10 more influential books

Actually, they are 12 books:


Vedas (All Schools of Thought from Ancient India has the Vedas as its base to agree or disagree)

I Ching (Since its origin until the Confucionism and the Neo-Confucionism the I-Ching was the most important book. Today, the I-Ching is still important for the biggest population of Earth)

Bible (The biggest best-selling ever, the importance of the Bible is its influence over the biggest religion in Earth)-

Odissey (Homer influenced almost all writers, philosophers and poets from Ancient Greece until today)

Republic (Maybe the most polemic and influential work of the classical greek philosophy)

Bhagavad Gita (Today, it is maybe the most influential book of Indian culture. India is the second biggest population of Earth, futhermore, the Bhagavad Gita is read by people from other cultures and not just from India)

Qur’an (Islamism is the second greatest religion of Earth)

On the Origin of Species (According to Sigmund Freud, Darwin inflicted the second wound in human narcissism)

The Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels inflicted the impact of their thought, they revealed the hidden exploitation, the invisible prison, they taught how to open your eyes and free the others)

Das Kapital (The historical and dialectical materialism influenced the sociology, antropology, philosophy, politic theory, economic theory, art, history, and other areas)

The Interpretation of Dreams (The revolution of thought and medicine. Freud changed the way we look to ourselves)

Quotations from the Works of Mao Tse-Tung or The Little Red Book (It is the second best-selling book of the world)


Now, make your top 10.

Hey come on you said 10!

Is theI Ching really that influential? Confucious

The Odyssey is important, but surely you could make a good case for the Iliad being more or equally important.

Does Marx deserve two books? Surely Das Kapital is the one. What about Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations - capitalism has surely had at least as much impact as Marxism!

Should India get two books? Drop Vedas, keep Gita?

Should Mao be on there? His work is derivative of Marx.

Shakespeare's Hamlet should be there, given Shakespeare's great influence on all subsequent writers (especially Freud!) In similar vein, perhaps Sophocles should be on there for his Oedipus cycle. This argment allows us tio drop Freud, as Bloom says he is derivetiave of Shakespreare (and to aklesser extent Sophocles).

What about Newton's Principia?

Surely at least one novelist should be on there: Cervantes - Don Quixote? Tolstoy - War & Peace/Anna Karenina?

The ten:

The Bible
The Koran
Homer - Iliad
Bhagavad Gita
Plato - Republic
Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics
Newton - Principia
Darwin - Origin
Cervantes - Don Quixote
Shakespeare - Hamlet

The Vedas influenced 4 of 7 Schools of Thought in Ancient India. The other 3 weren't "Vedic schools" but they came from a tradition that included the Vedas.

I-Ching is the base of Confucionism, Neo-Confucionism and other thoughts. Also, maybe as important as I-Ching, is the Tao Te Ching. However, I-Ching is one of the greatest best-selling books of all time. A lot of post-modern writers were influenced by I-Ching, as Jorge Luis Borges, Julio Cortázar, etc.

I agree that Odissey and Iliad are the two very influent. It's hard to chose one of them.

The 2 books by Karl Marx are important and influent. Adam Smith? I don't agree. He was a very important economist before Marx, but after Marx the economical theory changed. Futhermore, marxism changed our view in politic, history, philosophy, art, antropology, sociology, education, rights, etc..

India has also Ramayana, Upanishads, Mahabarata, but I think Bhagavad Gita is a little more influent today. The Bhagavad Gita is part of Mahabarata, but the "Chant of the Lord" is usually read aparted from the rest.

The Little Red Book of Mao is the second best-selling book of all time. Think about the population of China. It's very influent if you consider number (more than 1 billion of Chineses) and if you consider all the world (not just the western world).

Shakespeare is very influent, sure... but Sigmund Freud is a revolutionary. Furthermore, psicanalysis is studied in areas as medicine, antropology, mass media researches, arts in general (including literature), pedagogy, philosophy...etc.

Newton? Why not Galileu? And what about Einstein? Anyway, that kind of literature is very specific for math students and scientists of nature. Can anyone read this kind of book?

Cervantes and Shakespeare could enter in top 15.

See the list of the best-selling books of all time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_selling_books

My list is mostly focused on the western world -- I simply don't know enough about world cultures to comment intelligently on textual influences from so broad a perspective.

10. How to Win Friends and Influence People -- Dale Carnegie
Buying and selling is as much a part of our lives as anything. And this book did more to shape that culture than any other.
9. Silent Spring -- Rachel Carson
There were books that address environmental concerns before this, but Carson's work put the idea that modern technology can seriously harm the natural world in front of society's eyes
8. Tales of Children and the Home -- The Brothers Grimm
Often our first exposure to story, parable, right and wrong. . . .and like first impressions, first stories are lasting.
7. Il Milione -- Marco Polo
Sure, a pretty face can launch a 1000 ships. So can a book filled with adventure, wealth, embellishment, and promise -- this one probably launched more ships than anything other than a beautiful woman.
6. Oxford English Dictionary
The biggest (or at least one of them) book of words -- now that's authority!
5. Action Comics #1 -- Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster
The first stand-alone superhero comic with original content. This issue was the birth of a secular mythology and one of the greatest and under appreciated literary forms in the western world.
4. Oedipus Rex/Poetics -- Sophocles and Aristotle, respectively
I have to pair these two books because together they gave shape to modern drama, literary theory, psychology. . . . whether we rant about their failings, praise their insights hardly matters. That we have done and are still doing so speaks to the influence of these texts.
3. Elements -- Euclid
So it's more than one volume. . . . so it's more than 10 volumes. . .( :) ). But this book collected mathematical axioms and offered systems of logic and science that influenced mathematicians for centuries afterward.
2. Baby and Childcare -- Dr. Benjamin Spock
The most influential book on the care of infants and children. Spock's book revolutionized parenting in the way that Plato's Republic revolutionized western philosophy.
1. The Elements of Style -- Strunk and White
For better or for worse, it's still the most recognized book of English style around. And its influence on modern English expression can hardly be measured.

The key word is influential. What ten works have had the most influence. I would say:
The Bible, The Iliad, Plato's dialogues, The Koran, The Divine Comedy, Shakespeare's plays as a whole, Paradise Lost, Goethe's Faust, The Origen of Species, and a tie between Das Kapital and The Interpretaion of Dreams.

Boccaccio's Decameron had a great impact in literature. We can not forget him.


