Don't you think that what matters is the way that each wrtiter,poet or playwright presents his thoughts and feelings? To me, any piece of writing whether English or American has value in itself.
Don't you think that what matters is the way that each wrtiter,poet or playwright presents his thoughts and feelings? To me, any piece of writing whether English or American has value in itself.
I must agree with Virgil's earlier comments about the competition between artists. I am always made vaguely uncomfortable by this. Still, I do agree with T.S. Eliot's notion of something of an existing order of the totality of literature... art... which is shifted, however slightly, each time a truly new original work of art is created. As an artist myself, albeit a visual artist, I am more than aware that whatever I achieve will be compared with the achievements of those before me and after me. As such, I will say that on the issue of American Literature vs the Literature of the British Isles there is absolutely no comparison. Its like comparing the musical achievements of America with those of the German/Austrians. Obviously, the compettion is unfair from the start. Many among the greatest British authors were active before the United States existed as an independent nation... let alone before the populace became wealthy enough and educated enough to support original artistic endeavors. Certainly, there are some American "giants". Whitman was clearly a poetic giant as was Dickinson... equal to many of the best in Britain of the era (Tennyson, Browning, Rossetti, etc...) or any era. Poe, Hawthorne, Melville, William James, Henry James, Ambrose Bierce, and Twain are clear proof that late American literature in the mid/late 19th century was a force to be reconned with. Looking to 20th century literature we find that the Americans take an even more central position. Among the giants in poetry of this time T.S. Eliot, Hart Crane, Wallace Stevens, Robert Frost, Richard Wilbur, Anthony Hecht, and John Ashberry hold secure positions. William Faulkner, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Saul Bellow, John Barth, Thomas Pynchon, Philip Roth, Cormac McCarthy, and Flannery O'Connor may be even more secure among the giants of prose.
But then again... I cannot help but recognize that the sheer scale and breadth of late 19th century British literature is something of another order: Beyond the poets listed above (Tennyson, Browning, Rossetti) we also have Matthew Arnold, Arthur Clough, Thomas Love Peacock, William Morris, Houseman... to say nothing of the great giants of Romanticism: Blake, Byron, Shelley, Keats, Coleridge, Wordsworth, Robert Burns and John Clare. Only Whitman and Dickinson... and perhaps T.S. Eliot might withstand comparison in this company. By many accounts Wordworth alone might stand as the most important poet in any county of this era... the first "modern" poet. The writers in prose of this era are no less important: Jane Austen, Sir Walter Scott, Mary Shelley, Charles Dickens, Anthony Trollope, the Brontes, Lewis Carroll, Thackery, Wilkie Collins, Samuel Butler, Oscar Wilde, George Eliot, Stevenson, Kipling and A.C. Doyle among them. The 18th/19th centuries were an era of great essayists and the United States was not without a few worthies: Emerson, Thoreau, and William James foremost... yet the British produced Carlysle, William Morris, John Ruskin, Walter Pater, Oscar Wilde, DeQuincy, William Hazlitt, etc... In spite of the fact that the American publishing industry (to say nothing of the economic might and population of the US) far outstripped that of Britain by the 20th century, British literay contributions in this time are certainly not lacking: W.B. Yeats, James Joyce, Thomas Hardy, Joseph Conrad, H.G Wells, Samuel Beckett, D.H. Lawrence, Virginia Woolf, Henry Green, Aldous Huxley, William Golding, Auden, Philip Larkin, Dylan Thomas, George Orwell, Geoffrey Hill, Peter Ackroyd, etc...
