Which COUNTRY has produced the greatest literature?

[mortalterror]

And I think that subjectivity is ridiculous. The people who espouse that retarded doctrine have almost nothing to contribute to the discussion. If you get hung up on the impossibility of proving anything, you never try to find out what can be known. If you stubbornly persist in thinking that you can't learn anything from comparing and contrasting your thoughts with other people, then you will never learn.

In questions such as these, the answer is unimportant. What is of paramount importance is that we grapple with the problems the questions raise to improve our understanding of the issues along with our own innate ability to reason critically. That subjectivist attitude, "Nothing is wholly knowable, or perfectly provable, so what's the point in asking questions" is counterproductive and ultimately defeatist.

While it may be arrogant to suggest that you have a better grasp of an issue or concept than another person, it is far more arrogant to suppose that just because a concept or problem is beyond you that no one could possibly have any relevant information which bears upon this topic. May I also suggest, that you bring the full powers of your subjectivist minds to bear on the concept of subjectivism and admit that in some cases, with reason and experience, something is knowable.

When somebody tells me that their opinion is subjective, what I interpret that to mean is that they are admitting their own incapacity to distinguish merit from flaw, reason from error, and truth from fiction. As an objective person, I have no choice but to weigh that consideration accordingly when I access their judgement. If your opinion does not stem from experience and careful analysis of texts, then you are right: people should take what you have to say lightly.

The minute that you submit to subjectivity, you number yourself among the stubbornly blind and the willfully ignorant. Stop your ears with wax. Draw blinders over every window. Let no light into that brain of yours and rest in darkness. Woe to you, for the opinions of the unteachable are no different from those who have never been taught.

[mortalterror]

Oh, Sweets, please. Don't use words like "retarded," okay? You don't need to. You're too intelligent and present too convincing an argument. I don't think I'm retarded nor do I think I've nothing to contribute to the conversation, however, I do believe in subjectivity - to a degree. Of course there are rules that govern good writing and someone who is aware of those rules can tell good writing from sloppy writing. In that way, writing is truly objective.

I apologize. That was a poor choice of words. I would never say that a person is retarded. I meant that the idea was retarded. Merriam-Webster defines the word as:

1. to slow up especially by preventing or hindering advance or accomplishment, impede
2. to delay academic progress by failure to promote.

I do see the prevalence of subjectivity as the reason why writing is still regarded as a craft and not as a science. It acts in a retrograde motion to the accumulation of facts and knowledge, because it assumes that there are no facts and knowledge to be accumulated. The way it's taught in schools is bizarre and pathological. When I see an educator, or some other intelligent person espouse this belief I want to scream.

The chain of thought that originated in skepticism begins, so I believe, in Socrates: a man who claimed that nothing was knowable, but who nevertheless was constantly engaging people with questions about what they knew. He used his skeptical inquiry not as a basis for shutting down argument as moderns so often do, not as an end of conversation, but as a starting point for minutely observing pre-concieved notions, and examining issues in greater detail than had been done previously.

Descartes, probably the father of our modern philosophy, after admitting that all he could know was that he was thinking uses that as a springboard to build an entirely new and unique philosophy, from which we derive, in part, the scientific method.

Scientists base all of their knowledge on theories and hypotheses because no idea is assumed ever to be proven. Even the most ancient scientific theories are open to testing, falsifiability, and peer review; but our cars still run, electricity heats our houses, gravity remains in effect.

Through the ages, the principles of good writing have been tested time and again, and I have no problem with a continued debate about their properties and how they work. What I have a problem with is when people declare some sort of hazy relativism to be a reason for silencing the debate and declaring other peoples opinions to be unfounded and without merit no matter what their qualifications.

Petrarch's Love is in the process of getting her Ph.D. in Renaissance literature. SaintLukesGuild and Virgil have each devoted decades to the study of books and writing. Who are these people to tell them that they have wasted their lives, chasing a dragon they can never catch?

