when you compare the brief works of Hart Crane to W.H. Auden or W.B. Yeats, all contemporaries . . . though one's life was shatteringly short. Again, Auden was alive and still considered at his full height when both the New York School and the Beat poets were creating two very distinct voices in American poetry far from Auden's Christ Church . . . that's not even to mention Jazz forms developed in Harlem, which came about in his younger years. But, also, you can see it in the mid-nineteenth-century with comparisons between the Brownings or G.M. Hopkins and Whitman. The contrast in style, in form,, language, and philosophy is so very different and innovative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

American Literature didn't really kick off until the latter part of the 19th century and there's a distinct lack of women involved. I'm afraid I have to give it to us Brits :)

---

Please, tell me what early and mid 19th century American Literature you have read?

Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Someboyd may have pointed this out already, I would just like to put in that T.S. Eliot is way cooler than George Eliot. But then T.S. wrote his best stuff while living in London.

---

Chalk & Cheese. George was a first class novelist with no reputation for poetry, T.S. vice versa (if he *is* a first class poet:-) For myself, I much prefer George to T.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vavasor

Sherwood Anderson, our closest equivalent to a D.H. Lawrence I think did a few things better than Lawrence. His characters, as creations impress me a bit more than Lawrence's...

---

I just tried re-reading "the Rainbow" and had to give up, although I managed to get through "Sons and Lovers" (just). I think it's now generally accepted that Lawrence is nowhere near the class of Dickens, George Eliot, Austen... I agree with that estimation. All that mystico-sexuality gets very tedious... So doing better than Lawrwence isn't "all that". David Lodge, amongst several other modern Brits, does better than Lawrence IMHO...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintereis

Please, tell me what early and mid 19th century American Literature you have read?

---

It doesn't really interest me as a period so I've only read just over half of Moby Dick and a bit of The Scarlett Letter. Both of them are good works but they belong to the mid/second half of the 19th century (I think they're both circa 1850). I don't think I've read any early 19th century American literature-the only name I can think of is Poe.

When critics discuss American classics, they tend to mention works which are post mid-19th century. The earliest contender for Great American Novel would probably be Moby Dick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

I just tried re-reading "the Rainbow" and had to give up, although I managed to get through "Sons and Lovers" (just). I think it's now generally accepted that Lawrence is nowhere near the class of Dickens, George Eliot, Austen... I agree with that estimation. All that mystico-sexuality gets very tedious... So doing better than Lawrwence isn't "all that". David Lodge, amongst several other modern Brits, does better than Lawrence IMHO...

---

Did you also find it a bit redundant, as if Lawrence were attempting to batter you over the head with the subject matter? That is how I found "Lady Chatterley's Lover"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

It doesn't really interest me as a period so I've only read just over half of Moby Dick and a bit of The Scarlett Letter. Both of them are good works but they belong to the mid/second half of the 19th century (I think they're both circa 1850). I don't think I've read any early 19th century American literature-the only name I can think of is Poe.

When critics discuss American classics, they tend to mention works which are post mid-19th century. The earliest contender for Great American Novel would probably be Moby Dick.

---

Yes, the white whale, that it is . . . or at least I cannot name an earlier contender. I can name some classic earlier works, however: The Leather Stocking Tales (e.g. "The Last of the Mohicans") by James Fenimore Cooper, Washington Irving's short stories and essays including "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" and "Rip Van Winkle". Also, Edgar Allen Poe, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thorough, and James Russell Lowell were published in the earlier part of the 1800's.

You don't read Chaucer and Shakespeare and not read Poe and Hawthrne. You don't read Melville and Twain and give up Dickens and Thackeray. You read the best of both nations, including the American Declaration of Idependence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

You don't read Chaucer and Shakespeare and not read Poe and Hawthrne. You don't read Melville and Twain and give up Dickens and Thackeray. You read the best of both nations, including the American Declaration of Idependence.