All of this ignores the literature before the establishment of the US as an independent entity. Malory, Sir Thomas More, Chaucer, Marlowe, Shakespeare, Thomas Browne, Ben Jonson, Jonathan Swift, Samuel Johnson, James Boswell, Daniel DeFoe, Samuel Richardson, Henry Fielding, Lawrence Sterne... and many more. These are literary figures who invented many of the literary forms and genres upon which most English-language literature (including that of the US) is founded. Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Milton alone tower over almost any other literary figures outside of Dante, Tolstoy, Homer, Montaigne, Cervantes, and perhaps a few others. Milton's Paradise Lost is probably the greatest long poem in the English Language (and maybe the greatest in any language bar the Commedia... although I do have a soft spot for Spencer's Faerie Queene. As for Shakespeare... simply put, the best American writers do not stack up to him... but then again the best of any culture do not measure up with the possible exception of Dante (and as James Joyce noted even Dante would fall in the comparison as Shakespeare is that much "richer".) To suggest that British literature is boring and less precise than American litearture... that it has too many long sentences and wastes words (especially Shakespeare) is a complete absurdity. Shakespeare has "too many words?" I am immediately reminded of that line from Amadeus in which Mozart, replying to an equally absurd criticism, asks "which notes exactly, would you suggest that I cut?" There are certainly American writers of great economy and precision; Hemingway would be the immediate and obvious example. On the other hand, there is no lack of British writers who have equally mastered a very precice and crystalline prose. I personally admire Joseph Conrad, Henry Greene, Virginia Woolf, and certainly Samuel Beckett. On the other hand, some of the greatest American writers utilize a quite "baroque" manner of writing (Melville, Emerson, James, McCarthy). To reject such more ornate writing outright is nothing but a personal preference... no different from declaring that "I prefer Minimalism over the Baroque or the Renaissance". Such personal preferences have nothing to do with a comparison of the actual achievements of the individual artists of Minimalism vs the Baroque or the Renaissance. I personally love the prose manner of Faulkner, Italo Calvino, Kafka, and J.L. Borges... but I have no problem be equally enamored of the almost Shakespearean language of Melville and McCarthy at their finest... to say nothing of James.
In the end, I judge works of art upon an individual basis and I am grateful for the truly original work of art whatever its source may be. The British Isles simply produced far more literature of such quality than anywhere else, but this does not stop me from reading Goethe, Holderlin, Rilke, Cervantes, Borges, Tolstoy, Homer, Dante, Faulkner, Sarmago, etc... any more than the fact that the German-speaking countries dominated music to an even greater extent (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Wagner, Haydn, Handel, Brahms, Bruckner, Schumann, Richard Strauss, etc...) stops me from enjoying Ravel, Rachmaninoff, Faure, or Miles Davis. Nor should the fact that Faure or Miles Davis are not equal to Bach as composers dissuade me from enjoying their work anymore than I can enjoy Faulkner without worrying that he is not equal to Shakespeare.
Don't you think that what matters is the way that each wrtiter,poet or playwright presents his thoughts and feelings? To me, any piece of writing whether English or American has value in itself.
I agree... but not to the point of taking a relativist approach to art... assuming that every work of art is of equal value as it represents the unique expression of a given artist at a given time and place. Some art is simply better than other art.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
I don't know if "shamefully" is really quite the word here, as several of these tragedies are about really lame English kings (not all, obviously). I think I can generally say, without being reprimanded about politics on the Forum, that America has plenty in the political realm to be ashamed of, but despotic monarchs is not one of them... (I cannot, however, in light of the Forum rules, concede the contemporary connection to Henry V...)Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
Obviously, this doesn't answer for the Hamlets and MacBeths, but I would venture to say that the liberties one could take in playwriting in Elizabethan England and other cultures - that is to say, the acceptability of making stuff up - belongs to a somewhat different tradition than the artistic conventions (and reactions thereto) that have taken over since. In other words, he got away - and still gets away - with things that writers who followed him (British or American) would not. He kind of had to do this, since his audience was so diverse. Hence, he could effect a somewhat broader range in his subject matter than more recent writers. As I think I've pretty clearly established on this thread, I really do think James comparable (that is, of similar quality, not content) to Shakespeare, even occasionally superior, even though his work is sometimes necessarily relegated to the "intellectual" sphere, and is in this regard a bit narrower than the Bard. In spite of the greatness of some of Shakespeare's plays, it becomes quite clear that, while he was simply a really clever and insightful actor writing plays - really, really fast - for a stage in order to entertain and raise money (this being a time when drama neither paid well nor insured much in the way of a legacy), James demonstrates a commitment to his art and his art alone that only a very, very few people in any recorded history have ever matched. Beethoven might very well be the only one.
Also, I don't know that all of the sonnets are about him "losing his edge". I can think of a couple to which this seems appropriate, but it seems like a pretty huge generalization for a set of 154 incredibly diverse poems. Nor would I say that it is simply the figurative language that keeps these alive; I don't even like figurative language, but still I love the sonnets. No, it is something much more important than that.
I should like some explanation as to why Twain is superior to Chaucer, as well. They are both wildly satirical, and really quite comparable, I think (though I really believe Chaucer's satire has more modern significance than Twain's, interestingly enough); I see nothing that really sets one too far above the other.
Last edited by aeroport; 03-12-2007 at 04:19 AM.
Pensive,
You are awesome.
Agreed.
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda
In regard to what??
