That's typically an American reply...Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
That's typically an American reply...
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Given that Europe consists of about fifty countries, what would you say were the characteristics shared across all those diverse histories and cultures that you have identified as being 'not much to desire'?
Yeah, those smug Estonians - they're irritating. And the smug Poles. Known for it, the Poles. And the Belgians - Jeez, have you ever witnessed such smuggery? And don't even start me on the smugness of the Portuguese and the Finns and the smuggity-smug denizens of Lichtenstein. Yessireebob, all Europeans, regardless of history and culture, are smug as a cabaret conjuror.
The point is that you can't really - honestly - make such a generalisation about fifty countries on a continent. I agree with you that the States of America are diverse. Indeed, I often tell Brits of my acquaintance that to make generalisations about Americans - they have no sense of irony, they're all fundamentalist nutcases, whatever the lazy aside might be - is absurd. The US is a big place and the population encompasses a whole panoply of cultural, attitudinal and cognitive positions. In the same way, I'd suggest that to dismiss all Europeans as smug is as casual a mistake. You can't even generalise to the country-level. Not all English people are smug. Not even all Londoners are smug. Not even everyone in my house is smug - in fact, the only one is my American wife.
The question was a serious one. What is it about the whole of Europe that leads you to say that there's 'not much there to desire'?
Last edited by MarkBastable; 08-24-2011 at 09:41 AM.
Aw, I'm assuming you just don't have found Memories of Cats!
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
Hmm... tough choice. I'll go for answer c) Ireland.
I am still alive then. That may come in useful.
Molloy
Leave Shakespeare out of the equation and the British are utterly hopeless.
Marlowe
Chaucer
Milton
Orwell
Maugham
Eliot
Bronte sister
Austen
Dickens
Robert Louis Stevenson
Alexander Pope
And that is without mentioning the plethora of great poets from the British isles like Kipling, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth and great playwrights like Harold Pinter.
Last edited by Patrick_Bateman; 08-26-2011 at 09:01 AM.
Latest Blog: An Impassioned and Immediate Response to Dan Hodges, Political Writer, Daily Telegraph.
http://britishpharaoh.wordpress.com/
As I said, hopeless.
Do you have any better examples ?
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
None that are better than Shakespeare.
It's self-evident that there are unlikely to be any better than Shakespeare, but literature didn't begin with him and doesn't end either.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
I can only assume your tongue is wedged firmly in your cheek there. If not, then you must have inadvertently stumbled into the wrong forum, this being a literature one, or you know exactly what you're saying and are being contentious just for the sake of it.
What is that you think literature should do, that the British have for a thousand years had no hope of doing?
To be fair, most of those you mentioned are quite bad on their own right.
Wells is better than Orwell, and actually one of the English names that should count.
My blog about literature (in spanish): http://otrasbentilaciones.wordpress.com/
On a personal level it is a matter of opinion, but an objective assessment by critics versed in literature would probably be the obverse of your own.
H G Wells is a very good writer and like Orwell his output has been noticeably patchy but his influence has faded while Orwell's remains. I suspect that a tendency to political bias in educational establishments may be the reason, but on a purely authorial level, I wouldn't like to choose between them.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Orwell was a more versatile writer and probably one of the greatest essayist in the English language.
Edit: And frankly, the only author on that list who is debatable is Maugham, but I say that mostly because I think of him as more of a "2nd tier" writer along with people like Forster, good writers who never did anything particularly ground breaking.
Edit2: Emil, I'm not sure what political bias you could be referring to though, since both Wells and Orwell were socialist. I could maybe see what you mean if Wells were some sort of conservative writer.
Last edited by OrphanPip; 08-27-2011 at 09:20 AM.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote