British Literature vs. American Literature

[stuntpickle]

Guess this whole literature thing is subjective after all

Is that entirely true? Is it a valid statement to say Stephanie Meyer's Twilight is superior to Tolstoy's Anna Karenina? I would say no.

I think there are aspects of works that can be judged apart from personal interest. I'm no fan of Ulysses, but to not acknowledge its greatness seems a little ridiculous to me.

Take Nabokov, for instance. The guy published in three languages--prolifically and virtuosically in two of them, Russian and English. Even if you don't particularly like Nabokov, you'd have to admit, I think, something rather special was going on with language in his work. His integration of poetic sonics into prose is, by itself, conspicuous.

Then look at structure. Looking at Pale Fire, I can't imagine how someone wouldn't immediately notice its startlingly original structure.

Surely, these things are objectively worth something. The only reason literature must necessarily be a matter of personal taste is if you insist on it.

Should we insist on it?

[Alexander III]

Is that entirely true? Is it a valid statement to say Stephanie Meyer's Twilight is superior to Tolstoy's Anna Karenina? I would say no.

I think there are aspects of works that can be judged apart from personal interest. I'm no fan of Ulysses, but to not acknowledge its greatness seems a little ridiculous to me.

Take Nabokov, for instance. The guy published in three languages--prolifically and virtuosically in two of them, Russian and English. Even if you don't particularly like Nabokov, you'd have to admit, I think, something rather special was going on with language in his work. His integration of poetic sonics into prose is, by itself, conspicuous.

Then look at structure. Looking at Pale Fire, I can't imagine how someone wouldn't immediately notice its startlingly original structure.

Surely, these things are objectively worth something. The only reason literature must necessarily be a matter of personal taste is if you insist on it.

Should we insist on it?

Of course it isn't entirely subjective, we can identify tiers of aesthetic beauty.

But to me when you say that there would be a lack of people who would place Dante over Shakespeare, that comment does not seem much better than "Stephanie Meyer's Twilight is superior to Tolstoy's Anna Karenina?"

In Italy, Dante is the greatest poet. Without shadow of a doubt. Shakespeare is one of the greats, but not the greatest. In Russia, though in the west we see Tolstoy as a major figure, for the russians It shall always be Pushkin, and they will maintain with much ease that Pushkin is an equal to Shakespeare.

Personally I would place Virgil, Dante and Tolstoy before Shakespeare.

I guess what I am saying is that we can create objective judgments about a work's aesthetics, but there comes a certain point where we cannot objectively judge further, and then the factors that come into play of our notion of best are unconscious ones such as the culture of where we grew up and lived, the political stance of the writers ect...

So Shakespeare is undeniably one of the greatest writers who have ever lived. But the only reason you can confidently say he is the best, is because you are most likely english or american, were you Italian you would be saying Dante was the best, were you a Latin specialist, it would be Virgil, were you from Iran you might call us westerners too limited in our exploration of literature and calmly state that the greatest writer who has ever lived is Ferdowsi. To me all these hypothetical men are equally right.

[Arrowni]

Well, that's because Dante is objectively a better poet than Shakespeare, otherwise how can we explain that a deeply religious medieval pen invades our anti-clerical renaissance-obsessed canon? If you factor the fact he writes in a marginal language only adds to his incredible status.

Poetry is subjective and Dante is the best poet our canon recognizes, those aren't exclusive statements.

[My2cents]

Take Nabokov, for instance. The guy published in three languages--prolifically and virtuosically in two of them, Russian and English.

That is incredible--to write at the highest level in two languages. I'd take up Russian just to be able to read his Russian novels.

The last Nabokov I read was Despair, a sort of parody of Dostoevsky if I'm not mistaken. As all of his stuff invariably seems to be, it's funny as heck.

[Drkshadow03]

Is that entirely true? Is it a valid statement to say Stephanie Meyer's Twilight is superior to Tolstoy's Anna Karenina? I would say no.

I think there are aspects of works that can be judged apart from personal interest. I'm no fan of Ulysses, but to not acknowledge its greatness seems a little ridiculous to me.

Take Nabokov, for instance. The guy published in three languages--prolifically and virtuosically in two of them, Russian and English. Even if you don't particularly like Nabokov, you'd have to admit, I think, something rather special was going on with language in his work. His integration of poetic sonics into prose is, by itself, conspicuous.

Then look at structure. Looking at Pale Fire, I can't imagine how someone wouldn't immediately notice its startlingly original structure.

Surely, these things are objectively worth something. The only reason literature must necessarily be a matter of personal taste is if you insist on it.

Should we insist on it?

Yes, but you're implying that aesthetic judgement is a completely objective process. We might all agree Nabokov is talented and a virtuoso with language and structure in his novels. We might agree Ulyssess is a great work, even if we personally don't like it. We might even call these statements objective, qualities that anyone with a pair of eyes and who is a decent reader would notice.