In reading this I'm struck by the embarrassing sense of Anglocentrism (including the Americans in with this) that seems to pervade the whole discussion.UK vs Yanks, Yanks vs UK. I think we may be comparing apples to apples when trying to evaluate these writers. And neither have a patch on the Russians!
Current Read The Leopard by Guiseppe di Lampedusa
Or the Greeks. Start a new thread, Russians v Greeks, that one would have some legs, Mother have Mercy.In reading this I'm struck by the embarrassing sense of Anglocentrism (including the Americans in with this) that seems to pervade the whole discussion.
I think that many American authors write with a sense of utility. By that I mean, not a word wasted. No frills, if I can use the phrase. I'm certainly not saying that like its a bad thing. Just not quite my cup of tea.
Last edited by Adudaewen; 03-15-2007 at 12:53 AM.
"Who are a little wise
the best fools be." John Donne
If a drop of water falls in lake there is no identity. But if it falls on a leaf of lotus it shine like a pearl. so choose the best place where you would shine..
In reading this I'm struck by the embarrassing sense of Anglocentrism (including the Americans in with this) that seems to pervade the whole discussion.
Or, many would say, the Greeks. Why don't you start a new thread...Russians v Greeks
He he, now that could become a brawl!
....and hark, such blasphemy from Nebraska, the hallowed land of Willa Cather! I may faint! Are you not American?
Current Read The Leopard by Guiseppe di Lampedusa
I certainly agree that the Russians may be offer more than a formiddible competition to American writers... especially considering the 19th century. As much as I love Melville's Moby Dick and a few other major novels I cannot imagine them as surpassing the achievements of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Checkov, Lermontov and Turgenev. Twentieth century Russian literature in certainly quite strong, but I don't imagine it as clearly surpassing that of Britain or the US. I do, however, find modern Russian poetry to be extremely powerful, especially the works of Akhmatova, Mandelshtam, Tsvetaeva, and Pasternak. On the other hand, Russian offers little before the 19th century by the way of world-class literature, and certainly nothing to compete with British Literature. Even Pusking, beloved of the Russians, strikes me as not even an equal to Byron (whom he most certainly was influenced by). As for the Greeks... what have they achieved between the obvious masterful works of the ancients and such twentieth century writers as Cavafy, Seferis, and Kazantzakis? In no way do I see this as being Anglocentric. My library is well over 2/3rds non-Anglo (French, German, Spanish, Greek, Latin, Italian, Latin-American, Arabic, Japanese, etc...). My music collection is largely dominated by German composers and my art books include more than a fair share of Italian artists. Art is not egalitarian. It does not spread itself equally among all cultures. Some cultures have simply achieved more than other in a given art form. I have no doubt that this is certainly true of the British and literature.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Shocking, I know. I am indeed American, thus the blasphemy is my badge of shame to carry.
"Who are a little wise
the best fools be." John Donne
If a drop of water falls in lake there is no identity. But if it falls on a leaf of lotus it shine like a pearl. so choose the best place where you would shine..
I look at 19th century American literature (actually all forms of art) as the building blocks for the future. We were getting our footing, developing a culture, a distinct culture that diverged from our British and European roots. Yes, there were some great works, Emerson's essays, Theraou's (sp?) Walden Pond, Lincoln's speeches, Melville's Moby Dick, Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter, Wlat Whitman, Emily Dickenson, and Twain and Henry James too, but they were our attempt to grow and mature. It was the 20th century that saw the great maturity of American literature where some great individual novels as well as the greatest novelist of the century, William Faulkner. I will admit that while there are some great indivudual novels, only Faulkner stands out as great novelist beyond a single work. So I would say that overall the American novel of the century is not up to par with our British and European friends. But I believe that no single country has excelled in the area of poetry in the 20th century than the US. While some countries have a major poet or two, I can rattle off poet after poet from the US that is among the top tier of the century's poets. Even our second tier poets are as good as many country's top tier. There is something about how the American english stresses and strains the language (perhaps because of all the immigrates from various parts of the world have shaped our language and slang) like no other. And we continue to strive for new poetic forms and diction. Even someone like say Allan Ginsberg, who I consider a second tier poet, creates a startling imaginative work such as "Howl."
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
I really have to dispute this. What is it that makes you so sure that Faulkner is a "greater" novelist than James Joyce? Joyce coined modernism and Ulysses, as a work, seems to single handedly hamstring post-modernism. It's a monstrous work, and although Joyce was not one for saturating his market(!) Dubliners and Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man surely qualify as great works also.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
