Using the concept of The American Novel- a book that is inextricably American- what about British equivalents?
Printable View
Using the concept of The American Novel- a book that is inextricably American- what about British equivalents?
I am all for Middlemarch :)
Popular consensus will probably go for Dickens or the Brontes, but I will like to suggest Austen or Hardy, and of those I prefer Hardy.
Ignore me, missed the point entirely. Dur.
Crikey, I can see this thread going on for awhile!
Even just working within the bounds of the novel form, there's so many to choose from!
Suffice it to say that I think a hypothetical shortlist should include Defoe's Moll Flanders, Godwin's Caleb Williams, Austen's Persuasion, Bronte's Wuthering Heights, Dickens' Great Expectations, Waugh's Brideshead Revisited and Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings (but only if it can be taken as a whole).
And those are only the ones that leap immediately to mind...
Oh, most certainly Ivanhoe...
Seriously, what's next? The Great Turks and Caicos Novel?
This isn't the way to judge literature - it reminds me almost of the mediocre film critics who give things a rating out of 5 - quite frankly, that isn't criticism, it is a waste of time.
Oh, it just occurred to me:
Lord of the Rings
It's literature as being a side or the identity of a country. Which best sums up a place?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Y'know JBI if you dont like the thread you are free to ignore it. People will discuss what they want to discuss, and if th someone wants to discuss what the definitive Turks & Caicos novel is they will (and should) start a thread about it. Your opinion on the worthiness of a particular thread is really pretty unimportant.
Now, on to the important part of the post
The problem I see with our discussion here is probably going to be first deciding what qualities make something particularly british ( a thorny discussion because despite being a very small island there are more regional differences than in countries many times its size.
Just because I think it deserves a mention I think Rob Roy may be the definitive Scottish Novel, however, I dont see it as particularly british
The best British novel? How long is a piece of string? Three Brontes, one Dickens, an Orwell or so, Dickens, the list goes on and on.
+1 :thumbs_upQuote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
as for the great British novel.. much has already been mentioned.. Austen, Dickens, Hardy, Eliot, the Brontes, etc
if i was going to pick one then it is probably a toss up between Great Expectations and Jane Eyre - not necessarily the greatest, but two books that immediately come to mind when thinking about books that best represent Britishness.. add Robinson Crusoe to that as well...
I like D. H. Lawrence and his portrayal of a changing England; one stuck between the old class system and modern industrialisation. So perhaps 'Women in Love'.
Or perhaps 'Wuthering Heights' which paints a beautiful story within a such lovely landscape. Not a big fan of Austen, nothing but unrealistic self-fantasy hidden behind fanciful language.
Though a joyful act of reflection, I could never limit my choice to even five, let alone one. It is simply amazing how much great literature has come out of that little island.
Haha, I think I suggested this in the other thread. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
So I think the "Great British novel" would have to be not just by a British author but something that strikes someone as inherently British, sort of like a national epic like The Illiad or The Aenieid or Beowulf.
As which novels fit, here are a few off the top of my head:
Tom Jones, Great Expectations, Middlemarch, Tess of the D'Ubervilles, Sons and Lovers, The Rainbow, Brideshead Revisted, and Vanity Fair.
Although it is not the book that I would take with me to the proverbial Desert Island, I think that Wuthering Heights must be a serious consideration for THE great British novel. In my view, nowhere in English literature has the pain of unrequited love been more graphicaly expressed than in the doomed relationship between Cathy and Heathcliffe.
Yes I think that is the best British novel, but whether that is fundermentally British (whatever that means) I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Just realised that even though I did not have any problem coming up with couple of titles for "the American novel", I am having trouble thinking of such a British book.
Oh good point. I do think that would qualify. What can be more British than the moors? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Why not get more to the grain? "America is nothing but a bunch a Bible-preaching, Burger-bulged-belly belching, redneck gun freaks who can't seem to pay their debt." Or, something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
The notion of country, in itself, is younger than what we call countries. It really, in the European way of thinking, has more to do with linguistic restraint than with "national identity". As far as I know, even Britain has a division, with, North Ireland, Scotland, England, and Wales all having a somewhat distinctly "national" in the sense you mean it, tradition. One cannot even ask the question, without taking into account that one work cannot sum up everything, or even come close, as naturally, it will leave people out.
Hell, I think the bulk of Italians, judging by their culture, agree that the most central prose text is Manzoni's I Promessi Sposi, by in 1827, Italy wasn't a country. Does that count?
What about German novels before Bismark? Is this the way we should categorize?
Traditions are important, but the central core of a tradition seems, often, rooted outside of the tradition. Wyatt, Spenser, Sidney, and even Chaucer were mixing Italian, and streaks of French. Milton, the definer of "The English Heroic Line", styled from Chaucer mind you, comes out, ultimately, of Classical traditions - the Bible, the Greeks, and the Romans (who in themselves weren't even unified countries mind you - from what I understand the "definitive" texts we have of Homer, even, were assembled in Alexandria, Egypt).