However, it becomes a fool's game when we start comparing Shakespeare to Dante, and claim one is better than the other and that this an objective judgement.

[JCamilo]

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.

Forgive me, but my point is exactly that it is not logical to argue about the quality of english writers mentioning the english language because her colonial power. It is irrelevant.

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.

I know some good critics or writers that will suggest Victor Hugo is better than all six english romantics. That guys like Shelley or Keats or Blake are flicke enough to have produced good poems, but that is all. That Verlaine or Rimbaud are quite good, not to mention Baudaleire. And I would suggest the golden spanish generation is not on pair with this one, but superior. Some could point the neo-classic french generation (Racine, La Fontaine, etc) has a match here. And that any generation that seems to bring together Virgil, Horace or Ovid is the trully unmatchable generation, not the romantics of any generation.
And it is not denial of aesthetic place - it is all about aesthetics. Those great writers are everywhere.

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?

Of course, but those are not poems. After all, Shakespeare himself is not even responsable for the editing of the plays. Unlike Dante. Of course, Dante walks over Shakespeare sonets alone with his Vita Nuova. But lets even imagine the characters of DAnte are shadows... do you mean, Dante and Virgil, one of the most notable characters creation of all time? Easily listed by hundreds alongside Hamlet, Quixote, etc? Or the ultimate muse of all literature, a certain Beatrice? Of course, the Comedy main merit is not the number of characters (albeit Shakespeare did learn a little there, of how making Francesca and Paolo, Or Ulysses, or etc. to be remarkable just with a few verses, right? After all, it is not like one of the merits of Shakespeare is filling his plays with notable "cameo" lines from completely minor characters, something Dante did as well and before) but the metaphysical work. Which is superior to anything Shakespeare did. The scenary and narrative description? Of course, superior to all Shakespeare did. (Not fair, of course, Shakespeare wrote plays, he was not very descriptives, much worried to give the dialogue power and the best he do is saying Hamlet is reading a book before he see a ghost, but then, it would be not fair to compare a play, that needs characters, to a single narrative which does not need an antagonist). Even in terms of language, Dante is head to head, if not ahead, as he is Chaucer and Shakespeare of italian language. And frankly, lots of people, several, would place Dante ahead of Shakespeare and the Comedy ahead of all. It is not a exception, but one of the popular options. But do I mind the popular options?

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.

I am not a Hemingway fan, but it is really hard to find any author superior to him when you talk about precision and economy or language. I am not as impressed as structures such as a false poem and a story around it (as Pale Fire, a book I like) as much as a single book about a man fishing. As reputation, it is just a fickle chronological fashion, because you know... Melville, Byron, Victor Hugo, Tolstoy, Voltaire, Racine... a few others certainy are not in the high top of their reputation.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think you might find a lack of people willing to say that the Divine Comedy is superior to either Hamlet or Lear.

Not on this forum.

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.

If Hemingway's reputation has diminished, he must have been absolutely huge before his death (I don't know, I wasn't there). Hemingway is still readily known by most Americans as one of the great American authors, he's still widely taught, and he's almost deified by some people, even if it is done in a bit of a light-hearted manner (you don't get troves of people growing beards and having Hemingway look-alike festivals for doing nothing, though). On the other hand, I would say the majority of Americans don't even know who Nabokov is. He may get an "Oh, that guy" response once someone mentions the book Lolita.

[kelby_lake]

It's pretty hard to compare Shakespeare and Dante because they're writing in two different languages and in two different times. The output of Shakespeare is also larger as well, I believe. Arguably Shakespeare's cultural legacy is greater than Dante's but then Dante has his own legacy within Italy.

[Arrowni]

Stoker's cultural legacy is bigger than Borges's.

[Desolation]

Literature is both subjective and objective.

I believe that there is a huge list of objectively great authors. We might simply cover them in the umbrella term "classics," "literary fiction," or whatever else. They are, to an extent, time tested and generally agreed to have artistic merit. Which one is "best" or preferred, though, comes down entirely to personal opinion. I don't believe that there's anything wrong with preferring, say, Cormac McCarthy to Dante, as they are both strong writers. Preferring Twilight to Anna Karenina is a different matter entirely.

[joelavine]

Of course one can make the case that objectively Shakespeare is a greater writer than Stephanie Mayer.

However, that hardly sweeps out the role of subjectivity in literary taste.

[JCamilo]

Being objective does not mean being mathematically precise. Means considering evidences and reactions that are not of your own individual realm of experience. The lack of precision that make Dante and Shakespeare be on pair is not because literature is subjective. It is simple because there is not enough evidence to support or dismiss one or another. Just it.