[PeterL]

And I think that subjectivity is ridiculous. The people who espouse that retarded doctrine have almost nothing to contribute to the discussion. If you get hung up on the impossibility of proving anything, you never try to find out what can be known. If you stubbornly persist in thinking that you can't learn anything from comparing and contrasting your thoughts with other people, then you will never learn.

In questions such as these, the answer is unimportant. What is of paramount importance is that we grapple with the problems the questions raise to improve our understanding of the issues along with our own innate ability to reason critically. That subjectivist attitude, "Nothing is wholly knowable, or perfectly provable, so what's the point in asking questions" is counterproductive and ultimately defeatist.

While it may be arrogant to suggest that you have a better grasp of an issue or concept than another person, it is far more arrogant to suppose that just because a concept or problem is beyond you that no one could possibly have any relevant information which bears upon this topic. May I also suggest, that you bring the full powers of your subjectivist minds to bear on the concept of subjectivism and admit that in some cases, with reason and experience, something is knowable.

When somebody tells me that their opinion is subjective, what I interpret that to mean is that they are admitting their own incapacity to distinguish merit from flaw, reason from error, and truth from fiction. As an objective person, I have no choice but to weigh that consideration accordingly when I access their judgement. If your opinion does not stem from experience and careful analysis of texts, then you are right: people should take what you have to say lightly.

The minute that you submit to subjectivity, you number yourself among the stubbornly blind and the willfully ignorant. Stop your ears with wax. Draw blinders over every window. Let no light into that brain of yours and rest in darkness. Woe to you, for the opinions of the unteachable are no different from those who have never been taught.

Does all that mean that you expect you accept your opinions as objectively true?

If yes, then please prove the truth of your assertions.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

In terms of originality it is somewhat difficult to argue against France, especially in the last 150 or so years. Yes, England probably has the deepest literary culture out of any country-Shakespeare, Milton, Marlowe, Donne, Fielding and Sterne, but France has been the trailblazer in terms of literature for the last 150 years. Part of it is cultural-after all, English and American novelists were culturally very restricted in the 19th century. Tocqueville once quipped that America had no literature to speak of, though he wrote this not long before the emergence of Poe, Hawthorne, Melville, Emerson and Whitman. Though none of these authors, with the possible exception of Emerson and Hawthorne, ever really achieved widespread recognition during their lives in their own country. Poe was hugely influential in France and Russia; his works were revered by Baudelaire, the Parnissian's and Mallarmé and he also influenced Dostoevskii, but he was ridiculed in American literary circles, who regarded his popularity in France as being something of an aberration.

America has produced a lot of brilliant and original writers in the 20th century-Henry James, Baldwin, Heller, Salinger, Faulkner, Auster, Roth, Kerouac, Fitzgerald. But, yet again, a lot of these writes either migrated to France or Europe (Baldwin, James) were enormously influenced by French or European literature (Heller was influenced by Hašek and Dostoevskii, Kerouac by Proust and Rimbaud and Salinger by Buddhism) or were more popular in France than in America. (Faulkner) Many of America's greatest writers seem as or more influenced by the works of foreign writers than say French or English literature.

English literature, especially during the Victorian period, was extremely limited in terms of subject matter and content, unlike say the much 'freer' moral scope of French literature. One cannot imagine a Madame Bovary or a Verlaine in Victorian literature, which is full of clichéd and artificial happy endings-a criticism which Toltsoi made in Anna Karenina and too limited by the narrow moral mores of Victorian society and as result English literature was condemned to a century of literary banality, with a few bright sparks intermittently interspersed in-between. (Austen, George Elliot, Dickens, the Bronte's.) But the roots of English literature still run deep; writers such as Scott and romanticist poets were hugely influential on the continent, especially in the establishment of 19th century Russian literature Lermentov, Pushkin etc.

