British Literature vs. American Literature

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McGrain

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!

---

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 :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

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 the continent North America :p

---

...must confess to having upset the occasional Canadian over just this. Not so much the geography, more the accent...apologies!

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

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

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 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan Madley

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.

---

First of all, I don't think that an established critic would have read all American and British works too. :)

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.

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

We may have our individual likings, but universally, and please agree with me here, reputation and established critism are brilliant judges of global acclaim.

---

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. :p

I am sorry for being a bit off-topic, but couldn't help it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan Madley

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.

---

You can always put it in the other way:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan Madley

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 Adudaewen

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 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

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.

---

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 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." 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. :)

---

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.:)

But yeah if you have a separate course for continental Europe I'd go with calling the course the literature of Britain and Ireland.