Now, if we consider just poetry (lyric, epic and other kind of verse) I would propose the top 3 -

In the world:
Iliad/Odissey
Divine Comedy
Bhagavad Gita

In the western world only:
1- Dante Alighieri - Divine Comedy
2- Francesco Petrarca - Il Canzoniere
3- Charles Baudelaire - Les Fleurs du Mal


In portuguese speaker's world:
1- Camões
2- Fernando Pessoa (and his heteronims)
3- Gonçalves Dias, Manuel du Bocage, Carlos Drummond, Manuel Bandeira, Castro Alves, João Cabral, Cesário Verde..?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brasil

The 2 books by Karl Marx are important and influent. Adam Smith? I don't agree.

---

What about John Stuart Mill?

Just to spark conversation, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand may deserve a spot on this list. Not that I agree, but it is food for thought.

Wealth of Nations DEFINITELY deserves a spot on this list, as it created modern economics, including the free market and competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brasil

The Little Red Book of Mao is the second best-selling book of all time. Think about the population of China. It's very influent if you consider number (more than 1 billion of Chineses) and if you consider all the world (not just the western world).

Shakespeare is very influent, sure... but Sigmund Freud is a revolutionary. Furthermore, psicanalysis is studied in areas as medicine, antropology, mass media researches, arts in general (including literature), pedagogy, philosophy...etc.

Newton? Why not Galileo? And what about Einstein? Anyway, that kind of literature is very specific for math students and scientists of nature. Can anyone read this kind of book?

---

Shakespeare is the real revolutionary and Freud stole his best ideas. (It wouild take a book to explain this - Harold Bloom's "The Western Canon" is the book...)

Newton was the guy who tied everything together with his three laws of motion & law of Universal Gravitation. Galileo "just" provided a few pieces of the jigsaw. Newton wa sthe greatest influence on Einstein and all subsequent phycists because he was the first to develop a universal theory of a fundamenta force- you can't get more influential than that. Physics has influenced all of our lives (have you turned on a light switch recently?) So a physicist has to be in the top ten - and it has to be Newton. Charles van Doren in "The Joy of Reading" recommends the Principia to the common reader, although he recommends skipping parts...

Mao was influenced by Marx. What new ides did Mao bring to the table? Marx (indirectly) influenced those billions of Chinese, as well as all those Russians upon which Mao had no influence. Ergo, Marx is the greatest influence. In deciding on "greatest influence" you must go back to the source.

Ok, about Marx and Mao I agree!


But don't talk about Harold Bloom! He's awful. No one cares for what he thinks.
Anyway, I read that book. But no academic professor or student gives importance to Bloom's thoughts.

Freud didn't stole from Shakespeare.
Freud wrote a philosophical and medical treat (science). Shakespeare didn't. Shakespeare wrote a play (theatre). There is a GREAT difference here. We can talk about the relationship between art and science, indeed, however see the two areas as equals is a big mistake.

Shakespeare stole Hamlet from François de Belleforest (the real genious behind Hamlet). Shakespeare just changed the name of Belleforest's text.

Read more about Shakespeare here:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=43739&page=4

Freud was directly influenced by Sophocles (on Oedipus circle). So, Sophocles could enter the top ten before Freud and Shakespeare. Is that correct? Not so far.

Freud read Sophocles, indeed. But Freud's theories was not based on greek plays! What kind of science would it be? Freud's work was strongly empiric. He saw cases. He made analisys and empirical studies. The relationship between the cases and the greek play is a "coincidence". Freud didn't intent to prove that Sophocles was right. Freud intent to see the empirical truth. Freud called it "Oedipus complex", but it is just a name. The complex is Freud's discovery, not Sophocle's. The name of the complex was taken from the play, but the discovery of the complex was taken from empirical reseaches made by Freud.

Today we undestand a little more about Hamlet and Oedipus. Thanks Freud for his analisys. But it is not the center of his studies.

Anyway, Sophocles deserves a place on top ten before Shakespeare.

About Galileu, Newton and Einsten - Newton continued the work of Galileu, as you know. And Galileu's math had influence over philosophy and literature too. Anyway, physics after Einsten became very different. In the physical studies today, Newton's math does not work anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Shakespeare is the real revolutionary and Freud stole his best ideas. (It wouild take a book to explain this - Harold Bloom's "The Western Canon" is the book...)

Newton was the guy who tied everything together with his three laws of motion & law of Universal Gravitation. Galileo "just" provided a few pieces of the jigsaw. Newton wa sthe greatest influence on Einstein and all subsequent phycists because he was the first to develop a universal theory of a fundamenta force- you can't get more influential than that. Physics has influenced all of our lives (have you turned on a light switch recently?) So a physicist has to be in the top ten - and it has to be Newton. Charles van Doren in "The Joy of Reading" recommends the Principia to the common reader, although he recommends skipping parts...

Mao was influenced by Marx. What new ides did Mao bring to the table? Marx (indirectly) influenced those billions of Chinese, as well as all those Russians upon which Mao had no influence. Ergo, Marx is the greatest influence. In deciding on "greatest influence" you must go back to the source.

---

Have you read Mao? He isn't as simple as no new ideas - Marx may have influenced him, but if you read, for instance, his writing on Chinese topics, you will clearly see he is not just translating - find his essay on Bethune for instance, and you'll get my point - he is as much a part of a Chinese philosophical tradition as he is part of Russian, or Central European.


Seriously, stop floating nonsense that you scrap from other sources. Freud was as much an inventor as any - Harold Bloom only says he took it from Shakespeare because Harold Bloom believes that Freud, at least on some level, is right, which he isn't, given that his theories cannot be verified by any sort of evidence.





As for Brasil, and the rest of your comments on the Dao De Jing, it is almost comical how out of context, and flat out wrong your stuff is. Historically, Daoism has never been the basis of Confucianism, and the two political philosophies conflict with each other. Just read the final parts that deal with economic and governmental systems to get the idea - it's completely different, something of a Laissez-faire construction, rooted in a sense of nothingness.

This tied in with the Zhuangzi, which merges the Dao De Jing with other philosophical trends that supersede it, creates a culture that emphasizes the exact opposite of Confucianism - to Confucianism, education and ritual are central, to Daoism, non-action and simplicity, the natural (as is shown in Daoist Landscape painting, which features usually a large landscape, and a simple character (usually a man) at one with it), and the female. It merges the concepts of Yin-Yang and Wu-Wei (action through non-action) to create a sense of cultivation, whereas Confucius would seek to create a sort of "cultivation" through the exact opposite means.



As for the Dao De Jing not being influential as one poster has said, that is laughable. It even became curriculum for the state examination system under Empress Wu, which essentially kicked off the movement that would spawn all the famous Tang Poets. Throughout history it has been seen though - Qing Shi Huang Di's death from mercury can be attributed to it, for instance, as he was a cultural Daoist, and so can the deaths of 7 of 17 Tang Dynasty Emperors. But beyond that, Daoism has always been part of the culture and political force of China - the Emperor himself, for instance, though functioning in many ways as the embodiment of Confucianism, has a harem for the simple sake of increasing his longevity by absorbing Yin energy (through sexual intercourse), something which comes from the Zhuangzi, which is essentially a commentary on the Dao De Jing.

AS for the Dao De Jing on Confucianism, I think you are probably mixing it up with the Wu Jing (5 classics) which are the Confucian Canon. Guanzi and simply the period of the time would have seemed to be the foundation of Confucianism (the stress of harmony in contrast to the disorder of the Spring and Autumn period, as well as the Warring States Period that followed) as well as other texts dealing with history and ritual. In truth, the books seem the exact opposites.

As for the stories of Confucius and Laozi meeting - well, the same histories say that Laozi was born after his mother was pregnant by a dragon for 60 years, and was born with a beard, and lived for hundreds of years before going to India and becoming the first Buddha, so what are we to believe?


Please, it is often painful when people either read without understanding, or simply make posts without reading properly.

JBI said: "Daoism has never been the basis of Confucianism, and the two political philosophies conflict with each other".

I never said the opposite, my friend. Read it right before accuse me

I said: "maybe as important as I-Ching, is the Tao Te Ching".

I mean, the two books are important for Chinese culture (and maybe the two deserve places in the top ten here), but I never said the two books were important for the same School of Thought.

I-Ching is the basis for Confucionism (Confucius)
Tao Te Ching is the basis for Taoism (Laozi or Lao Tsé)

Confucius call people for action, self-knowledge, tradition.
Laozi teaches the way of "no action", "no thought", "no law".

Quote:

---

I-Ching is the base of Confucionism, Neo-Confucionism and other thoughts. Also, maybe as important as I-Ching, is the Tao Te Ching. However, I-Ching is one of the greatest best-selling books of all time. A lot of post-modern writers were influenced by I-Ching, as Jorge Luis Borges, Julio Cortázar, etc.

---

That's right, you didn't...

"I-Ching is the base of Confucionism, Neo-Confucionism and other thoughts...".

"...Also, maybe as important as I-Ching (for the top ten) is the Tao Te Ching (because the Tao Te Ching is the basis of Taoism)".

The age of Confucionism and Taoism was the highest point of the Chinese Thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brasil

"I-Ching is the base of Confucionism, Neo-Confucionism and other thoughts...".

"...Also, maybe as important as I-Ching (for the top ten) is the Tao Te Ching (because the Tao Te Ching is the basis of Taoism)".

The age of Confucionism and Taoism was the highest point of the Chinese Thought.

---

Again, when is this age? The Yi-Jing seems to have been most popular in the Song Dynasty, which is I think called "Neo-Confucianism". Daoism peaked in the Tang, arguably, but was the stat religion during the reign of the first four emperors of the Han, and was the foundation of the Yellow-Turban ideology, and has always been present.

In truth, after the Han, Confucius himself suffered a decline. Daoism, and later Buddhism were far more successful and prominent up until the Song, when Confucius was rehabilitated.

The reason though Confucius is historically given such a nice promotion is rooted in thick propaganda - true, it was the state "religion" in a sense for 2000 odd years, but in practical senses, it declined severely for very long periods, the most recent beginning in the late 19th early 20th century, when Confucius himself seems to have been rejected as, in a sense, holding back the country. We get these beautiful portraits of him today, because Confucius, for Hu Jintao and the PRC communist party wants to recast China as a "Scholarly country with a long tradition of core values, yet somehow modern and stable." Even then though, I think the Analects are pushed higher than the Yi Jing - the Yi Jing was probably the most popular because it was the most fun, but it is hardly as profound as it pretends to be.

Like I said, a giant fortune teller with complex levels of symbolism and commentary to complicate things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Again, when is this age?

---

I'm talking about the age called Hundred Schools of Thought , when Confucius and Laozi lived. They were almoust contemporaries.

Read about that period. It happened almoust at the same time of the Classical Greek philosophy. The Chinese one was a little earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brasil

I'm talking about the age called Hundred Schools of Thought , when Confucius and Laozi lived. They were almoust contemporaries.

Read about that period. It happened almoust at the same time of the Classical Greek philosophy. The Chinese one was a little earlier.

---

As you have said it, 100 schools of thought - the Confucian classics or even the definitive Laozi would not be written until later, Confucius under the Han beginning with Han Wu Di - Confucianism, as a discipline, seems kind of strange - Han Confucianism seems to be a mix between Confucius, Laozi, and Han Feizi, as well as other sources, Song and Ming Confucianism, something completely different - the actual school of Confucianism though doesn't really emerge until either the end of the period, following Mencius, or The beginning of the Han, following the re-legalization of Confucian texts.


As for Laozi, his birth is given around the time of Confucius, that is true, but one needs to wonder if he ever existed. Si Ma Qian, the Grand Historian who kicks off Chinese historical writing, in terms of form, gives a biography that cannot possibly be believed. Scholars doubt even that the book was composed by one single author - where does that leave things?

Confucius himself only wrote one of the classics - the rest he compiled - the Odes are not his, and the Yi-Jing was merely commented on.


Please, I don't need a falsified rather limited primer on Chinese thought, especially one written in Wade-Giles of all things.

Keep in mind, the burning of the books occured in 213 BCE, and with it, the live burial of the top Confucian scholars. The texts took over 100 years to reassemble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brasil

The age of Confucionism and Taoism was the highest point of the Chinese Thought.

---

That I said above was a metonymy I did.

What I really intent to mean is: "when Confucius and Laozi lived".

Understood?

Now,
I know Laozi maybe never existed (but I personaly belive he existed, don't ask why)

I know the I-Ching was not written by Confucius. I-Ching is older than Confucius, he just adopted the book.