French literature however, constantly tries to reinvent and revolutionize literature. Flaubert can be considered as the father of modernity, Balzac of the city-novel, Baudelaire and Rimbaud transformed the romantic-centric view of literature, Proust transformed the art of writing and the Nouveau Roman the art of writing itself. Even Joyce's revolutionary stream-of-consciousness writing owes its influence to Dujardin. (Though Gide claimed it in fact originated from English language writers such as Poe and Browning.) France also boasts of a whole host of other brilliant and original writers and poets-Victor Hugo, Verlaine, Huysmans, Genet and Queneau, if you reckon in terms of quality rather than quantity, in originality rather than sheer numbers, then French literature comes out on top. Beckett, one of most original English language writers of all time, wrote most of his best work in French. Paris was and is the mecca for all great writers.

[JBI]

I don't argue the fact that Paris was once the mecca for all great writers, but I don't think it still is. I can't think of one truly great contemporary writer who chooses to live in Paris. Okay, yes, Milan Kundera.

There's Toni Morrison in the US
Doris Lessing in England
John Banville in Ireland
William Trevor in Dorset
Edna O'Brien in England
Jose Saramago in the Canary Islands (only because he had to flee Portugal)
Mario Vargas Llosa in London and Peru
Gabrielle Garcia Marquez still in Colombia, I think
etc, etc.

But not many in Paris, not anymore.

I'll be happy to say I'm wrong if you can list some, however, maybe you're talking about the past one hundred fifty years, not just living writers. In that case, I agree, they all seemed to flock to Paris.

The American poetry scene seems to have flocked more around London than Paris. You are merely thinking the lost generation of novelists. The majority of authors weren't so traveled, and even Joyce only settled in Paris later. Proust can be said to be in Paris, but so what? Proust never left his house anyway (there is an anecdote that he and Joyce both met at a party, neither having read each other's work. I find that funny). There is no literature capital, since every copy of a book is essentially as valuable as the next. With art work there needs to be a museum or collection somewhere, but with literature, there needs to be nothing but a volume in some store or library.

[tractatus]

Agreed to Antiquarian, as I know, Paris is not a mecca yet, at least for known writers. But not because of 'replaced' with another place, it is just the world no need any mecca for many reason. Again, there could be some centers for some arts, but hardly to turn into a temple as in old times.

[Seabird111]

I vote England.

[JBI]

Agreed to Antiquarian, as I know, Paris is not a mecca yet, at least for known writers. But not because of 'replaced' with another place, it is just the world no need any mecca for many reason. Again, there could be some centers for some arts, but hardly to turn into a temple as in old times.

Actually, artists still seem to move around. It is not sensible, or economical to create any form of exhibit or show in a small town, or unvisited area, therefore it is only common that artists will move to Urban areas. Theatre is still dependent upon this, as is education. Most writers these days are educated to some degree, therefore will naturally bunch together. You wonder about all the people who met at Harvard at the beginning of the 20th century. The greatest poets of their time, all in the same place. It isn't just astounding, it is ridiculous that they all were there, with each other. Then again, I don't think anyone could have taken any class with Ezra Pound without recognizing his eccentric genius. I have him on recording reciting one of his poems, and the guy was crazy as hell even from a young age.

Either way, no one city is better than the other. Paris was very big in the modernist movement, but one could flip to Florence, or Rome for older times. Even Troyes had a boatload in the middle ages.

[Brasil]

Hi, I'm from Brazil and this is my first message. I'm student and professor of portuguese grammar and literature. Sorry for my english.

From the beggining of the Literature.
Epic poems: The greeks have the ILIAD, which gave rise to the Odyssey, both Homer's poems. Latter, The Aeneid by Virgilio (latin poet) basicly followed the same way of Homer's write. Then, Luís de Camões, maybe the greatest portuguese poet, wrote OS LUSÍADAS (The Lusiads), inspired by Virgilio's poem. In addition, Camões was inspired also by the historical facts of the great navegations of the portuguese people, which discovered a new route to India. So, the greeks began the epic poetry and the literature as well. In addition, the old greeks were pioneers of the theatre and the lyric poetry. So, looking in this way, the greeks were the greatest, cause they started the literature as we know today.

