British Literature vs. American Literature

Which has provided great work? Britain: Shakespeare, Dickens, Doyle, Eliot, Hardy etc. or The United States: Steinbeck, Twain, Melville, Fitzgerald etc. I know many will say British and so would I, but I want to hear your opinions.

Both countries have produced great literature. If you want to see which has prodduced more or better literature, then it is partly a mattter of taste, and literature has been produced in Britain for a longer time than the US has had writers.

I prefer the language in British, specifically English literature far more than in American literature. Though that is not a fair statement, since Britain has been writing books for a longer time than the States. Modern literature however is a toss up. For science fiction and fantasy I would say The United States wins hands down, but for more literary work probably Britain. For work in general though, right now I do not consider either of them to be "The Best".

Hello!!! Let's not forget Jane Austen!!

Like you say, opinions, but i'd say that the works of Shakespeare are worth more than the entire output of American literature.

No-one's touching the US for movies, though.

I think I tend to like American literature better actually...probably because it's more foreign to me - a bit of escapism.

One writer may be better than another, one text more impressive than another but the literature in one political entity compared with another can only be different. The idea of Britain as a political entity is archaic as well as limited since it only existed from the first decade of the eighteenth century until the third decade of the twentieth.
America has produced a stupendous quantity and quality of literature

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

The idea of Britain as a political entity is archaic as well as limited since it only existed from the first decade of the eighteenth century until the third decade of the twentieth.
America has produced a stupendous quantity and quality of literature

---

I'd agree with all of that, but Britain as a [I]cultural[I] entity can surely be treated as a linear entity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McGrain

I'd agree with all of that, but Britain as a [I]cultural[I] entity can surely be treated as a linear entity.

---

I would suggest that britain is even less of a cultural entity than a political one. There are as many cultural differences as similarities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

I would suggest that britain is even less of a cultural entity than a political one. There are as many cultural differences as similarities.

---

OK, yeah, but in the sense that it can be traced back and beyond the 18th century political cut-off suggested above. If you feel like it you can, as you say, cut of any sense of cutlural lineage due to divergance in its history, but you could also choose to follow it all the way back, no? I mean it is not really controversial to suggest that there is such a thing as British literary history - as opposed to political history - even if it would be a massive undertaking to trace it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

The idea of Britain as a political entity is archaic as well as limited since it only existed from the first decade of the eighteenth century until the third decade of the twentieth.

---

But are we considering only the British Lit which falls into this category? This would exclude Chaucer, Shakespeare, Spencer, Sidney, the Beowulf poet, Milton, and several others from the question who are, I would venture to say, some of Britain's best writers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

America has produced a stupendous quantity and quality of literature

---

Quite so. I do not really think the two are comparable, as each has went through a great many "phases". I am impressed, though, that, given its comparatively short existence, America has dashed off such an amount as it has of really excellent literature. It has really only been about 200 years. We've finally reached the early 1800s in my American Lit class, beginning with Emerson, Thorough, and Fuller, and I have to say it is a great relief to be reading something other than preachers' diaries and accounts of the captives of Native Americans (also generally church-related folks, as they were the only ones who could read and write...). In my own opinion, the quality of this country's literature increased considerably when the religious influence began pulling itself into the background, beginning with Franklin and Jefferson, then the "Transcendentalists", and then going on to Irving, Melville, Poe, and the like (and finally James!). This gives Britain about four-hundred years on us at least, plus the Old and early-Middle English stuff. I do think it safe to say that, in general (though obviously with several exceptions), British literature - particularly from the Victorian era - is massively satirical. I'm not sure American writers ever were so concerned with social matters in the same way - with that one enormous exception of the slavery question. Perhaps I'll find more evidence to the contrary as the semester progresses...

I definitely think American lit has a more contemporary taste, while English lit is more classic & refined. I love both for different reasons. We shouldn't forget the great poets, either-- Frost & Sylvia Plath, Wordsworth & Keats,etc.

I defintely agree that British literature overpowers American lit. I have taken courses in both literatures and British is FAR more interesting and in depths than American literature. There is no American Shakespeare, Austen, or Bronte..period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starbuck

I defintely agree that British literature overpowers American lit. I have taken courses in both literatures and British is FAR more interesting and in depths than American literature. There is no American Shakespeare, Austen, or Bronte..period.