---

I cannot disagree with that statement, but how often are different texts read outside their own cultures I wonder? I have read all the above at one point-- some assigned, some not. But I wonder to what extent certain writings in one culture are perceived as important in another. Not a question that is readily answerable, as it would differ between cultures. But interesting.

The idea of such a comparison is absurd. The United States does not really begin to become a nation of any real cultural influence until the late 19th early 20th century. In spite of this, the US has certainly churned out more than a few literary artists of real merit: Whitman, Dickinson, Emerson, Hawthorne, Melville, Poe, Twain, T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Wallace Stevens, Hart Crane, W.C. Williams, e.e. cummings, Faulkner, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Elizabeth Bishop, Nathaniel West, Gore Vidal, Norman Mailer, Saul Bellow, Flannery O'Conner, John Barth, Philip Roth, Cormac McCarthy, etc... How would British literature just some 200 years after the Viking settlement... or even after the Norman Invasion have compared? The US is an incredibly young nation by European and Asian standards... and yet American culture has also produced the Hollywood film industry, Jazz, Rock-n-Roll, Bluegrass, and become a leading figure in literature, classical music, architecture, and the visual arts. It would seem that the notion of an American Renaissance or even an American Century is not empty hyperbole.

And I say this as one far more enamored of European culture and art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

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."

---

I guess you have to find out what the currently acceptable geographical term is for the little group of islands at the north-west corner of Europe, and use that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vavasor

First it must be noted that the era that gave us Dracula, The Jungle Book, Treasure Island, Peter Pan, and Trilby in England is the era in America that gave us The Awakening, Pudd'nhead Wilson, Huck Finn, Mcteague, Maggie, and Sister Carrie. I bring up this era because I believe it was when the Americans were beginning to catch up with the British. I think the early works of Norris and Crane were trying to break out of the rut of innocence that American Literature was caught in, and their works lacked subtlety a little bit, but I'd like to think that if either had lived to be sixty (instead of 30 and 32) they would have been among the best authors in the world. Sherwood Anderson, our closest equivalent to a D.H. Lawrence I think did a few things better than Lawrence. His characters, as creations impress me a bit more than Lawrence's. I have a lot of admiration for Sinclair Lewis's novels, especially Elmer Gantry, but as far as I know we didn't have anyone in America doing that kind of work in the mind-nineteenth century when Thackeray was going strong in England.

---

I haven't read Crane but I agree with your estimation of Norris as a potential American literary giant comparable to the European naturalists of the period. His early death is one of US literature's greatest tragedies. Mcteague is wonderful writing and the first two books of his unfinished trilogy The Octopus and The Pit are brilliant descriptions of one facet of US capitalism; it is a personal regret that I'm unable to read the last of them. I would certainly rate him as important as Sinclair Lewis. The real tragedy of Frank Norris is that, judging by how infrequently he is mentioned on this forum, he seems to have been neglected by readers supposedly interested in literary merit.

American Literature is more diverse.

British Literature is more dense, complex, and poetic (i.e. Vanity Fair).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheChilly

American Literature is more diverse.

British Literature is more dense, complex, and poetic (i.e. Vanity Fair).

---

You'll have to pardon me, but I am going to have to disagree with that statement. It is far too general to accurately fit the literary forms of either nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

I haven't read Crane but I agree with your estimation of Norris as a potential American literary giant comparable to the European naturalists of the period. His early death is one of US literature's greatest tragedies. Mcteague is wonderful writing and the first two books of his unfinished trilogy The Octopus and The Pit are brilliant descriptions of one facet of US capitalism; it is a personal regret that I'm unable to read the last of them. I would certainly rate him as important as Sinclair Lewis. The real tragedy of Frank Norris is that, judging by how infrequently he is mentioned on this forum, he seems to have been neglected by readers supposedly interested in literary merit.

---

You talk about Norris, but poor Edith Wharton is never mentioned at all despite her great literary prowess. "The Age of Innocence", "Ethan Frome", "Summer", "The House of Mirth". She was definitely an expert on the gilded age, an adept navigator of the moral shoals which bridged the way between Victorian and Modern society, and a writer as vivid in her depictions on the Astor 400 as the everyday New England villager.

