Printable View
I know what you mean. People automaticly go for the countries they have read the most lit from. MAybe if more of the literature of Slovakia, Slovinia, Cech, Poland, Latvia, Romania etc where translated into different languages they'd begiven more consideration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiculík
I know where Slovakia is. And I agree, this thread is extremely narrow minded. And I've expressed something similar earlier in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiculík
Although I must admit, I was thinking the same way until few years ago. Then I met one great man who opened my eyes. :)
Thanks to him, I discovered such great authors as Ilya Ilf and Evgeny Petrov (Russian authors, always write together and are usually referred to as Ilf-Petrov), Haruki Murakami (A Wild Sheep Chase - excellent book), Nikos Kazantzakis (ever heard of Zorba the Greek?), Naguib Mahfous (Nobel Prize winner from Egypt), or Ismail Kadare (current Albanian author)
World is full of beautiful books. Don't deprive yourselves of beauty by reading always same few authors from always same few countries! Read, enjoy - and then you may judge, if you'll still feel like it.
I discovered I'm too humble to judge like this.
Germany... :nod:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_literature
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiculík
I totally agree.:thumbs_upQuote:
Originally Posted by Aiculík
I'm sorry that i'm quoting two entire posts but i agree with everything Aiculík says and i can't ommit part of it.
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiculík
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<
I've heard of Slovakia! I could even show you where it is! -pats back-Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiculík
((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.