---

There has never been a British Steinbeck, Poe and Irving, too. :p I personally can't seem to decide whether I find American Literature better or British Literature attracts me more, but I think that calling British Literature "far more interesting than American Literature" is something I would not feel comfortable to say with all great American writers around. Anyway, that's a matter of opinions. :)

Regarding "British literature" and what it includes (whether to include chaucer, shakespeare etc) I think it would be best to use the term "Literature from the British Isles" instead. I know this may seem pedantic but it is a more fitting term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Regarding "British literature" and what it includes (whether to include chaucer, shakespeare etc) I think it would be best to use the term "Literature from the British Isles" instead.

---

Yeah, I will go for that. I'd also like to add that it's very, very difficult to claim a lot of the modern greats solely for Britain - the big example is Rushdie. Can you be absolutley convinced that he doesn't come in under "eastern"? Especially his newest one, "Shalimar The Clown" (exellent), reeks of east.

It should also be said that American work has probably overhauled Literature From The British Isles;) in one area, weird literature. As is mentioned above, UK has no Poe and Lovecraft is probably that great man's equal. On a long enough time scale US probably catches UK in many areas. However, and i'm sorry to harp on, what about Shakespeare? I really don't want to ram it down anyone's throat, but if you line up American literature's greatest, say, 12 works, he probably has them matched on his own. No?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starbuck

I defintely agree that British literature overpowers American lit. I have taken courses in both literatures and British is FAR more interesting and in depths than American literature. There is no American Shakespeare, Austen, or Bronte..period.

---

Well, did you consider that the US is only a little more than two hundred years old? Frankly if you want to just focus on one century, the 20th century, I think the US stacks up quite well. William Faulkner is the greatest novelist of the century and T.S. Eliot is definetely the most important poet of the century.

But I can't stand this my literature is better than your literature attitude by anyone. Look at how many fine works are coming today from India and other places not in the US or Britain. It all strikes me as childish.

Of course I am the old man here. ;) :p :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Well, did you consider that the US is only a little more than two hundred years old?

---

Of course, it is also possible to argue that American Literature has the same origin as the British Literature (common language) but later on branched out as a different entity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Of course I am the old man here. ;) :p :p

---

Ah, there comes the acceptance! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Well, did you consider that the US is only a little more than two hundred years old? Frankly if you want to just focus on one century, the 20th century, I think the US stacks up quite well. William Faulkner is the greatest novelist of the century and T.S. Eliot is definetely the most important poet of the century. ;) :p :p

---

I agree with all of this APART from your remark about Faulkner. I would say that Rushdie and Greene both measure up quite smartly to your man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Of course, it is also possible to argue that American Literature has the same origin as the British Literature (common language) but later on branched out as a different entity.

---

Oh that's for sure Scher. My point was that British lit can go further back with more writers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

There has never been a British Steinbeck, Poe and Irving, too. :p

---

Or James!!

Both countries literature is great in itself. Both have their differences which is possibly influenced by their different lifestyles etc. Because of this i think it is very hard to decide which is better as both are great in their own way. I also dont think it is right to say one is better than the other. All literature is great literature.

Kilted, "literature of the british isles". I see where you are coming from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamesian

Or James!!

---

:lol: How do we count James? He lived a good deal of his life in England and ultimately got a British/English (? don't know how that works) citizenship.

His works strike me as American, though

'Regarding "British literature" and what it includes (whether to include chaucer, shakespeare etc) I think it would be best to use the term "Literature from the British Isles" instead. I know this may seem pedantic but it is a more fitting term.'
I agree but then we would see that as the best definition, you and I.
Chaucer Shakespeare et al are English - not British (however you define it) and the latter was definitely a 100% English nationalist.... not as mad and bad as Spenser though.
Dunbar who wrote also in English was Scottish and though he is one of the foremost Scots makars he is nowhere near as good as about twenty other Scottish poets who did not use English at all.
The rather happy note about English literature written by the English is that despite the huge dumbing down of England's culture there are still excellent English writers and the unhappy note for Scotland is that outside of Massie and one or two others the majority of modern Scottish writers are freak show exhibitionists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

I agree but then we would see that as the best definition, you and I.
Chaucer Shakespeare et al are English - not British (however you define it) and the latter was definitely a 100% English nationalist.... not as mad and bad as Spenser though.
Dunbar who wrote also in English was Scottish and though he is one of the foremost Scots makars he is nowhere near as good as about twenty other Scottish poets who did not use English at all.
The rather happy note about English literature written by the English is that despite the huge dumbing down of England's culture there are still excellent English writers and the unhappy note for Scotland is that outside of Massie and one or two others the majority of modern Scottish writers are freak show exhibitionists.

