British Literature vs. American Literature

[JCamilo]

Well, maybe the part that english is the primary language of much of earth, the Kafka-Joyce-Nabokov thing, the english being the greatest poets, they owning much to poems and not prose... you know, some straight extreme ideas which really make one or another point (that america and england literature are not really something that we can put apart so easily, that thiking in therms of patriostism is wrong) quite blurred because you do sounded as radical as those others?

[stuntpickle]

Well, maybe the part that english is the primary language of much of earth, the Kafka-Joyce-Nabokov thing, the english being the greatest poets, they owning much to poems and not prose... you know, some straight extreme ideas which really make one or another point (that america and england literature are not really something that we can put apart so easily, that thiking in therms of patriostism is wrong) quite blurred because you do sounded as radical as those others?

English is the primary language of "much of the Earth," which is altogether different from saying "most of the Earth."

I don't think it's at all controversial to say, for instance, that Shakespeare is the greatest poet, nor that Milton follows closely on his heels, nor that Coleridge follows closely on Milton's, nor that there's no other comparable poetic tradition so packed with geniuses as the one in England stretching from the time of Elizabeth to Victoria. Just consider the Romantics: Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Keats, Shelley--any of whom would have been a major poet in any era. The thing is they were all writing at the same time, in roughly the same place, which is ridiculous. Poetry is to England as painting is to Italy or music is to Austria. I'm not saying that there aren't major poets from other countries, but I am saying that from the time period, the most important poets are English. I mean, really, name the contemporary equal of Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth or Coleridge from another country. I don't think they exist. This same ridiculous overabundance in genius simply does not exist in prose. I think Britain has produced a number of truly fine novelists, but I think the more striking concentration of talent was in 19th Century Russia.

I never said the US and Britain couldn't be discussed separately, but rather implied that trying to compare the shared culture is ridiculous. To say that British Literature is somehow better because Britain produced Shakespeare is to ignore that American Literature derives from the same place.

I don't think it's controversial to suggest that James Joyce is the major innovator of the 20th century. I also think Kafka is largely thought to have thoroughly captured the poetic essence of the time in a single figuration. I also think Nabokov is thought to be the major stylist of the era who was something of a cross between the other two. Seriously, can you show me a better 20th Century novel than Lolita that isn't Ulysses?

If you mean to say that it's contradictory for me to talk about the preeminence of English poets and then turn around and say that you can't compare traditions based on patriotism, you might perhaps have a point. I would, however, point out that I'm a US citizen and that my endorsement of English poets can hardly be called patriotic or chauvinistic. I suppose I'm really saying that there isn't much point in arguing over traditions that are so closely related and that all you end up doing is missing a bunch of stuff. I can't understand how anyone can talk about the major writers of the 20th Century and not mention Kafka or Proust. Somehow the discussion becomes a contest between Rushdie and Steinbeck, which seems to me a thoroughly ridiculous one.

[JCamilo]

English is the primary language of "much of the Earth," which is altogether different from saying "most of the Earth."

So is chinese, spanish, russian, hindi, arabian, portuguese, freench and probally a couple of other languages that the primary language of much of the earth. Which is irrelevant. The reason why a territory as big as USA or Australia speak english not because the aesthetic merits of english language, it is only because those countries are conquered by englsih speaking people.

I don't think it's at all controversial to say, for instance, that Shakespeare is the greatest poet, nor that Milton follows closely on his heels, nor that Coleridge follows closely on Milton's, nor that there's no other comparable poetic tradition so packed with geniuses as the one in England stretching from the time of Elizabeth to Victoria. Just consider the Romantics: Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Keats, Shelley--any of whom would have been a major poet in any era. The thing is they were all writing at the same time, in roughly the same place, which is ridiculous. Poetry is to England as painting is to Italy or music is to Austria. I'm not saying that there aren't major poets from other countries, but I am saying that from the time period, the most important poets are English. I mean, really, name the contemporary equal of Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth or Coleridge from another country. I don't think they exist. This same ridiculous overabundance in genius simply does not exist in prose. I think Britain has produced a number of truly fine novelists, but I think the more striking concentration of talent was in 19th Century Russia.

not controversial, simply because it just a matter of opinion. Baudelaire, Gautier, Victor Hugo, Mallarme, Rimbaud, Verlaine are a few others are all writting at the sametime. Drummond, Bilac, Bandeira, Oswald de Andrade, Cecilia Meireles are all writing at the sametime. Gogora, Quevedo, Lope are all writing at the sametime.

As contemporary equal to Shakespeare, could you name any equal do Dante, Ariosto, Petrarca? What about those greek guys? Homer, Hesiod, Sophocles, Etc? And those romans? Horace, Virgil, Cicer, Ovid? What about the germans, Goethe, Schiller, Hesse? Her, Portugal gave us Camoes and Fernando Pessoa. We can all make a list, because after all, it is even impossible to list contemporaries equal to Milton ,Shakespeare and Wordsworth, because they are not even contemporaries.

I never said the US and Britain couldn't be discussed separately, but rather implied that trying to compare the shared culture is ridiculous. To say that British Literature is somehow better because Britain produced Shakespeare is to ignore that American Literature derives from the same place.