When I think of tradition, I think of a long conversation. That conversation however, is intertext between traditions, as everyone who communicates brings in their own personal voice, formed from different conversations and mentalities. The dominant image of the Waste Land, the "Unreal City", though pertaining to London, comes from Baudelaire, a Frenchman.
The harder you look, the thinner a national identity seems to be in literature. The very Idea of History, as we know it (excluding post-modern advancements in historical theory) seems itself 400-500 years old - national identity, maybe 200 years old (certainly a product of the Romantic movement though). Even the notion of "The West" feels arbitrarily constructed and false.
When one asks then, for the "novel" that sums up Britain the best, how can one possibly answer? Even Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare as we see him today until recently. The Shakespeare of Pope and Johnson is different from the Shakespeare of Keats and Shelley, and in turn is different than the Shakespeare of A. C. Bradley. Is he the centre of the English tradition? Does he best sum up the British Isles? Why do we even want to sum them up?
When it comes down to it, the problem is that we are arguing over THE great novel of x country, when we should be discussing the great novels of time itself, or perhaps of a certain language, given the peculiar necessity of such limitation. Wordsworth would have been nothing without Rousseau, remember that - his whole early philosophy comes out of Rousseau's work. Is he then speaking in the English voice, or the French? Is there even such a thing?
Very good question JBI. I think I've suggested that it's akin to a national epic. Who knows if Homer really captured the time and place of The Illiad. But it attempts to. I purposed chose novels that seem to define a time and place, but of course it's one author's perspective.
The question though, is what country's epic was Homer writing? The only thing I can understand from all what I've read on the matter, is that his text, despite linguistic troubles (note, Greece at the time was not one country, and it was subject to many dialects and regional idiosyncrasies) was that, by chance politics ended up pushing Homer's status to that of speaker for a culture which, though feuding within itself, considered itself idiosyncratic to the rest of the known world (one thinks here of Persians). There was no nation behind the epic, only the seeds of what would transform itself into the "West" under Roman banners, and thereby adopt this text, since it is a great text after all, for many aesthetic reasons, notably its use of metaphor and simile, as the model of a tradition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
In truth, it seems strange that Greek thought, which we think of as Western, was lost to the "West", that is, western Christendom, until its "rediscovery" from Muslim (who ironically were pretty much as far west as one can go in Europe at this point), and East Christian preservation. The status it holds is not really national status.
I don't think one can consider Beowulf a national epic - it certainly doesn't talk to the way one sees English today. I think the closest England comes to an epic, that is English, is Shakespeare's plays, from Richard II through Henry VIII but even that speaks of one side of the story, and only a limited span of time. The Great Shakespeare Plays all seem to be set outside of England (with the exception of Henry IV).
Is the Aenied the epic of Rome? Is Rome a country? Is it the epic of Italy? One must ask these questions. I don't particularly think people thought that way back then - they probably just thought of it as a seperator between "us" and "them", Romans, who after all, beat the Greeks, and Greeks, whose culture they ripped off in one way or another.
In truth, all these ancient texts can't really be looked at in this way, I find. We seem to see things spatially, given that we are a written-based society, but these classics, even through Shakespeare's time, were from an Oral society, that favors Time and duration over Space and geography. I doubt he thought of himself as a "national bard", and I doubt Shakespeare thought of himself as a "national bard". Dante certainly didn't, unless we call Florence a country. And I don't think Cervantes really did either - certainly his regional stereotyping and prejudices would indicate as much.
What then, is behind this idea of nation, and national literature? I am sure it started in the Romantic period, but if I were to try and guess, from what I know, it comes out of the shift of dominance from the oral to the written. With the emerging of text-media over oral-media, language's role changes, and people naturally become grouped by language. Bring to that a rise in literacy, mostly in vernacular, and you get people artificially forging traditions from within linguistic boundaries. France pulls at all "French" people, Germany pulls at all German Speaking people (with religious problems and dialects complicating things), Italy pulls at everyone with Italian backgrounds, Greece with Greek, and through that, we have the emergence of national literature, and national traditions. I think it surely helped to have a shift away from the classics - in these conditions, it was naturally inevitable. Instead of relying on classic models as the superb, people began to rely on national figureheads. Geothe, Wordsworth, Robert Burns, Pushkin, Victor Hugo.
America comes last of course, because they don't have the linguistic division. That's why they need to assert themselves, because they share, and import from a culture they wish to be separate from. The answer, is declare a break from the tradition - and out of that, emerge Emerson and Whitman, bringing America into what it is now. Twain, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, they all follow. The notion of the Great American Novel ultimately is the Great American literary work that puts America on the stage against the rest of the world's traditions, in its origins mainly the British tradition - what it has become is the result of a change in historical perspective.