---

Quite, and on a related note a poem by a guy named shug (Hugh MacDairmid)

My Quarrel with England

And let me pit in guid set terms
My quarrel wi' th' owre sonsy rose,
That roond about its devotees
A fair fat cast o' aureole throws
That blinds them in its mirlygoes,
To the necessity o' foes.

Upon their King and System I
Glower as on things that whiles in pairt
I may admire (at least for them),
But wi' nae claim upon my hert,
While a' their pleasure and their pride
Ootside me lies - and there maun bide.

Ootside me lies - and mair than that,
For I stand still for forces which
Were subjugated to mak' way
For England's poo'er, and to enrich
The kinds o' English, and o' Scots,
The lesat congenial to my thoughts.

Hauf his soul a Scot maun use
Indulgin' in illusions,
And hauf in gettin' rid o' them
And comin' to conclusions
Wi' the demoralising dearth
O' onything worth while on Earth....

From A drunk Man Looks on the Thistle 1926

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

There has never been a British Steinbeck, Poe and Irving, too. :p I personally can't seem to decide whether I find American Literature better or British Literature attracts me more, but I think that calling British Literature "far more interesting than American Literature" is something I would not feel comfortable to say with all great American writers around. Anyway, that's a matter of opinions. :)

---

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.

And I would like to state that, yes, I mean by Britain the British Isles, and I hope I am not offending any Irishmen. From now on please regard the "Britain" of the thread title as the British Isles, which were collectively Britain once anyway.

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. ...
no American alive ever, which technically speaking is since 1776, can come close to that thank you,

---

Well, um, I hate to be redundant here, but actually yes, James can, and does, and is quite possibly, as such things go, "greater" than any author you've hitherto mentioned. He's obviously somewhat exceptional for the country, both for his genius alone and for his prolificity. But he counts, and he counts for a great deal. Certainly he was influenced a great deal by the Victorian authors, but no one before could have done what he did. Of course, we are also omitting a whole host of other American writers: Dickenson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Bishop, Frost, Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Thomas Wolfe, Sylvia Plath, William Dean Howells, Ezra Pound, Thomas Pynchon, Walt Whitman, Nabokov, Hemingway, Dos Passos, Faulkner, Eugene O'Neill, etc., etc... Hugely important many of these were.

EDIT
I think I probably made "prolificity" up. Not seeing it in my pocket dictionary. Sorry.

If we're including Ireland, what about James Joyce? He's the one isn't he? I know he's not as fashionable since "post post-modernism" (!), but he was surely the most influencial of them all, a proper monster.

Getting far to into this for my own good.

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.

---

First of all, I don't agree with what you have said over here. I think that American Literature is fairly popular as well, even in public opinion. As Jamesian has mentioned above that there is a great deal of good American writers who can compete all these British writers you have mentioned. I don't want to offend, but your over the top, fanboyish, head-in-the-mud obstinate defense of the phrase that "American writers can not be compared to British writers in a matter of quality" is making this thread look like a joke.

And anyway, your post in the above of this thread asks our opinions. Why start a thread when you can't bear other people's opinions?

Quote:

---

Which has provided great work? Britain: Shakespeare, Dickens, Doyle, Eliot, Hardy etc. or The United States: Steinbeck, Twain, Melville, Fitzgerald etc. I know many will say British and so would I, but I want to hear your opinions.

---

We don't have ramble on about how Shakespeare has been the best writer ever because the critics say so. We don't have to go on talking about how much good Hardy's works were, because three people out of four said so. Public opinion does matter, and even though I stick to the fact that American Literature is quite popular in the public (the popularity of its grammar also indicates that), but still I think that we do not have to base our opinion on the opinion of others and this is what you want us to do probably.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Please, don't accuse me of things I have not even mentioned in any of my posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Well, did you consider that the US is only a little more than two hundred years old? Frankly if you want to just focus on one century, the 20th century, I think the US stacks up quite well. William Faulkner is the greatest novelist of the century and T.S. Eliot is definetely the most important poet of the century.

But I can't stand this my literature is better than your literature attitude by anyone. Look at how many fine works are coming today from India and other places not in the US or Britain. It all strikes me as childish.