I know all that things you are tell me. But what is the point here? Are you trying to prove that you are very smart? Trying to prove that you can argue with anyone? Why that?

I know you are intelligent. I don't deny that. Sometimes, it seems you don't want to undestand me purposely, just for bring your arguments and make a big trouble about everything (just like JCamilo ever did here).

If you want to contribute seriously, ok, I will listen to. Make your top ten, argue about that... But if you just want to discuss who is right and who is wrong... I'm out. Don't even write to me, cause I won't read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

What about John Stuart Mill?

---

If he'd had influence then the world would be in a much better state, instead its run by Communist crackpots and feral bankers. Marks & Smith it has to be for economics/politics.

Many of the literati admire Bloom - Ricks, Kermode, Byatt... to name just a few. It seems to have become trendy to attack Bloom in some academic circles -- jealous of his popularity?

Newton laid the foundations for the calculus which certainly works and continues to work! It has been formalised and extended certainly, but it worked for calculating the orbits of the planets and many other things both in his hands and the hands of all other physicists who needed to deal with rates of change after him -- now that's influence! The poetry of Alexander Pope & Blake were influenced by him. Kant considered his philosophical impact. He is of central importance and over-shadows Galileo. He admitted to standing on the shoulders of giants (he invented that metaphor!) but he was a bigger giant...

Not many people in real practical circles admire Bloom - he doesn't get footnoted keep in mind - he isn't writing for literati, he is writing for the public. Personally I just think his ideas are meh, there is far more interesting theory out there, and far better textual criticism.

As for it becoming an academic trend to attack Bloom, it really hasn't. It has more become just a process of never mentioning him, as he isn't particularly relevant to literary criticism.

Frye still reads well, and is discussed widely - especially in certain period discussions. I. A. Richards believe it or not pops his head up every now and then - especially when looking for terminology to discuss things - vehicle and tenor are still the phrases one would use, for instance, when discussing metaphor.

Somebody the A. C. Hamilton that edited Spenser's Faerie Queene would seem to be more relevant than the mass-publishing Bloom.

Hell, even a rather limited theoretical mind such as Linda Hutcheon, whose works are really dealing with primarily Canadian Literature seems more relevant, as her work is quintessential when dealing with Canadian fiction.

Take Bloom though, what exactly is his real contribution to a specific field? Certainly not Shakespeare, as his book is mediocre at best, and there has been such fantastic scholarship written on Shakespeare and Renaissance theatre - notably for instance, E. K. Chambers' Four Volume history on Renaissance theatre written in the first half of the 20th century, yet still enduring.

I suspect the so called "literati" acceptance of Bloom is more directed to the fact that their sales would probably benefit from him. As for Byatt, I tried to read Possession but found it beyond tedious.

Really, influence is probably the worst way to grade literature. the Yi-Jing is a good example - it's actual "merit" as literature is questionable, as I have stated, it is merely a very complex fortune teller.

In that sense, is it really literature? Surprisingly, I have seen Newton and whomever mentioned, but haven't caught a glimpse of Erasmus mentioned on these boards - hell, the man pretty much kicked off the reformation, pretty much all the protestant developments at any rate, so why don't we hear talk of him?

I am sure, for instance, as well, there were numerous indigenous American texts, particularly of the Mayan variety, that could pose in place of Newton - Newton just had the benefit of arriving with guns.



We probably shouldn't graph influence anyway - for instance, one can just root everything back to Chinese imports, and that would be that - paper to Chinese invention, making all texts, and their distribution, necessarily traceable to some Chinese super-technique, passed down probably in textual form, given the nature of Chinese thought. But what does that mean?


I am skeptical of this whole 10 more influential books theory. What is influence? Everything is ridiculously intertextual anyway - are we to call Shakespeare the big innovator, or Marlowe? Or Spenser, or Sidney, who got it from Gascoigne, who stole it from Chaucer and the continent, who got it from China, and medieval works, who got it from classical and Middle Eastern works, who got it from Persian works, who got it from Egyptian works, who got it from Mesopotamian works, who got it from Cave scratchings, who got the idea from nature. Do you see my point?

You do have to give it to JBI. He is nothing if not a master at parroting everything his professors have taught him as gospel truth: Wade-Giles is an abomination because...? Well because it has fallen out of fashion in academic circles and we all know fashion is everything. Harold Bloom is irrelevant because...? Well because his audience is to be found more among those who simply love to read (certainly proof of irrelevance) and not among the "serious" critics in academic circles... who we all know are the absolute most important word on literature. Seriously, what writer, worthy of the name, would dare to write the least slight sonnet without first consulting the latest thoughts making the rounds of academia? And surely we must all bow before JBI's unflinching ego (if nothing else). The sheer audacity and unflinching bravura of dismissing the "limited theoretical minds" of professors and "tedious" writers (to say nothing of the mere minions of an on-line literature forum) who have actually achieved a level of respect in areas in which he is but a mere student. I must join his fan club tout suite.:nod:

Or better yet, we should all flaunt our knowledge of a mediocre, senile critic, and his pseudo-critical mediocre Freudian readings of books that he prepares for the non-serious serious reader so that they can come onto public forums, and go to their friends, and preach how Harold Bloom said this, so it must be true, and whatnot.

Seriously, Frye was a public critic, and I respect him - he won a Governor General's Award even, and is credited with essentially creating English Canadian literature, in the sense that he established it as a distinct tradition. A very public intellectual, yet I don't come here and bash him, and I don't see people using his ideas for some reason, perhaps because he isn't the kind of critic to say, "These are the good books, all else is toss," or whatnot.

Seriously, Wade-Giles isn't used because a) it does not at all resemble Chinese at all, b) a far closer system, that is used by Chinese people exists, c) it is insufficient in conveying the actual sound of characters, as it does not take tone markings as easily, d) the system has been out of use in publication for decades, e) it is a colonialist romanization essentially created for the use of diplomatic supremacy over the country it tried to "translate, f) it is ugly, g) it is confusing, especially with its tedious rules for apostrophes, hyphens, and umlauts, h) it is confusing for non-speakers of Chinese trying to grasp basic Chinese pronunciation, as the WaDe "t" is clearly a "d" and the Chinese "t" would be far easier rendered "t" instead of "t'", and the Chinese "b" is not aspirated, and would be better off written as "b" instead of "p", and "g" is far more accurate than "k" so forth, not to mention that i), the system is very old, and the actual language that it tries to romanize has perhaps moved forward in pronunciation, in addition to the geographic entry point the WaDe system is based on.