;)I would have to vote for "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley.
It has content and style' although the ending could be happier.
Hichhiker's guide -- the one with all the rain (can't rember whioch one that is) I think that is distinctly british, wierd, full of rain and yet bizzarley amusing.
:D
The Go-between by LP Hartley.
This novel represents something very dear to me about life in Britain: lazy summer afternoons. There's something very British about summer fetes, picnics, cricket or reclining on a riverbank with your sweetheart. This novel captures that atmosphere beautifully. Its nostalgic theme seems very British; we love to reminisce. And the plot is based around the problem of class, another very British notion. Even the obsession we British have with the weather can be found there ;-)
I say Alice in Wonderland :D
Because I love it although I realise it won't qualify as serious literature and this won't qualify as an intelligent post lol
I can't think of any particular great one. Remains of the Day springs to my mind as The Little English novel. :)
Good nomination, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko
Film-wise, it's probably be Brief Encounter as romanticised England of the '40's.
JBI, you think too much :)
[QUOTE=kelby_lake;684865]Good nomination, I think.
Film-wise, it's probably be Brief Encounter as romanticised England of the '40s QUOTE]
What makes Brief Encounter the greatest British film ever made is the fact that it isn't at all romanticised even though the story might be described as romantic. It is an amazingly accurate almost documentary portrayal that shows exactly how people were in 1945 when it was made. For my money, Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson give the finest performances that I have ever seen on the screen and all of the supporting cast are absolutely perfect, but without the sensitive writing of Noel Coward, the fabulous black and white photography of Robert Krasker and briliant direction of the great David Lean,it would just be another "Woman's picture".
I think if we are talking definitively british we have to discount Austen straight off the bat. Her stories speak to the lives of a small subset of the population at her time, and next to nobody at all outside of England.
This is why Scott also has to be discounted, he writes too much to Scotland and neglects the rest of the UK.
"This is why Scott also has to be discounted, he writes too much to Scotland and neglects the rest of the UK."
Humph - As a lowland scot, Scott is well placed to speak for Britain - Anglo-norman by blood yet with strong sympathies towards the Celtic fringe. (OK, I admit it, Scott actually invented the Celtic identity.) However, one of his best known novels, "Ivanhoe" that has already being mentioned (maybe with tongue in cheek) is a celebration of Englishness, and some others of his novels are set in England.
Another Scot who attempted to speak for England equally with Scotland, and for all classes, was John Buchan, and he probably embodied what was best about the Britain of his period. Whether any of his novels would pass the Litnet critics' test of greatness is of course dubious - maybe "Mr Standfast."
And having mentioned Mr Standfast, I am amazed that no-one has mentioned Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress." That is the one.
Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur. Who's more British than King Arthur?
Although, after reading JBI's post, I concede that Malory borrows from a rather French chivalric tradition.
Good thinking! And theres the whole thing about Tea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
I think Wild Woman has hit on something. :nod: and Kilted does have a point regarding Scott.
If we are thinking that line, than Brideshead revisited is also discounted.
I would go with Tom Jones by Feilding. I think it satirically portrays the british quite well!
Brideshead Revisited or The Heart of The Matter... though I also think a strong case could be made for The Lord of The Rings...
Brideshead Revisited and Mrs Dalloway
[QUOTE=Brian Bean;684913]Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
No, I just mean from a modern perspective, that sort of stern morality and refinedness you get in Brief Encounter. Loved it.
Good point from kilted- I suppse the majority of people will choose English novels, but I didn't want to stop people picking seminal works from Wales, Scotland, and Ireland simply because I didn't know much about them.
Just to clarify I am not oposed by any means to the choice of an english novel - england after all does make up a large component of the UK. What I am opposed to however is a "manor house" type story. I would not disagree out of hand with choices like Defoe's Moll Flanders or the works of many other victorian writers however.
This is just why I think we need to define what britishness is before we can come up with a novel we think best encapsulates it. (who knows the novel best encampassing "britain" may not have even been written by a brit.)
I don't think Britishness can be defined in any meaningful sense. After all, The Act of Union with Scotland was just a convenient device for getting around the dual monarchy situation. Personally, I am in favour of Scottish independence and ditto for the Welsh but, by the same token I would welcome English independence,.The idea of Great Britain holds little attraction for me and in France I am L'Anglais, in Germany I am Der Englander and in Italy L'Inglese. Up until 1945 I would have been proud of my English heritage but not subsequently; for an answer to that it is necessary to read my book Pro Bono Publico.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
"Brave New World" is a great British novel by Aldous Huxley.
Douglas Adam's books,esp. Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy are great British novels.
Isn't this post dangerously close to politics? There are many statements I would like to address, but I fear we would be straying off-topic, (literary question) and into the realms of current (and past) political situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Three Men in a Boat (To Say Nothing of the Dog) by Jerome K. Jerome.