And this is not to say Shakespeare is not wonderful. He is. But a considerable ammount of people will point none of hsi poems are as good as Dante's Comedy and he is the greatest poet of all time. Some would point Homer, Virgil, Ovid and this is just europe. And of course, england is quite wonderful too, but so is france, italy, spain, etc.

I don't think it's controversial to suggest that James Joyce is the major innovator of the 20th century. I also think Kafka is largely thought to have thoroughly captured the poetic essence of the time in a single figuration. I also think Nabokov is thought to be the major stylist of the era who was something of a cross between the other two. Seriously, can you show me a better 20th Century novel than Lolita that isn't Ulysses?

You didnt said innovator, did you? But I do not think it is controversial. It is just like saying one major author is a major author. So, one cay Proust. Another can say Virginia Woolf. Hemingway. Faulkner. Yeats. Pessoa. Borges. Etc.etc.etc.

And just like. What if someone says that Garcia Marquez 100 Years of Solitute is better than Lolita? Or Grandes Sertoes Veredas? Sound and Fury? A man without qualities? Orlando? Or Metamorphosis? It is just as much as arguing preferences and reading record.

-If you mean to say that it's contradictory for me to talk about the preeminence of English poets and then turn around and say that you can't compare traditions based on patriotism, you might perhaps have a point. I would, however, point out that I'm a US citizen and that my endorsement of English poets can hardly be called patriotic or chauvinistic. I suppose I'm really saying that there isn't much point in arguing over traditions that are so closely related and that all you end up doing is missing a bunch of stuff. I can't understand how anyone can talk about the major writers of the 20th Century and not mention Kafka or Proust. Somehow the discussion becomes a contest between Rushdie and Steinbeck, which seems to me a thoroughly ridiculous one.

Well, it is a very usual american trait the love for England.
Anyways, I dont disagree that the idea is silly (and it is silly, but people need excuses to dig those names), I suppose Proust and Kafka arent as much mentioned because they didnt write in english. But you for example listed Hemingway, which is as much giant as Nabokov for example. it is all a little arbitrary. But mostly, people will discuss their reading experiences, that is all.

[MarkBastable]

I don't think it's at all controversial to say, for instance, that Shakespeare is the greatest poet, nor that Milton follows closely on his heels, nor that Coleridge follows closely on Milton's

I'd say that, given Shakespeare at the top of the chart, the next two you've picked are, if not controversial, arbitrary.

[joelavine]

Comparisons are odious. If it's really that important to say whether Death Comes for the Archbishop is a superior novel to Middlemarch, to champion The Winter's Tale or The Piano Lesson, but by no means both, or if rejoicing in The Wasteland or The Road Not Taken means that I must prefer it to Howl or The Second Coming, sorry, I just don't want to play.

[OrphanPip]

Well even roughly contemporary with Shakespeare in the rest of Europe: Calderon and Cervantes in Spain; Montaigne and Racine in France; a little bit earlier you have Machiavelli and Ariosto in Italy. All of them are giants of world literature.

Edit: I far prefer the cavalier and metaphysical poets to the dour Milton anyway .

[G L Wilson]

Well even roughly contemporary with Shakespeare in the rest of Europe: Calderon and Cervantes in Spain; Montaigne and Racine in France; a little bit earlier you have Machiavelli and Ariosto in Italy. All of them are giants of world literature.

Edit: I far prefer the cavalier and metaphysical poets to the dour Milton anyway .

The dour Milton was a revolutionary which is the least that can be said for him.

[stlukesguild]

stuntpickle- You know, this whole thread is a tad juvenile. First, it is a mistake to consider US culture and "British" culture as two entirely distinct entities, rather than as divergent strains of the same culture... To say that British Literature is somehow better because Britain produced Shakespeare is to ignore that American Literature derives from the same place.

I understand where you are coming from with this... by by this standard do we assume no difference between Greece and Rome... and later Italy because Roman literature derives much from Greece? Do we assume Spanish and Arabic literature are one entity because of the Arabic tradition in Spain? American literature and culture owe much to the British traditions... but they also owe much to Spanish, French, German, African, Jewish, Italian, Asian traditions as well. I agree with the notion that comparing one culture to another... especially one culture that has undeniable ties to the other... amounts to little more than flag-waving. I agree that a lot of non-English literature is ignored in favor of English-language writers. George Orwell must surely be the most overrated author ever judging by this site. But then again... this thread was about English and American writers so I don't think it's relevant to point out that the English and American novelists may not be the best thing going.

In all actuality... the "best game" is always somewhat sad... and arguing that this or that writers is clearly the best... or better than another brilliant writer... is always open to debate. I agree that the Russians were masters of the novel or prose... but I would not underestimate the achievements of other cultures. Spain has Cervantes. France has Rousseau, Hugo, Flaubert, Zola, Diderot, Maupassant, Balzac, Stendhal, Proust, Camus, Genet, etc... The Germans have a few powerhouses in prose during the 19th century, but really blossom in the 20th with Kafka, Mann, Hesse, Roth, Boll, Grass, etc...