Oh, but this is modern snobbery - you iron-tower lording shmuck you, you want to use a system that is a) more widely accepted, b) easier to read, and c) more known outside of academies, ironically, than inside, as Wade Giles right now is essentially limited, in practical use, to academics sifting through older Sinological documents, and using dated classical Chinese dictionaries, which, unfortunately, have not yet been replaced by more up to date Pinyin-based ones (though most real scholars now I think, know Chinese, and just flip to a modern day Chinese dictionary as reference).


But yes, I am merely a student, so I shouldn't comment.


Lets be honest. Harold Bloom is irrelevant because Harold Bloom chose to be irrelevant. I don't even get the point of mentioning him - all he does is preach that people should read better books - why not then just skip the middle man and read better books without reading Bloom? He has essentially been rehashing the same argument for 20 years now anyway, with the same moapy, lamenting self-elevating sighs that profess "literature and culture are dying, and I am the only one smart enough to see it, and to tell people, and what do they do? they ignore poor me, who is the only one in academia who can see the truth, etc. etc. etc."

Perhaps maybe in the United States, where people only seem to read American, and perhaps a few English texts, and people essentially consider themselves as only belonging to a sort of "Western Tradition", Harold Bloom may hold ground, as he lashes out against the mediocrity of American scholarship - well, a lot of American scholarship is mediocre, as with all countries (though you guys like to give podiums to those who fit with affirmative action plans more so than perhaps other countries, which may not be a bad thing perhaps) but he exaggerates things. Truth be told, the reason why universities create new perspectives, is quite simply that it is cheaper to employ less professors to teach bigger classes, and therefore, in order to keep jobs intact, especially in a department such as English (especially American literature in the US) where there are far too many Ph. D.s for job postings, the departments and academics must differentiate themselves, as a means of staying alive and current, rather than falling to obsolescence.


Quite simply put, I do not fit within a Western Tradition, and I do not live in a city of people belonging to one tradition, much less a Western one. Other people on these boards perhaps also feel that other traditions effect them, so how can we say that Bloom's Western Canon holds for all of us? Simply put, it is one mans view, and simply put, the essays and "canons" he focuses on are rather eccentric and polemic choices for the sake of furthering his own "political" agenda of "I am super critic, buy my book, sigh, everybody dismisses me because they resent, etc. etc."


But I guess you are just resenting because I refused to autograph your baseball hat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I must join his fan club tout suite.

---

Someone's jealous he doesn't have a fan club.:lol:

Oh, but this is modern snobbery - you iron-tower lording shmuck you...

Brilliant critical analysis. Truly worthy of you in every way.:nod:

I suppose Bloom is largely irrelevant... but no more than almost any critic. With the exception of the few who rise to the level of literature (Walter Pater, T.S. Eliot, Virginia Woolf, Octavio Paz, J.L. Borges, etc...) the best that can be expected is something of a temporal guide. I personally found a few intriguing ideas in Bloom and I must credit him with having led me to a number of quite interesting writers, but I admittedly found more of both in Borges. The point is the vast majority of academic critics are no more relevant than Bloom. Few are ever published (or worthy of being published) outside of academic journals. Few are ever read outside of the same circles and even fewer will continue to be read. You seemingly assume that it is the hermetic world of academia that is most "relevant" to the survival of a work of literature. This, undoubtedly, was part of what Bloom rails against in his admittedly tedious rants about "resentment": the notion that the survival of literature should be left up to the esoteric world of academia with all their political, social, and economic motivations, as opposed to the "common readers" and the subsequent generations of writers. Of course academia plays a role in the survival of literature... and even the re-evaluation and rediscovery of literature... but surely it is the not-so-common "common reader" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the term... and not in the sense of the mass audience with their Harry Potter and Twilight novels) and subsequent writers who are most important. I somehow doubt that Bloom or Frye or Eagleton or Elizabeth Kantor are more important and relevant to Cormac McCarthy than Faulkner, Flannery O'Connor, Melville, and even Shakespeare. That said... I quite liked your recommendation of Arthur Symons. Once again... however... Symons was actually a writer of decadent Symbolist style poetry and not an academic.

Perhaps maybe in the United States, where people only seem to read American, and perhaps a few English texts...

Bingo! I wondered how long it would take until you reverted to your usual anti-Americanisms and starting singing the Canadian National Anthem. Us American cretins... only capable of reading American literature... like Harry Potter... (oh yeah... that's British... but the boy's got a good solid American name anyway... so you get my drift)... and listening to country and western music... like Shania Twain... (oops! forgot... she's Canadian... must be an anomaly)... watchin' pro-wrestling, and drinkin' beer (not even good beer, at that, like Molsen Dry and Labbatt's Blue). How unlike the sophisticate denizens of the Great White North:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TfBbR6L0M

:D

Someone's jealous he doesn't have a fan club.:lol:

Is it that obvious?:eek:

If I don't get my own fan club I'm taking my toys and going home.:smash::lol::goof:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Oh, but this is modern snobbery - you iron-tower lording shmuck you,

---

Whoa, was that directed at a person here? Come on JBI, that's over the line.

Quote:

---

Lets be honest. Harold Bloom is irrelevant because Harold Bloom chose to be irrelevant. I don't even get the point of mentioning him - all he does is preach that people should read better books - why not then just skip the middle man and read better books without reading Bloom? He has essentially been rehashing the same argument for 20 years now anyway, with the same moapy, lamenting self-elevating sighs that profess "literature and culture are dying, and I am the only one smart enough to see it, and to tell people, and what do they do? they ignore poor me, who is the only one in academia who can see the truth, etc. etc. etc."

---

I've got my issues with Bloom, but he's amassed quite a career, and spanned an enormous amount of literature. He's got his pluses and minuses but the shear breath of his work ranks him up their with any of the major critics of the century.

Quote:

---

Perhaps maybe in the United States, where people only seem to read American, and perhaps a few English texts,

---

:lol: What is with you tonight?

Quote:

---

Quite simply put, I do not fit within a Western Tradition, and I do not live in a city of people belonging to one tradition, much less a Western one. Other people on these boards perhaps also feel that other traditions effect them, so how can we say that Bloom's Western Canon holds for all of us? Simply put, it is one mans view, and simply put, the essays and "canons" he focuses on are rather eccentric and polemic choices for the sake of furthering his own "political" agenda of "I am super critic, buy my book, sigh, everybody dismisses me because they resent, etc. etc."