Of course I am the old man here. ;) :p :p

---

I agree. Why should we compare literature. Wherever there are human beings
there is good literature and artistic creation. Besides if you insist to compare them you can't because it is pointless to compare dissimilar things (meaning that every nation has its way to express itself-or even better every individual has a different way to express himself not to mention grand personages like Poe or Dickens) Moreover some of the authors mentioned here have lived in different eras and write about different genres of literature. I like both american and british literature. They have contributeted greatly in the advance of human intellect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

I agree. Why should we compare literature. Wherever there are human beings
there is good literature and artistic creation. Besides if you insist to compare them you can't because it is pointless to compare dissimilar things (meaning that every nation has its way to express itself-or even better every individual has a different way to express himself not to mention grand personages like Poe or Dickens) Moreover some of the authors mentioned here have lived in different eras and write about different genres of literature. I like both american and british literature.

---

I don't think anyone here would say they dislike either American or literature from the British Isles;) , what's to dislike about King Lear or Catcher In The Rye? But it's quite good fun to compare and contrast the two, to answer your first question, and it certainly is possible. Obviously, perspective is crucial, but if you can say Dean Koontz isn't as good as Dostoyevsky (which i think is a given...?) why can't you say that American lit is better than British? Just because two people come from different eras or places doesn't mean they one can't be more talented, gifted, hard-working than another, and that those differences can't manifest themselves as a slight edge in quality of one's work over the other's. Because we're talking about the greatest men and women ever to have written, the creations of these individuals is really all we're talking about at the moment.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan Madley

In the public consciousness and for very good reason

---

The term public consciousness always interests me. Who opinions are included in the "public consciousness" you refer to?

The world as a whole? I think there is enough in this thread already to show this is not the case.

Perhaps you mean the British public? I know where I grew up the majority of people would have no idea about the subject and any opinion they held would be the result of bias.

Maybe you mean the "educated" British public (at which point it really stops being the "public" and is a more private group)? Then of course there is the question of level of education, probably to have enough knowledge on American literature it would require to have read more of it than appears on the high school curriculum which is dominated by the works of writers from the UK. Again this public group is getting smaller.

Do you mean by the school boards that decide what texts should be studied in schools in the UK? A private group if ever there was one.

I have my worries that by public you really mean "little Englanders"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

I have my worries that by public you really mean "little Englanders"

---

Easy tiger!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan Madley

And I would like to state that, yes, I mean by Britain the British Isles, and I hope I am not offending any Irishmen. From now on please regard the "Britain" of the thread title as the British Isles, which were collectively Britain once anyway.

---

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.

*jesting*besides our writers would overseed britain anyday!:p

(sorry everyone...but you all know what i'm like when it comes to Ireland. I get a bit defensive!)

Yes, I agree Niamh and do not mean to cause dismay, but for the purposes of this forum, as grotesque as it may seem Irish literature to be put up against the literature of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, please consider British literature as England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (not trying to create controversy and hatred)

Also, Pensive, when I said that the notion that America had not been around long enough to write literature matching Britain's, I was saying it in general and not neccessarily to you so sorry for that.

And finally, in general and to add to what I was saying before, people like Dickens, Doyle, Archer, Austen, Trollope, Hardy, Woolf, the War Poets, Byron, Tolkien etc. that have been around since the birth of America ARE ACTUALLY, in the general mind of the world and critics, considered BETTER than what America has produced. We could sit here for years and argue about the opinions of the millions of people who have read books from that time, but in general the only effective way to determine it is to see what the world's mind thinks in general and you could say to me, how do I know? I answer you with the fact that English speaking countries and countries in the world that are affiliated with the English speaking world, look back to the source (England, UK, British Isles, whatever) and they see that that literature is the epitome of what is considered a classic in the English-SPEAKING world; they do not look at the latest Clive Cussler and count that among the greatest ever, with no offence intended to Mr. Cussler. I grant you, books like Moby-Dick, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and the works of James are very good, but when you consider over time and even since 1776 the output of literature from the British Isles and America, the British is seen by the world to be greater in terms of literature, more consistent and more written works. America isn't bad, but they can't stand up to Britain in that regard. Go to a film forum and debate that and you will come out in America's favour (though perhaps not for the most consistent) but literature is Britain's domain and what I have said about people like Shakespeare and now for British authors since 1776 when America began it's output; the authors cannot simply be matched, I'm sorry, for that is the world's general opinion and I don't mean to sound mean to America for saying so; as consolation I admit they whip Britain in films.

And in general I don't think me be the starter of this post doesn't give me the right to defend my own opinion. Thank you for reading this mammoth post.

P.S. A reason why they see Britain as being better, the general people of the world, is that English is England and they discover people like Shakespeare, Dickens etc. and then read Amercian literature. English-speaking literature is seen as being better British than American in part because people see that Britain is the home of the language. This doesn't mean, however, they are in any way bias when they mainly think Britain's is better.