However, is important to describe some other amazing books and names:

Ancient India: Mahabharata (specially the text called Bhagavad Gita)
Ancient Greece: Homer, Esquilo, Sofocles, Aristofones, Euripedes...
Ancient Rome: Aeneid, by Virgilio;
Italians: they have the DIVINE COMEDY, by Dante Alighieri (father of the italian language) and also Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374) father of the Sonetto (poem form);
Portuguese poets: Luís de Camões (Renaissance) and Fernando Pessoa (1888-1935) are two very important poets, not only for the portuguese people.
English theatre: William Shakespeare (most of specialists indicate Shapespeare as the greatest writer for theatre)
Spanish: DON QUIXOTE, by Miguel de Cervantes (most of specialists indicate this one as the greatest novel of all time);
Brazilian novelist: Machado de Assis (maybe the most important);
Brazilian poet: Carlos Drummond de Andrade (one of the most famous).

There are two criterion to answer the question:

Criterion 1- the number of persons which speak a language determine which is the most important literature in the world:

1º- Chinese (the mandarin is the greatest language spoken in the world);
2º- English;
3º- Spanish (Spain and most part of Latin America speak spanish, the 3ª most spoken language in the world);
4º- Hindi-urdu;
5º- Portuguese (Brazil, Portugal, Angola, Moçambique, Guiné-Bissau, Cabo Verde, East Timor, etc. Portuguese is the the 5ª most spoken language in the world))
6º- Arabian, Russian, Japanese, French.


Criterion 2- The number doesn't matter, really important is the acceptance and influence of the work in the world:

1°- The greeks, because they were the pioneers in lyric poetry (word sung), theatre (word played) and epics (word told);

2º- Spain (for Quixote by Cervantes), England (for Romeo and Juliet, and Hamlet by Shakespeare), Italy (for the Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri);

3º- Portugal (for the Lusiads by Camões and Os Maias by Eça de Queiroz); France (Rimbaud, Vitor Hugo, A. Dumas, Flaubert, Exupéry), Brazil (Machado de Assis, Paulo Coelho, C. Lispector, João Cabral de Melo Neto, Mário de Andrade, Carlos Drummond...)

4º- Russia (Dostoievski, Tolstoi);

5º- Germany (Goethe), Ireland (Oscar Wild), USA (E. Allan Poe), and the arabian stories.

6º- Chineses (Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu...) and Indians.

I've tried to indicate only the epic poetry and the novels. In this case I've not considerated the Philosophycal texts as Literature (althoug I love philosophy).

[Janine]

England and Russia seem to have been very prolific at producing literary works of great quality, but I don't think we can single any country out as "the best."

Antiquarian, I agree with you on your last line, how can one single out any country to be the 'best'?

My personal favorite is England, though I'm of Russian ancestry.

Like you my personal favorite is England, but that is just what appeals to me. I feel that their theater excells as well; but they can lay claim to Shakespeare. How can one top that?

Brasil, yes welcome to the forum, as Antiquarian so aptly expressed it - the place where "we literature junkies like to hang out"...nothing closer to the truth. Enjoy browsing around and getting to know the forum and it's nice members.

[JBI]

Brasil, you listed for major countries minor writers. Poe is hardly even a good thing to come out of America. He is more important to French letters, I would argue, than to American. Wilde is a great Irish writer, but Yeats would be a better pick. For America, Whitman is generally considered the kingpen, with Melville, Faulkner, Frost and Emily Dickinson coming close if not being offered up. Dumas and Hugo are also, hardly the best writers France has produced. Moliere, Montaigne, Proust, and Baudelaire most definitely should be in there.

Your knowledge of Chinese literature is perhaps the worst on the list, ranging to two minor non-fiction writers in their canon. Du Fu and Li Po are as powerful poets as any the west have cooked up, and should not be dismissed because of arrogance.

You also forgot Iraq, Which we could argue started literature with Gilgamesh.