Agree with dfloyd, this is a very silly topic. I think American and British literature should each pick one champion and settle it with a decision based on zombie kumite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silas Thorne

Agree with dfloyd, this is a very silly topic. I think American and British literature should each pick one champion and settle it with a decision based on zombie kumite.

---

On the contrary, it's a very sensible and valid issue, and should be debated thoroughly. When we've finished here, I shall open a new thread of similar importance entitled The White Cliffs of Dover vs The Appalachians.

It's simply unfair to compare, but if we were to keep this arguments random and superficial you can say the UK wins. Its an empty statement for a number of reasons, specially considering that you will be stacking several british identities over a number of centuries and stacking them as if they were the same thing, as if you could pull some literary level from the particular geography in which they were created.

A follow-up question, in the spirit of making a broader subject: 20th century non-british (including Canada, Australia etc.) texts against 20th century british texts, which one is "better"?

As Cayman has an equal amount of British and North Americans. I hear similiar arguments every day over Football (soccer) vs. American football. And Crisps versus Chips. And Door swing out vs. doors swing in. This curry versus that curry.......on and on.

I have learned one thing, it's a tribal world and most (not all) people stick to their own tribe, in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

On the contrary, it's a very sensible and valid issue, and should be debated thoroughly. When we've finished here, I shall open a new thread of similar importance entitled The White Cliffs of Dover vs The Appalachians.

---

The Appalachians? Man! That's not right. You take Britain's most famous geographical feature and stick us with withering mountains. :incazzato: Lets do The White Cliffs of Dover and the Scottish Highlands (tag teams are more fun) vs. The Grand Canyon and Yellowstone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonywalt

As Cayman has an equal amount of British and North Americans. I hear similiar arguments every day over Football (soccer) vs. American football. And Crisps versus Chips. And Door swing out vs. doors swing in. This curry versus that curry.......on and on.

I have learned one thing, it's a tribal world and most (not all) people stick to their own tribe, in the end.

---

I don't think it is intended to be all that serious of a conversation. It is like two competitive friends razzing each other.

The Appalachians? Man! That's not right. You take Britain's most famous geographical feature and stick us with withering mountains. Lets do The White Cliffs of Dover and the Scottish Highlands (tag teams are more fun) vs. The Grand Canyon and Yellowstone.

You are forgetting the Rocky Mountains... or even just the Grand Tetons. And then you have the Valley of Monuments in Utah, Yosemite, Kilauea in Hawaii, Alaska, the Everglades, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arrowni

It's simply unfair to compare, but if we were to keep this arguments random and superficial you can say the UK wins. Its an empty statement for a number of reasons, specially considering that you will be stacking several british identities over a number of centuries and stacking them as if they were the same thing, as if you could pull some literary level from the particular geography in which they were created.

---

When a guy's right, he's right. It's downright stupid to compare these two Anglic giants with each other, as if their literature were Great Walls of antithetical manifestos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintereis

Did you also find it a bit redundant, as if Lawrence were attempting to batter you over the head with the subject matter? That is how I found "Lady Chatterley's Lover"

---

Yes I did. I read Chatterley a few decades ago and don't intend to repeat the experience... not because it was at all shocking, just because it was tedious. I have a copy of Women in Love which I might attempt again - I remember it as less tedious than 'the Rainbow'... Sons & Lovers might be his best novel... but that only brings him up to middling Hardy...

I'm reading Kipling's penguin "Man Who would be King" collection at the moment. *So* much a better reading experience than Lawrence ... OK he has imperialist tendencies, but he doesn't batter you over the head with them. (Lawrence was also a bit of a fascist...) Kipling is a great story teller and he *really* moves the story along quickly - such a wonderful contrast to Lawrence. His tales are also pretty amazing - one story is an account of how an Indo-European gets hooked on opium, it's better than anything by Burroughs! Another is how an Imperialist officer falls into a pit of 'good as dead hindus' and lives off eating crows while a mysterious rifleman takes pot shots at him - reads like Kafka at his best! Another..., but heck, enough... buy it and read it... I never imagined that Kipling could write such stories... ignore his bad press...