Well if you look about the rest of this forum you will discover that irish literature is generally discussed as just that, Irish literature. You cannot demand everyone to think the way you do on this matter and it is the fact that you are demanding that everyone should that i find offensive. The fact that you have called it the worlds opinion is rediculous. you will find that in this forum everyone is from a different part of the world and probably not all of the will agree with you. It is therefore wrong to say that your opinion is the 'worlds' opinion. And i think that some people will find offense to that. I think you will also find that Irish literature has more of a unique feel to the writing than that of britain and what today is seen as the british isles.(as previously stated in last post)

I think this thread has lost it. What started off as a discussion has become an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

I being an IrishwomanW.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.)

---

True as can be. Please correct me if i'm wrong, but when we say British Isles, isn't Ireland included? I mean, UK, Britain, i know Ireland is not included when we use these terms, but British Isles is different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan Madley

And finally, in general and to add to what I was saying before, people like Dickens, Doyle, Archer, Austen, Trollope, Hardy, Woolf, the War Poets, Byron, Tolkien etc. that have been around since the birth of America ARE ACTUALLY, in the general mind of the world and critics, considered BETTER than what America has produced. We could sit here for years and argue about the opinions of the millions of people who have read books from that time, but in general the only effective way to determine it is to see what the world's mind thinks in general and you could say to me, how do I know? I answer you with the fact that English speaking countries and countries in the world that are affiliated with the English speaking world, look back to the source (England, UK, British Isles, whatever) and they see that that literature is the epitome of what is considered a classic in the English-SPEAKING world; they do not look at the latest Clive Cussler and count that among the greatest ever, with no offence intended to Mr. Cussler. I grant you, books like Moby-Dick, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and the works of James are very good, but when you consider over time and even since 1776 the output of literature from the British Isles and America, the British is seen by the world to be greater in terms of literature, more consistent and more written works. America isn't bad, but they can't stand up to Britain in that regard. Go to a film forum and debate that and you will come out in America's favour (though perhaps not for the most consistent) but literature is Britain's domain and what I have said about people like Shakespeare and now for British authors since 1776 when America began it's output; the authors cannot simply be matched, I'm sorry, for that is the world's general opinion and I don't mean to sound mean to America for saying so; as consolation I admit they whip Britain in films.

---

You don't necessarily have to go by the judgement of critics. I am also a critic at the moment, but you don't have to agree with me if you don't want to. Only those are not critics who have their critisism published in a magazine. In fact, you will find people on roads - many of them anonymous - giving their opinions about books. Will you agree with all of them?Even if American Literature has been critisized more than British Literature (which I doubt) by most people in this world, this is not enough to change my opinion about it. Because, I believe every individual has her/his own opinion. That's another thing some people choose to go by what oh-so-famous-personalies' opinions were about the matter.

If you really want to prove that British Literature is far above American than why not provide a valid point than that? Why not state the reasons to why you think writers like Steinbeck don't hold as good of a position as Hardy? Why not list the problems you see with American Literature which are not in British Literature? After all, you have been the one making this statement that British Literature is far ahead of American Literature. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McGrain

True as can be. Please correct me if i'm wrong, but when we say British Isles, isn't Ireland included? I mean, UK, Britain, i know Ireland is not included when we use these terms, but British Isles is different?

---

It was but isnt anymore. It is mainly because we are not british and havent been a part of the british empire in a long time that the term was ceased by the European government.

You might as well be classing the writers from any country that was once a part of Russia(ussr) as Russian. I'm sure our friends from Poland, Latvia, Estonia etc would agree that countries that are nolonger part of an empire would prefer not to be continually associated with their former oppressor politcally and literarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

If you really want to prove that British Literature is far above American than why not provide a valid point than that? Why not state the reasons to why you think writers like Steinbeck don't hold as good of a position as Hardy? Why not list the problems you see with American Literature which are not in British Literature? After all, you have been the one making this statement that British Literature is far ahead of American Literature. :)

---

I agree with pensive. Dont make statements if you cant back them up properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

It was but isnt anymore. It is mainly because we are not british and havent been a part of the british empire in a long time that the term was ceased by the European government.

You might as well be classing the writers from any country that was once a part of Russia(ussr) as Russian. I'm sure our friends from Poland, Latvia, Estonia etc would agree that countries that are nolonger part of an empire would prefer not to be continually associated with their former oppressor politcally and literarily.

---

OK, cool, thanks for putting me straight.