[stlukesguild]

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.

But you seem to be making this argument from the point of view of the status of these poets within the English-speaking world. How big is Coleridge to the French or German or Russian or Spanish-speaking literary audience? Let's face it... he has 3 brilliant poems and a couple other good ones... and that's about it. Gautier's impact upon Baudelaire, Verlaine, Mallerme, Pater, Wilde... on even through Rilke, Pasternak, Proust, and Nabokov... the entire art pour l'art movement... is huge. Byron? He almost seems more influential as an iconic image of the artist/hero/rebel than as an actual poet. Rimbaud and Mallarme are every bit the equal to Shelley and Byron and easily surpass Coleridge, while Baudelaire rivals them all... Blake included.

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.

Perhaps some Anglophiles... but otherwise you might find you would lose on that bet. The Comedia is quite commonly put forth as the single greatest literary achievement of the West... and with good reason.

Listen, I really like Dante, but his characters are shadows compared to Hamlet, Lear or even Edmund.

What is commonly forgotten when one argues as to the imagined shallowness of Dante's characters is the invention of the Dante the narrator. Just as Byron's narrator is the greatest character of Don Juan, Dante is the greatest invention of the Comedia... so well conceived that a great many completely forget that it is as much a literary invention as Hamlet, Lear, or Falstaff.

There are any number of other unforgettable characters in the Comedia... in spite of the fact that character development is not as great of an issue outside of the narrator/Dante as it is for Shakespeare. But is this a valid proof of superiority/inferiority? Character development is simply one aspect of literature. It is essentially of little of no concern to Kafka or J.L. Borges (again... outside of Borges the narrator) and yet this in no way undermines their literary genius. Arguing Dante vs Shakespeare is no mean feat. There is no clear greater genius in such a dispute. What was said by Harold Bloom... or was it James Joyce? Shakespeare and Dante divide the world between them. There is no third.

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.

Again... this is debatable. Hemingway's reputation as a novelist has receded... but his reputation as a master of the short story has increased... and the short story or shorter fiction has become increasingly important.

[JCamilo]

But you seem to be making this argument from the point of view of the status of these poets within the English-speaking world. How big is Coleridge to the French or German or Russian or Spanish-speaking literary audience? Let's face it... he has 3 brilliant poems and a couple other good ones... and that's about it. Gautier's impact upon Baudelaire, Verlaine, Mallerme, Pater, Wilde... on even through Rilke, Pasternak, Proust, and Nabokov... the entire art pour l'art movement... is huge. Byron? He almost seems more influential as an iconic image of the artist/hero/rebel than as an actual poet. Rimbaud and Mallarme are every bit the equal to Shelley and Byron and easily surpass Coleridge, while Baudelaire rivals them all... Blake included.

The six big are awesome, no doubt. So good and so famous that they eclipse poets almost as good as them as Tennyson, Browning, bronte sisters... But we should just remember: english became the international language only in XX century and mostly due to USA, and with a big help of hollywood and american music. This implies: the impact of Baudelaire (the bad guy of history, the artist-critic, the art by art movement) was imense, just like the impact of french prose. (I still refuse to hear much about the lack of imense quality of english prose, but well).

Of the six, Byron was really imense. He was copied in all europe, he is the guy, the is the pop star, he is the romantic model for all other languages. His lack of reputation today (reputation is something ridiculous, losing it does not make Moby Dick look bad at all) is shadowing the simple fact he was copied over and over until the modernists left found another model (which is Baudelaire of course).

Coleridge has his 3 big poems (and of course, 2 of those are not finish, one was just dreammed) and all part on gothic poetry. But he is kind of a intelectual poet, other writers like him, his work as a critic is possible his biggest influence, as he is one of man who made Shakespeare up. Shelley is often linked to juvenile rebellion, which is bad. He was a quite sensible poet, good dramaticist. Keats reputation slowly increased, he is quite enjoyable everywhere because he has simple poems and a tragic story, but he manages 2 or 3 works that seems perfect. And we have Wordsworth, massive in england, but never as liked, as good as he was. He does not have a easy to mind poems like Byron, Keats, Shelley and Blake have and like coleridge he seems a poet for maturity. Not maturity of people, but of readers. And Blake, which weirdness speaks loud to closed groups, albeit, most of his famous works are his easier poems. Even if you compare to USA poets (Poe-Whitman-Emerson-Dickinson) at sametime, the world wide influence of 6 romantics seems pale. To the Baudelaire-Gauthier kids? No modernism without them. Everywhere. Verlaine is huge in latin america. Only Byron can be compared to them, I do not think I have seen any romantic movement without his "shadow" . Probally only Shakespeare had bigger impact than him.

[G L Wilson]

George Orwell held Milton in high esteem, and I hold George Orwell in high esteem.