Also, who forgot about Japan in there?

Or Canada?

Or any other country for that matter.

You completely disregarded the most important book outside the Greek canon ever written. Clearly the Hebrew Bible written in Canaan (now Israel) would be just as important as the Iliad. If we are going with influence, this clearly is equal to the whole Greek Canon.

Hell, one could argue almost any country, and prove it. All you have to do is believe certain works to be the best. If I think Steven King writes gold, I can argue America, since that leaves about 200 hastily written works by the "genius".

[JBI]

Also, Anti, don't forget that Rome was built in Italy, can we count it? If we can count Greece, can't we count Italy? Either way, no one called on Leopardi or Montale, two of the most important poets of all time. Not to mention Dino Campana, Ugo Foscolo, or Giuseppe Giocchino Belli to name a few.

[Brasil]

The Arabian stories: One Thousand and One Nights, The Adventure tale of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, Sinbad the Sailor.

Lebanon: Kahlil Gibran

Greece: Homer, Hesiodo, Esquilo, Sofocles, Aristofanes, Euripedes

Italy: Dante Alighieri, Petrarca, Horacio, Virgilio

Portugal: Luís de Camões, Eça de Queiroz, Fernando Pessoa

Spain: Miguel de Cervantes, Afonso el Sabio

France: Alexandre Dumas, Victor Hugo, Jules Verne, Voltaire, Molière, Rimbaud, Baudelaire

England: Shakespeare, William Blake, T. S. Eliot, George Orwell,

Russia: Dostoievski, Tolstoi

Brazil: Machado de Assis, Carlos Drummond de Andrade, Paulo Coelho, Monteiro Lobato, Jorge Amado, Vinicius de Moraes

Ireland: Oscar Wild, Bram Stoker

USA: Edgard Allan Poe, Mark Twain

Chile: Pablo Neruda

Germany: Goethe, the Grimm Brothers

South Africa: J. R.R. Tolkien

Japan: the HaiKai poems, specialy by Matsuo Basho

China: the philosophers (Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu, Confucius)

India: the book Mahabharata (specially the text called Bhagavad Gita)

Maybe, in the future, we can also include all the philosophers and the religion books as well.

[Brasil]

Maybe Tolkien was not a great writer, but surely his influence on cinema, popular music, cartoons, etc... is on thing to consider. The same thing we can say about Edgard Allan Poe and Mark Twain.

In the other hand, we have the wonderfull Miguel de Cervantes! Don Quixote is enough to put Spain in the top of the list.
The same thing I could say about the Divine Comedy by italian genious, Dante Alighieri.

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry is a very influent figure until now, however there are a lot of better writers in the world, but they are not so influent as Exupery.

So, what is the criterion:
the quality of the work?
the global influence of the work?

There are rich books not very known and poor book very influents in the popular culture (things not always stay together)

And what about the Brazilian poets (Castro Alves, Carlos Drummond de Andrade, Vinicius de Moraes, João Cabral de Melo Neto, Manuel Bandeira) and novelists (Machado de Assis, Paulo Coelho, Monteiro Lobato, Jorge Amado)???
I hope someone know about them.
I know all the Brazilian writers are well known by the french people, the italians, russians... but I think the anglophonics don't know very much.

[JBI]

Poe's influence is exaggerated. Tolkien may be influential, but he isn't good. He simply isn't worthy of mention as a writer, since everything that he wrote is mediocre, and everything he influenced is mediocre for the most part. For Poe, he had more affect on French authors than he did at home, and compared to his contemporaries, had barely any.

Honestly though, the only remotely good thing Tolkien wrote was his criticism on Beowulf, which, in my opinion, was quite basic, and not even that great. It is worth reading, but it is not Nobel Prize material. His original work, is boring at best, unreadable at worst. His poetry, is just dreadful (even critics who like the book can't defend that).

I'm for quality of work as the criteria, but we cannot accurately judge unless we read in the original. Especially not poetry, which seems to be the dominant form up until 1880 or so.