---

The world is in a position of accepting more traditions. The western cannon isn't dimished by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Lets be honest. Harold Bloom is irrelevant because Harold Bloom chose to be irrelevant.

---

I agree, and I think he does not deserves so many attention here. He is mediocre, end of story.

JBI, I'd like to see your top ten.
(Yes, I know things like "top ten" are typicaly Bloom, but this forum for me is not a place to argue and prove something. When I want to argue seriously, I write a thesis. The last one I wrote, since I came back, was about Julio Cortázar - and it's not published yet. So, I'm tired. I work a lot - writing, reading, teaching... But here in this forum, I just want to meet people for a good talking, nothing very seriously, just for relax).

1.Bhagavad Gita
2.Shahnameh
3.Dream of the Red Chamber
4.Divine Comedy
5.Hamlet
6.The Republic
7.Book of Job
8.Flowers of Evil
9.Metamorphoses
10.Three Hundred Tang Poems

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Seriously, what writer, worthy of the name, would dare to write the least slight sonnet without first consulting the latest thoughts making the rounds of academia? And surely we must all bow before JBI's unflinching ego (if nothing else). The sheer audacity and unflinching bravura of dismissing the "limited theoretical minds" of professors and "tedious" writers (to say nothing of the mere minions of an on-line literature forum) who have actually achieved a level of respect in areas in which he is but a mere student. I must join his fan club tout suite.:nod:

---

Luke, I hate to tell you this, but no contemporary poet takes the sonnet form seriously anymore. This is not to say there is no market for formalist structures, these exist, but they are basically designed to generate income for contest publishers. Real poets alive today, like Robert Thomas, or Al Maginnes, do different things with the natural iambic flow of English--even bigger poets, like Simon Armitage, who is more conscious of rhythm and form, really doesn't use sonnet structures.

I cannot beat you on your depth of knowledge when it comes to classicism, but formalism is not making a comeback in the modern poetry market.

As to this topic, well, I do not know how you get past the usual suspects, and those are fairly boring.

The entire surviving Greek corpus
The Bible
Cervantes DG
Chaucer
The Arabian Nights
Virgil and Dante follows on his heels
Shakespeare

and from the little I've read of TBG, which mortal cites, I suppose one must include it, but I know very little of classical Asian literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

1.Bhagavad Gita
2.Shahnameh
3.Dream of the Red Chamber
4.Divine Comedy
5.Hamlet
6.The Republic
7.Book of Job
8.Flowers of Evil
9.Metamorphoses
10.Three Hundred Tang Poems

---

That's actually a pretty good one. I wouldn't personally have chosen a few of those works, but I must say that is a pretty interesting list.

Mine would be something like.

Dante
Shakespeare - if you need a text, either the Ardent Shakespeare or the First Folio
Virgil
Milton
The Bible
Chu-Ci - especially Li Sao and the "barbaric poems" by Yu Quan
300 Tang Poems
The Manyoshu
Mahabharata
And Either Journey to the West or Dream of the Red Chamber


That is a difficult list to compile of course, and I wouldn't compile one, had you not forced me, in a sense, but in terms of influence, cultural significance, and quality those are probably the best I can come up with on the spot. All of those works have been influential especially dealing with literature, and have been well liked for a long time, and become standards of both education and aesthetic example.


But don't quote me on that - under different mood, I could have chosen 10 different books. The value game doesn't seem much fun to me.

However, the most influent books (or writers) in the whole world, ever, (in my personal oppinion) are:

- Vedas
- I-Ching
- Bible
- Homer's
- Plato's
- Aristotle's
- Bhagavad Gita
- Koran
- Shakespeare's plays
- Darwin's
- Karl Marx's
- Freud's
- Charles Baudelaire's

They really changed the course of history.

P.S: It's difficult for me chose only 10, but I put the top ten in bold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

3. Elements -- Euclid
So it's more than one volume. . . . so it's more than 10 volumes. . .( :) ). But this book collected mathematical axioms and offered systems of logic and science that influenced mathematicians for centuries afterward.

---

I might not agree on the other books suggested, but this is indeed highly influential. I shall not compose my own top ten.
I understand that this is a literature forum, but nevertheless, it is interesting how people pose works literature as highly influential, might admit that social sciences might have had a bit of influence and as for hard sciences - bah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I might not agree on the other books suggested, but this is indeed highly influential. I shall not compose my own top ten.
I understand that this is a literature forum, but nevertheless, it is interesting how people pose works literature as highly influential, might admit that social sciences might have had a bit of influence and as for hard sciences - bah!

---

Yay! I tried really hard to think of a list that would not include titles that I knew many others would toss around and that would represent high, middle, and pulp cultures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brasil

Republic (Maybe the most polemic and influential work of the classical greek philosophy)

---

I'd vote on Aristotle being more influential than Plato any day.

I'd also put Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy in such a list any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Dante
Shakespeare - if you need a text, either the Ardent Shakespeare or the First Folio
Virgil
Milton
The Bible
Chu-Ci - especially Li Sao and the "barbaric poems" by Yu Quan
300 Tang Poems
The Manyoshu
Mahabharata
And Either Journey to the West or Dream of the Red Chamber

---

No love for the Muslims? No Firdawsi, Rumi, Hafiz, Nizami, Saadi, or Jami? Not even the Mu'allaqat? You found room for three Chinese works. Speaking of which, I didn't see the Chu-Ci coming. I thought you would have picked the Shi Jing. Was it Li Sao that made the difference? As for Milton, I've lately come to believe that Tasso was actually the better epic poet, but that's a moot point if your list already includes Virgil or Homer. Other than that, it's a good list.

Scratch it, moot point.

The question is:
which are the 10 more influential books...

... in the whole world (not just in USA, Europe or western world... but on Earth);
... in any time (It means the books that changed course of history and shaped the society).


So, I belive, there are 3 names that, unquestionably, can't be off in any list:

- Bible
- Koran
- Karl Marx
(their impact is in global level)


Another 3 names are very important too:
- Homer
- Darwin
- Freud
(but I can't say if they are as important in eastern as they are in western)

Luke, I hate to tell you this, but no contemporary poet takes the sonnet form seriously anymore. This is not to say there is no market for formalist structures, these exist, but they are basically designed to generate income for contest publishers. Real poets alive today, like Robert Thomas, or Al Maginnes, do different things with the natural iambic flow of English--even bigger poets, like Simon Armitage, who is more conscious of rhythm and form, really doesn't use sonnet structures.

