British Literature vs. American Literature

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.