Here's a proposal, give all writers a gun, blindfold them, and let it all play out naturally. The side with the most survivors win.

If we really want to compare an important issue between America and the UK, let's compare cuisine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

If we really want to compare an important issue between America and the UK, let's compare cuisine.

---

We will when you get some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

We will when you get some.

---

The irony of an englishman belittling the cuisine of another nation....We might as well have Russians complaining that Greece is too cold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

The irony of an englishman belittling the cuisine of another nation....We might as well have Russians complaining that Greece is too cold.

---

Very few people who knock English food have ever had any in England. If you have, then we can talk about it. I have lived in the US for extended periods, and have eaten in countless restaurants there, and I'm happy to trade experiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Very few people who knock English food have ever had any in England. If you have, then we can talk about it. I have lived in the US for extended periods, and have eaten in countless restaurants there, and I'm happy to trade experiences.

---

I have only been the the U.S when I was young and do not quite remember, But I am at university in england so yes I have been eating english food. Many english people take pride in their food and that is fine - so long as you don't expect the rest of the world to admire it as well. The food is good, but nothing more. In places such as Spain, Italy and France, food is understood as more than food - in england this zeitgeist doesn't exist.

That is why "english cuisine" is a funny joke on the continent, no Italian, frenchman, Spaniard ect would ever think the words "english cuisine" let alone say them in a serious manner.

Of course America is the equivalent of England when it comes to food - but an Englishman belittling American food seems to be the pot calling the kettle black.

A simple way of seeing if a country has good food, is going to different countries and seeing if their metropolises have restaurants specialized with that nations cuisine.

Italian, French, Chinese, Indian, ect. Restaurants exist all over the world. English and American Restaurants don't.

Any moment now I expect Stlukes to come in with Cajun cooking but, think McDonalds: or is that the unthinkable?

Any moment now I expect Stlukes to come in with Cajun cooking but, think McDonalds: or is that the unthinkable?

Certainly the US has any number of native ethnic cuisines: Cajun, Southwestern and Tex/Mex, African-American, Southern, New-England, New York, etc... as well as the wealth of foreign cuisines as the result of immigration: Italian, German, Russian Japanese, Thai, Indian, Mexican, Chinese, Vietnamese, Spanish, Jewish, Polish, Irish, etc... I can find restaurants specializing in any of these cuisines in most American cities. But then we have our questionable native inventions... especially fast food. Personally, I think Jewish cuisine has both the British and Americans beat by a long-shot: Gefilte fish, Lox, quenelles, pickled herring, borscht, pickled eggs, chicken liver... :skep:

I remember reading an article years ago that theorized that Britain and America didn't develop any real cuisine of note as a result of their wealth in natural resources. Having access to so much beef, lamb, chicken, etc... far beyond other countries they didn't need to develop means of making what were often scraps... poor cuts of meat taste good through the use of various herbs, seasonings, etc... The article went on to point out how something like chili was developed on the cattle-runs in the old American South-West. A cow was slaughtered... but it would take more than a few days for a group of a dozen of so cattlemen to finish the beast. In the intense South-Western heat the meat would rapidly turn nasty. The cooks employed various local and Mexican seasonings, hot chiles, etc... to cover up the taste.

Personally, I don't think a majority of Americans... and it may be the same with the Brits... take meals as seriously as other cultures. I had a Puerto-Rican friend in New York who insisted on serving you home-made Spanish coffee or hot chocolate (made from real chocolate and cream!) any time you visited. He declared that in Puerto-Rico this was a tradition. Even if you were coming to talk business... or kill the other guy... you would first have some real coffee or hot chocolate. My Chinese friend is the same. Anytime he wishes to thank someone for something he offers to cook them dinner. As he worked for years as a chef in a Chinese restaurant we have never refused.

The British could write well if they nuked Oxford and Cambridge.