You, of course follow poets who are more contemporary than I through journals, magazines, e-zines, etc... Of the contemporary poets that I am reading, and these would include Anthony Hecht, Geoffrey Hill, Richard Wilbur, Seamus Heaney, Yves Bonnefoy, Bella Akhmadulina, Adam Zagajewski, W.S. Merwin, even Anne Carson... a good many of them lean toward the formalist side of the spectrum from time to time or even quite frequently employ traditional formal poetic structures. Both Pablo Neruda and J.L. Borges made a concerted use of the sonnet right up to their deaths. Of course my choice of the term "sonnet" was purely arbitrary... or rather chosen because it is quite likely the most known poetic form to those who know little of poetry.

Even JBI might agree with me when I suggest that I'm somewhat doubtful of the relevance or lasting merit of almost any contemporary American poet... but I do suspect that figures such as Anne Carson (Canadian) and Geoffrey Hill (British living in the US)... who are absolute masters of form... as well as powerfully innovate poets... may be among those who have the strongest chance of survival. Poetry... like art... seems to swing continually between the polar opposites of Romanticist experimentation (and free form) and Formalism/classicism. I doubt that we are looking at an ultimate victory for either side. Personally, I like some achievements on either side of the spectrum... but I'm always fascinated with the figures who virtually merge the two such as Spenser, Baudelaire, and Carson. Perhaps not unlike Cervantes and his love of the romance, it is those with the greatest love and understanding of the tradition who are most cognizant of the same tradition's weaknesses and are most willing to make truly profound challenges to the tradition.

Yes, but even if form does pop its head up every now and then, even the best formalists are want to move away from the sonnet. Wilbur for instance, would have, back when he was writing still, seem to have preferred to use constructed forms, or French forms over sonnets. There are good innovators now, but in the scheme of things, these only seem to come from Established poets, not those working the periodicals.


In Canada it is very different - virtually no poet writing today uses formalist techniques - even using conventional tropes is being pushed away from. As one of my professors said, "Frye's great code no longer holds." - That is, in Canada, the vast populace of poets seems to be of very different backgrounds - and most from there own traditions even look forward to a genre understanding beyond traditional confines. The main vehicle seems to be intense irony and/or new metaphorical language taken from the contemporary commonplace. You'd be hard pressed, for instance, to find mythological creatures amongst modern Canadian poets, unless they were undergoing some sort of beating.

I think now, forms in general, if they are used, are want to be ironized. I think it is near impossible right now to write a sonnet that isn't completely ironizing the form. There seems a general recognition that the purpose of forms is merely for the sake of form itself - and with that, the actual usefulness of form has been continuously questioned. Think of other forms, like margin-aligned centre - talking to editors, they will automatically not publish a poem written like that, because it has such a childlike quality.

I would think in today's world, the people writing forms happen to be those who lack a sort of professionalism - not saying that applies to everyone, but generally, there are two trends I find when looking over mediocre poetry - first of all, mediocrity in form usage, being that you get rhymes and couplets and whatnot, which don't particularly work well together, and b) over-the-top either classical appeal, or personal rant.



As for MortalTerror's criticism,

Well, it is only ten books, and, as I said before, I could have picked a completely different 10 and have been just as happy.

True, no Muslims on the list, but there are also no Jews, no French people, no Africans, no Americans, Mongols, Koreans, Indochinese, etc. etc.

It's a hard thing to compile, especially given the way things are.

As for the more appropriate question, of why I chose the Chu-Ci over the Shi Jing - well, anybody familiar with the Chu-Ci will note how, poetically speaking, the Chu-Ci is a far stronger tradition, and overall, by my estimate, far better poetry. Li Sao, as a long poem, is brilliant, and has not been without influence. If we date things, the Shi Jing would seem to be from generations before Confucius, perhaps far before him into the Western Zhou period in many cases, and featuring essentially folk songs that were modified, and later edited, and essentially constructed as political "lessons" to be used as, essentially adages when giving opinions. The Chu-Ci to me feels to be more centrally poetic - I read more of the Chu-Ci in, for instance, Tang Poetry than I do the Shi Jing, simply because it is a much stronger poetic force, and far more human, given that it has more defined narrative voice.

If we were to make a long winded comparison, it is like having drama where the chorus is the protagonist, versus drama where there is a defined character as protagonist - it is very different in terms of scope, and, personally, I think the latter has been far more dominant in terms of poetics (not politics evidently, though the Li Sao in particular is a very political poem that has been used politically) throughout Chinese history.


The Yue-Fu tradition, to me at least, seems rooted in these lyrics, and that would, by any account, be seen as the dominant form from the Qin to the Tang (when, though still popular, the Yue-Fu tradition was essentially pushed out by "new" forms, the earlier being called "Ancient form").

Yes, but even if form does pop its head up every now and then, even the best formalists are want to move away from the sonnet.

I don't think that the question of form is something that only pops up occasionally. Form and content are so intertwined... especially with poetry... as to be insuperable. Certainly, there are endless dry academics and amateurs who approach poetry through a strict use of traditional forms... but then there are an equal amount of equally bad poets embracing every possible interpretation of "free form"... and largely, one might assume... because it does not even demand a certain mastery of craft. I like Tom Disch's description of lazy free-form poetic efforts as "snapped prose":

Take any piece of prose you like
and snap it into lines of verse
like this, using the end of the line

as a kind of comma. You can create
a further sense of shapeliness
by grouping the snapped prose in stanzas, so.

Wilbur for instance, would have, back when he was writing still, seem to have preferred to use constructed forms, or French forms over sonnets.

Certainly. And it might be noted that Wilbur was nothing if not a Francophile. But he did write sonnets as well. Still, the main thrust of my argument was that there have been and still are any number of truly fine poets who continue to work in a manner that builds upon definite formal structures... and often uses very traditional forms as well.

In Canada it is very different...

:brickwall I'll bet no one here could have seen that one coming.:rolleyes: Beyond Carsen... just who are the brilliant Canadian poets that are so clearly relevant and remaking the whole of poetry today? You would have us believe that we'll all soon be in need of expanding our book-shelves to accommodate all the marvelous literature coming out of that great multi-cultural paradise* that is the "great white north.":cold:

That is, in Canada, the vast populace of poets...