Can anyone match the British achievements in poetry? They may indeed be the best. They are certainly unrivaled among those I have read. But France is no nation of slackers: DuBellay, Ronsard, Villon, La Fontaine, Voltaire, Hugo, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Mallarme, Gautier, de Heredia, Nerval, Vallery, Apollinaire, St. John Perse, Claudel, Breton, Eluard, etc... I can easily make similar lists for the Germans, the Spanish, Latin America, Italy, Russia, China, Japan, Persia, etc... and I am limited by the access to translations.

Regardless, I think more than a few here will be more than willing to discuss writers beyond the Anglo-American tradition.

[stlukesguild]

I don't think it's at all controversial to say, for instance, that Shakespeare is the greatest poet, nor that Milton follows closely on his heels, nor that Coleridge follows closely on Milton's

I'd say that, given Shakespeare at the top of the chart, the next two you've picked are, if not controversial, arbitrary.

I think there are more than legitimate arguments for placing Milton not far behind Shakespeare... or Chaucer... or Spenser... or Blake (my preference among the English-language poets). I don't think this ignores the fact that Dante, Homer, Firdawsi, Goethe, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Montaigne, etc... may be closer upon Shakespeare's heels than Milton.

[G L Wilson]

I don't think it's at all controversial to say, for instance, that Shakespeare is the greatest poet, nor that Milton follows closely on his heels, nor that Coleridge follows closely on Milton's

I'd say that, given Shakespeare at the top of the chart, the next two you've picked are, if not controversial, arbitrary.

I think there are more than legitimate arguments for placing Milton not far behind Shakespeare... or Chaucer... or Spenser... or Blake (my preference among the English-language poets). I don't think this ignores the fact that Dante, Homer, Firdawsi, Goethe, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Montaigne, etc... may be closer upon Shakespeare's heels than Milton.

Historical fact: Byron ranked Milton's Paradise Lost above Shakespeare's plays.

[OrphanPip]

Historical fact: Byron ranked Milton's Paradise Lost above Shakespeare's plays.

And Tolstoy ranked Dickens above Shakespeare, what does it matter?

[G L Wilson]

And Tolstoy ranked Dickens above Shakespeare, what does it matter?

Tolstoy would have ranked his grandmother over Shakespeare if he could have got away with it.

[Alexander III]

And Tolstoy ranked Dickens above Shakespeare, what does it matter?

Guess this whole literature thing is subjective after all

[G L Wilson]

Guess this whole literature thing is subjective after all

Exactly; if anyone shoves a list of names that I supposed to admire in my face, I am going to take a dim view of it.

[stuntpickle]

So is chinese, spanish, russian, hindi, arabian, portuguese, freench and probally a couple of other languages that the primary language of much of the earth. Which is irrelevant. The reason why a territory as big as USA or Australia speak english not because the aesthetic merits of english language, it is only because those countries are conquered by englsih speaking people.

I think you may have misunderstood me. My entire point was that the US and Australia speak English because of British imperialism. We are in complete agreement on this point.

not controversial, simply because it just a matter of opinion. Baudelaire, Gautier, Victor Hugo, Mallarme, Rimbaud, Verlaine are a few others are all writting at the sametime. Drummond, Bilac, Bandeira, Oswald de Andrade, Cecilia Meireles are all writing at the sametime. Gogora, Quevedo, Lope are all writing at the sametime.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't great writers the world over. I am, however, suggesting that the concentration of talent in English poets particularly impressive. The thing about the Romantics, for instance, isn't that there were a bunch of poets, but that there were a bunch of titanic poets. I'm actually one of the few people who still likes Gautier, but I can't see how you can compare him to Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Keats, Byron or Shelley. Unlike most people, I don't think it's simply a matter of taste. Let's not forget that for a lot of history there has been some prevailing theory of aesthetics.

And this is not to say Shakespeare is not wonderful. He is. But a considerable ammount of people will point none of hsi poems are as good as Dante's Comedy and he is the greatest poet of all time. Some would point Homer, Virgil, Ovid and this is just europe. And of course, england is quite wonderful too, but so is france, italy, spain, etc.

Uhm, you do realize that Shakespeare's plays are versified, right? I think you might find a lack of people willing to say that the Divine Comedy is superior to either Hamlet or Lear. Listen, I really like Dante, but his characters are shadows compared to Hamlet, Lear or even Edmund. You realize that Dante's antagonist is essentially a geographylike Satan, right?

Well, it is a very usual american trait the love for England.
Anyways, I dont disagree that the idea is silly (and it is silly, but people need excuses to dig those names), I suppose Proust and Kafka arent as much mentioned because they didnt write in english. But you for example listed Hemingway, which is as much giant as Nabokov for example. it is all a little arbitrary. But mostly, people will discuss their reading experiences, that is all.

As far as I understand it, Hemingway's reputation has diminished greatly since his death, whereas Nabokov's has greatly increased. More importantly, I think you can clearly show how Nabokov was a superior writer in terms of style and structure. Of course, if you're willing to eliminate aesthetic judgments then there's really nothing left to judge by.