The vast populace...??!:confused: Is there even a vast populace of people... let alone poets... in Canada? Is there even a vast populace of poets anywhere?:confused:

I think now, forms in general, if they are used, are want to be ironized.

And such has always been the reality. Spenser surely turns the epic upside down with his mock-epic Muiopotmos and toward an entirely different end (not unlike Milton) with The Fairie Queene. Cervantes, Sterne, Swift, etc... all up-end the tradition of the romance... the novel... fictional narratives. Baudelaire inverts the sonnet... literally and figuratively.

I think it is near impossible right now to write a sonnet that isn't completely ironizing the form.

I know that Umberto Eco would agree. He has suggested that irony is the only means for a self-conscious Post-Modernist to say what he or she desires to say. There was a great little essay that I can't find right now in which Eco suggests... and I'll paraphrase: The Post-Modern lover wants to say "I love you," but he fears he will look ridiculous and unsophisticated in doing so, and so he needs to reframe it and say "As Shakespeare said, I love you...". Thus he says what he wishes to say... but at the same time he lets you know that he knows what he has to say has been said before. While some of my absolute favorite writers are masters of irony (Swift, Cervantes, Sterne, Wilde, Kafka, Borges...) irony can wear thin at time and sincerity has its moments. Blake is never anything but sincere. So is Geoffrey Hill.

There seems a general recognition that the purpose of forms is merely for the sake of form itself - and with that, the actual usefulness of form has been continuously questioned.

And that is a complete misunderstanding of form. Again form and content are combined in an inseparable manner from which we build our "meaning". The lack of a traditional form is as much a form in itself and as much of a part of the overall experience as the most traditional forms.

Think of other forms, like margin-aligned centre - talking to editors, they will automatically not publish a poem written like that, because it has such a childlike quality.

And yet the "child-like" form can result in the most brilliant works of poetry, be it Thomas Traherne, William Blake, Christian Morgenstern, etc...

I would think in today's world, the people writing forms happen to be those who lack a sort of professionalism...

And I would imagine the opposite to be true: that the majority of people writing bad poetry are those who haven't the slightest understanding or grasp of poetic form and imagine poetry to just be a formless jabbering broken into lines... like Disch' "snapped prose".



* By the way... according to the numbers Canada is not so multi-cultural as you would have us believe:

Percentage of Canadian Population by Percentage:

32.2% Canadian
21.0% English
15.8% French
15.1% Scottish
13.9% Irish
10.2% German
4.6% Italian
4.0% South Asian
3.9% Chinese
3.9% Ukrainian
3.8% Aboriginal
3.3% Dutch
3.2% Polish
2.5% Black/African

With the combined populations of the South Asian, Chinese, Aboriginal (or the indigenous peoples of Canada) and Black Canadians we are left with a culture in which over 85% of the nation is of European heritage.

Compare this with the American population of 308 Million of which 4.5% are Asian, 15.4% are Hispanic, 12.8% are Black/African-American, 1.4 million Native Americans... in which 34 Million speak Spanish (that's larger than the entire population of Canada), 2.4 million speak Chinese, 1.4 million speak Tagalog, 1.2 million speak Vietnamese, 1.1 Million speak Korean, etc... as their primary language.

Considering this data you might discover that Canada is not as great of a multi-cultural paradise... or the United States quite as monolithic a culture as you repeatedly suggest.

... Look, it is easy to divide on those lines - Canadian as a "racial category" doesn't mean anything, and almost a third of the country is Francophone.

Beyond that too, what makes up that largest section, the 32%, and to what extent are the boundaries so defined?

You see, you are breaking categories down by race, as is the, from what I understand, standard practice of such things in the US. Even the category of Black/African in Canada would, by most people, considered to be racist. Simply put, the definition of the US would seem more race-obsessed than the Canadian one.


Think of it this way - why is the marking of "African-American", or "Hispanic" so defined? Look at, for instance, the markings on the Canadian graph of geographic locations - there isn't a headlined "European" or "White" is there. The whole nature of the graphic seems a bit fishy, don't you think?

You seem too preoccupied by absolutes - and in a sense, the United States is preoccupied by absolutes - think of, for instance, the fact that Obama is the first African-American President - what does that say about the conceptualization of Race in the United States, given that his father is from Kenya, and his mother, an American, who raised him in Indonesia, and Hawaii - clearly that would imply a sort of cosmopolitan identity of mixed traditions - why then is he regarded as "The First African-American" president - why such a defined identity, and fixed labeling?


To bring it back to Canada - I mentioned the writers, not the citizens anyway - the poets themselves do not accurately reflect the "population breakdown" at any rate anyway, given the nature of concentration of writers to specific geographical locations, the bulk of which being more multicultural than the rural parts of Canada, which, though multicultural, would probably fit into the "Canadian" category.


The difference again I will stress, is also in the way "Canadian literature" is not as easily and willingly divided into "White Canadian Literature" and "African-Canadian" literature, and "East-Asian Canadian literature" and "Jewish Canadian literature" and "Transgendered Canadian literature" and so forth, as is want to happen in the US - and is the backbone of division within academic circles. The whole concept of identity is completely different, and the whole government policy on identity too is very different.

The statistics you gathered say very little - they do not reflect either those writing, or how the people of Canada see themselves - perhaps American art is want to call itself by a categorical titles, but as I stated before, the whole Frye concept of a Great Code no longer applies in Canada, and the categorical has no longer held, so you get authors using different traditions within their works as well, for instance, the poet P. K. Page working in the past few years with poetry written primarily out of Spanish and Sufi traditions, and the collaborative group Pain Not Bread using primarily Tang Poetry as a foundation for one of their works, or whatever.

Beyond that too, there is the question of regional identity which is essential in shaping the literature.

I am sure much of this is also applicable to American poetry, and I know for a fact that American institutions in particular are some of the greatest contributors to a fuller understanding of culture, and of getting beyond cultural difference, despite what the American, or even Canadian population might think.

My point about bringing up Canada was not to put it against the US - quite simply, I am a Canadian Contemporary Poetry reader more so than a reader of American Poetry - as such, I comment on what I know. It is true though, that here there isn't much of a debate on form as there seems to be in the US when certain poets try to get their poetry read by making form out to be some sort of polemic, but as Jozanny has stated, form isn't particularly taken seriously in the US either.